[han]

Reading Zar's book on aggressive hand evaluation has got me interested in the subject once again. Which of these hands would you open playing some "natural" system? (the situation may be different when playing a strong club or similar system, but I would like to hear opinions about that too)

I K10x AK10xx xx xxx.

II x KQxx J10xxx AJx.

III AJxxx Axxxx xx x.

I hope that I made them close calls, but if not, feel free to add or substract some highcards. If vulnerability and seat matter, I suggest that you assume all white in first seat for your answer in the poll.

[han]

I voted "all but II" myself, but as I said, I tried to make them close calls.

[inquiry]

My vote is all but I. Playing a system like precision, I would even open I, but not playing a natural unilimtied 2/1 type system.

Ben

[pclayton]

Well like another thread discussed; ZAR generally ignores rebid issues, and majors vs. minors. It also glosses over short suit evaluation, but none of these hands has that issue.

I'll open III every day of the week, all seats all scoring. (#) I I'll open with a 10-12 NT. I'll open II 1♥ in 3rd chair; you can't make me open that hand 1♦, no way.

[Pavell]

Hannie, on Nov 29 2004, 09:29 PM, said:

Reading Zar's book on aggressive hand evaluation has got me interested in the subject once again. Which of these hands would you open playing some "natural" system? (the situation may be different when playing a strong club or similar system, but I would like to hear opinions about that too)

I K10x AK10xx xx xxx.

II x KQxx J10xxx AJx.

III AJxxx Axxxx xx x.

I hope that I made them close calls, but if not, feel free to add or substract some highcards. If vulnerability and seat matter, I suggest that you assume all white in first seat for your answer in the poll.

The Abbr: B# = Base number. Before you bid you transfer your Controls, HCP, Distributions and Negative to B#. The sum of both partners B# will give to you the Play Level (PL) of any particular game. For more info, go to Expert section / "A new system. Do you need it ?"

- ForcePoint will open all of the hands (by the way, Fp has more aggressive openings than ZAR):

1st hand : 1♥ = exactly B1, 5+ card suit
NOTE: How you may know, even ACBL approve opening in Major suits with 8+ HCP

2nd hand: 1♣ = B2+, any shape ( in this case B# = B2 )

3rd hand: 1♦ = B2,B3, 6+ card ♦ suit or bi-color with 0 to 3 cards in ♦ ( in this case B# = B2 )

- I do not see any opening problems at all with this hands

[Free]

I also open all but I. II and III are clear openers, I is just balanced 10 points. In the current strong ♣ system I play with my f2f partner I'd open all 3 hands, but in natural only II and III.

[xx1943]

I don't like hand II. Open this anaemic diamonds and what is your rebid after 1 spade?
1 NT with spade single? (grrrrr)
2 Diamonds with this suit (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)

I don't open this

Al

[Flame]

All wont open hand 1.
Ill open 1d on hand 2 and rebid 1nt.
the third ill open 1s.
Its much easier in life when you have a thory like zar points behind you, why should i have to make exuses to my team when my decision didnt succeed , better have zar deliver them.

[Flame]

Pavell, on Nov 30 2004, 01:45 AM, said:

I do not see any opening problems at all with this hands

Pavel how much did you try your system in practice ?
Your strong 1c begin here with 9 and 11 hcp hands, this is nuts, i think if you play this a little you will see that the opponents will intefere and you will stay out of you relay system and as you like to say, you will be burned.
yes i know you have some agrements after interference, but can those really handle it ? i doubt it.

[luke warm]

all but hand 1 unless playing mini nt

[Antoine Fourrière]

I pass Hand 1, but I would open ATx AQTxx xxx xx, according to the rules of thumb that a decent five-card suit is worth 1 HCP, and that four aces and tens are worth another HCP. (and that zero ace or ten is worth minus 1 HCP).

I open Hand 2 with 1♦ if it shows a real suit, but not if 1♦ covers all diamond-oriented weak notrumps, or if 1♦ is Precision.

I always open Hand 3. However, if I play a specialized opening which covers the 5/5s with both majors and perhaps some other hands with respectable patterns, such as 2♦ Wilkosz or 2♠ Tutti Frutti or 2N simply showing both 5-card majors, I use that opening. Still, if I have only an amorphous Ekren opening in my bag, I choose to open 1♠. (But if hearts were replaced by a minor, and I had no specialized opening, I would open a weak 2♠. I mind a pass, but I don't mind a raise.)

