Posted 2012-February-29, 16:41
Whenever I hear about a post where people are calling each other stupid, I have to join in.
The debate seems to be which idiot got us to 6NT, or whether everyone made perfect sense in their bidding. The first question seems to revolve around whether the south hand is an "opening hand." Of course, this is a dumb debate, to a degree, because the determination of whether a hand qualifies for an opening is not governed by some sort of cosmic justice. It is governed by agreements and understandings. As an absurd example, I have played where a 1♦ opening if balanced shows 18-19 HCP or 8-10 HCP (with 3+ diamonds). As this hand has 12 HCP, it is too strong for that opening. Change the range slightly, and it is perfect. Or, drop one or two Jacks, and this is perfect for a 1♦ opening.
Having (I hope) made the first point, the second question is whether this is a valid 1♦ opening within some mainstream views. The idea that some sort of losing trick count analysis is used is somewhat silly. Axx-Axx-Axx-Axxx is an 8-loser hand and falls well below the expected 7-loser for an opening. So, is that passed? Of course, one will argue about adjustments and the like. But, the assumption is wrong for starters. Most do not expect a 7-loser hand for a balanced minimum opening. Most I know expect about 7.5 to 8 losers for that holding. If that means that a balanced minimum opening is made with a hand that has less playing potential than your average minimum unbalanced opening, then so what? I agree with that, but this does not change the fact that the normal, modern expectation is that a balanced minimum is in a sense a "sub-minimum" in historial terms.
The tendency toward lighter 1NT openings (15-17 but good 14's) means that the "balanced minimum" is in many circles getting weaker and weaker. Again, so what? if the expectation is for the balanced minimum to be sub-minimum, then expectations are met when a hand like this is opened.
Oh, and BTW, this also translate among many of us into interesting sequences to account for the sub-minimum expectation for balanced minimums, where unbalanced hands are often bid strangely by historical perspective. The 15-16 HCP hand with 1-4-5-3 shape, for instance, used to be opened 1♦ and then after 1♠ rebid 1NT. Today, many of us would open 1♦ and then rebid 2♣, in part because of the extreme weakness expected for the balanced minimum.
The problem with this sequence, however, is that this Opener used that sort of "modern" trend, while Responder made a more archaic/traditional analysis of HCP combinations. When I saw this sequence, the 6NT call shocked me. I expected a combined pure strength of 31-33 HCP, not 32-34. With an average of 32, 6NT does not look good without a trick source. I would definitely want to explore 4-4 fits and the like, but 4NT seemed like enough. This, of course, is coupled with the fact that Opener would be expected to view a 13-14 HCP hand as a contextual maximum.
I see this all the time. The same thing happens with game tries. People open a minor with the range being a good 11 to a bad 14. Partner invites 3NT with hands that should sign off at 1NT. Or, partner bids 3NT out of fear that Opener will not see 13 as a maximum. Or, Opener in fact sees 13 as a minimum. All of which are "wrong" if your effective range for the balanced minimum is 11 to a bad 14.
By the way, the reduction of the expectation for a balanced minimum makes sense to be because it compliments the tendency for opening lighter unbalanced hands. If a 1♦ opening with 1-4-5-3 shape has a real chance of an 11-HCP minimum (because of the Rule-of-Twenty or some such analysis method), then it seems that the balanced minimum should be similarly ranged. When the unbalanced minimum catches no fit, the hand ends up analyzed for notrump contracts anyway. So, if the no-fit unbalanced minimum is in the 11 to 14 range, then the balanced minimum in the 11-14 range also makes sense, as consistent.
When 1NT showed 16 to 18 and 13 HCP was needed to open regardless of shape, all was well. But, if you reduce your HCP minimums for unbalanced hands, a corresponding reduction in range for balanced hands is complimentary and consistent and seems to me to work. But, then you have to grow along with this change as Responder and not view a 20-HCP hand "opposite an opening bid" as a slam force hand, as Opener does not have a 13-count "opening bid" that grandpa used to have. He has a limit raise or better.
Oh, and Justin is a kneebiter.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.