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on Nov 30 2004, 05:29 AM, said:

Reading Zar's book on aggressive hand evaluation has got me interested in the subject once again. Which of these hands would you open playing some "natural" system? (the situation may be different when playing a strong club or similar system, but I would like to hear opinions about that too)

I  K10x AK10xx xx xxx.

II  x KQxx J10xxx AJx.

III  AJxxx Axxxx xx x.

I hope that I made them close calls, but if not, feel free to add or substract some highcards. If vulnerability and seat matter, I suggest that you assume all white in first seat for your answer in the poll.

People really need to focus on the difference between bidding systems and hand evaluation structures.

The two are logically distinct and should be judged separately. In particular, hand evaluation systems should be evaluated using "standard" statistical analysis techniques. If they are found to have merit, THATs the time to start integrating them into bidding systems...

With this said and done: Here's what would happen playing MOSCITO: As for some "natural" system, it very much depends on whether I am playing EHAA or Acol or 2/1 or Roth-Stone...

Hand 1:

There are two choices of bids with hand 1: 1NT and pass. A first or second seat 1NT opening is defined as 11+ - 14 HCP, so hand 1 appears too weak. With this said and done, this is a truly exceptional 10 count that I might very much chose to open. I certainly wouldn't fault either decision by partner.

Hand 2:

Clear opening bid playing MOSCITO.
A 1♦ opening shows 4+ Hearts, could have a longer minor

Hand 3:

Clear opening bid playing MOSCITO
A 1♥ opening show 4+ Spades, might have a longer minor

[mila85]

I wouldn't open hand I, because I must rebid 2♥ after 1♥-1♠. And we can miss 2♠. (disadvantage of weak NT).
3rd I would open multi.

Hand II: I can open 1♦ but my strength is elsewhere.....pass

I would pass third hand because I can show my distribution by some two suited overcall.
Open it 3rd and 4th because I don't like pass-pass-pass-pass.

[tysen2k]

hrothgar, on Nov 30 2004, 07:48 AM, said:

People really need to focus on the difference between bidding systems and hand evaluation structures.

The two are logically distinct and should be judged separately.

Absolutely.

[junyi_zhu]

Hannie, on Nov 30 2004, 02:29 AM, said:

Reading Zar's book on aggressive hand evaluation has got me interested in the subject once again. Which of these hands would you open playing some "natural" system? (the situation may be different when playing a strong club or similar system, but I would like to hear opinions about that too)

I K10x AK10xx xx xxx.

II x KQxx J10xxx AJx.

III AJxxx Axxxx xx x.

I hope that I made them close calls, but if not, feel free to add or substract some highcards. If vulnerability and seat matter, I suggest that you assume all white in first seat for your answer in the poll.

For normal 2/1 systems, these hands are no good to open in my humble opinion, the reason is simple, if you face a good 12 2/1 GF bid, they often don't produce a game which has play. So if you still play 2/1 system, you have to raise your 2/1 response range. However, you still would sacrafice the bidding accuracy of your system, because your opening range covers from good 10(5-4 shape) to some bad 20 or even more. However, I know most modern players are just so confident in their constructive bidding and they believe they can handle this wide range well. I call it "over-confident", and I know many just don't agree. I don't think I am a very "solid" opener, I open most 5-4 shape with 12 and some good 5-4 shape with 11(often contains a spade suit). I pass almost all 5-3-3-2 with 11. I open most 4-4-3-2 12 and pass awful ones. I open 4-3-3-3 12 only without defects and I treat all seats about equal and don't buy very light 3rd seat openings. 3rd seat can be about 1 HCP lighter, and that's all. I know most players here are more aggressive than me, but still, if you really want to improve the accuracy of your 2/1 system, I somehow believe my range is about the minimum opener you can afford. For sayc like system, the opener can be slightly lighter, but not much. For strong 1C systems, it can be lighter, but you still may face other problems, such as a wider range of 1C opening and 1D guarantees no real suits problems which may affect your bidding accuracy, especially in competitive auctions. Actually, one gotta compet more heavily against such systems to gain the maximum out of it. Also, to me, light 3rd seat openings are just not playable in many competitive situations, like p p 1S 3D, can partner bid 3NT here with good 10 if you open 8 HCP 1S? That's also a problem for zar or something similiar. When you have a fit, you may find the fit earlier by opening light, but when you have no fit, you gotta play more unmakable 3NT than others, especially in competitive situations. Well, nobody here except me really cares about this issue and you guys can usually make 8 + 11 HCP 3NT which I normall can't. hehe.

[hrothgar]

junyi_zhu, on Dec 1 2004, 12:56 AM, said:

Hannie, on Nov 30 2004, 02:29 AM, said:

Reading Zar's book on aggressive hand evaluation has got me interested in the subject once again. Which of these hands would you open playing some "natural" system? (the situation may be different when playing a strong club or similar system, but I would like to hear opinions about that too)

I  K10x AK10xx xx xxx.

II  x KQxx J10xxx AJx.

III  AJxxx Axxxx xx x.

I hope that I made them close calls, but if not, feel free to add or substract some highcards. If vulnerability and seat matter, I suggest that you assume all white in first seat for your answer in the poll.

For normal 2/1 systems, these hands are no good to open in my humble opinion, the reason is simple, if you face a good 12 2/1 GF bid, they often don't produce a game which has play. So if you still play 2/1 system, you have to raise your 2/1 response range. However, you still would sacrafice the bidding accuracy of your system, because your opening range covers from good 10(5-4 shape) to some bad 20 or even more. However, I know most modern players are just so confident in their constructive bidding and they believe they can handle this wide range well. I call it "over-confident", and I know many just don't agree. I don't think I am a very "solid" opener, I open most 5-4 shape with 12 and some good 5-4 shape with 11(often contains a spade suit). I pass almost all 5-3-3-2 with 11. I open most 4-4-3-2 12 and pass awful ones. I open 4-3-3-3 12 only without defects and I treat all seats about equal and don't buy very light 3rd seat openings. 3rd seat can be about 1 HCP lighter, and that's all. I know most players here are more aggressive than me, but still, if you really want to improve the accuracy of your 2/1 system, I somehow believe my range is about the minimum opener you can afford. For sayc like system, the opener can be slightly lighter, but not much. For strong 1C systems, it can be lighter, but you still may face other problems, such as a wider range of 1C opening and 1D guarantees no real suits problems which may affect your bidding accuracy, especially in competitive auctions. Actually, one gotta compet more heavily against such systems to gain the maximum out of it. Also, to me, light 3rd seat openings are just not playable in many competitive situations, like p p 1S 3D, can partner bid 3NT here with good 10 if you open 8 HCP 1S? That's also a problem for zar or something similiar. When you have a fit, you may find the fit earlier by opening light, but when you have no fit, you gotta play more unmakable 3NT than others, especially in competitive situations. Well, nobody here except me really cares about this issue and you guys can usually make 8 + 11 HCP 3NT which I normall can't. hehe.

Actually, I think your comments are dead on...

I don't think that a 2/1 Game Force response structure is compatible with light/unlimited openings. I question whether 2/1 GF should be played opposite a precision type 11-14 HCP opening...

[pbleighton]

Playing with my regular pd with our "Light Standard American", aka "Unsound", I open all 3 (we do take light openings into account in our responses).

Playing 2/1 or Standard American, I open all but 1.
2 and 3 are close, but I open.

Peter

[the hog]

It is possible to "up" the forcing NT response to 12 and to play 2/1s as 13+. You will occasionally get to a 24 point game, however when all is said and done, (Sorry Richard), the gains from sometimes making these games will outweigh the costs of going down.

In MPs it may perhaps be wiser to adopt a sounder opening policy in 1/2 seats. Last week one of the opps opened
AQxxxx Kxxx xx x with 1S, and ended in a no play 4H against us. I sympathise.

[hrothgar]

The_Hog, on Dec 1 2004, 03:00 AM, said:

It is possible to "up" the forcing NT response to 12 and to play 2/1s as 13+. You will occasionally get to a 24 point game, however when all is said and done, (Sorry Richard), the gains from sometimes making these games will outweigh the costs of going down.

Its certainly possible to overload the forcing NT like that
Just not sure that its desirable...

At the very least I'd want to use 2♦ as Hearts and 2♥ = Diamonds
Add in an artifical 2♣ response and you have something reasonable...

[LukeG]

I would not open any of the hands, and for me it's not a close decision. I usually play 2/1 and find that I get better results using sound opening bids. These hands may become very easy to handle by passing first - especially the 2nd and 3rd which would be textbook examples of a passed hand takeout double of spades and a two-suiter with both majors.