[Double !]

There has been considerable discussion lately on a myriad of threads about what constitutes an opening bid at the 1-level (not even including different hand assessment methods such as hcp, zar, or LTC), a possible trend toward/ the need for lighter opening bids, and how lighter initial action might make decision in various competitive situations.

I can understand how adjusting the range downward for an opening bid could be done without much discomfort and system adjustment playing a system with limited opening 1-bids such as strong club or diamond systems. However, it seems to me that playing that an opening bid shows 10 to 21 pts (however you define points) could be very difficult to manage without some significant adjustments. So, excluding systems that utilize limited opening 1-bids (and/or natural 2C or 2D as minimum openings) and a strong, artificial and forcing bid (15,16,17,18+) at the 1-level, what, if any, adjustments are people incorporating into their systems to accommodate lighter initial action?

As always, Thanx in advance.

DHL

[luis]

There's only one adjustment you need: You need to play better :-)

[mike777]

luis, on Aug 10 2005, 03:29 PM, said:

There's only one adjustment you need: You need to play better :-)

THAT IS NUMBER ONE!

Here are a few bidding options I was taught
1) 2/1=14+ not 12
2) make some of your balanced hand invites 12 to average 13 for 2nt. That means 1nt can be 11 hcp.
3) make your constructive raises a wee bit stronger. Example 1s=2s=3 trumps and 7-10 hcp pts.
4) Most Important as Luis says, play the hands better.
5) make your 1nt 14-16 and offshape often to handle a bunch of hands in the 14-16 range.
6) mexican 2d=18-19 off shape ok again.

These last two will take many but not all of the tough 14-19 hands out of your 1 level bids.

The above lets you assume a junky 11-13 for your partners' opening one bids often.

btw I see this issue of partner can be 8-21 so how can we bid often posted on the forum. I believe this is a nonissue.
1) The opp bid so often, we rarely get a clean auction. I rather get in first and make the bidding more difficult for the opp.
2) If the opp are silent just assume partner has a junky 11-13 and bid your games.
3) When my partners plays the hands well that solves so many bidding issues. ( See REESE, their bidding was always cr*p.)

[coyot]

Guess I'm too old for light opening bids

I open most 12 HCP counts (avoiding only exceptionally ugly 4333 hands).
I open 11 HCP hands with major 5card.
I open 11 HCP hands with any 5-4 shape, unless the honors are scattered in the short suits
I open any A A K hand if the king is with the ace.
I open 10 HCP hands with 10 cards in 2 suits (one major) with no wasted values
I very rarely open 9 HCP hands with 11 cards in 2 suits

I will never open 11 HCP without good shape (4432 is not a good shape, 5332 with long minor is not a good shape).

Once you read a good book on reopens and balancing (i.e. Lawrence), you'll find that with many hands, you don't need to rush as you will have your say later (if it is a good idea to have your say on that board).

[P_Marlowe]

Switch to Acol style, i.e. 2 over 1 only one round force,
use artifical responses, e.g. Drury
and give up on penalty doubles altogether,
for fear partner opened crap.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pbleighton]

One thing I found very useful is 1M-2NT as 11+ dummy points with 3+ trump support.
Rebids:
3C dead min
3D better, but not enough to force to game
Other - GF, singleton or void.

This allows a "re-invite" by opener. You can then "invite" with 11 opposite potential junk. Sometime 3 is too high, but OTOH your conservative opps probably haven't found a fit.

You give up on distinguishing 3 vs 4 card support (except for splinters), but nothing is free

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on Aug 10 2005, 04:32 PM, said:

One thing I found very useful is 1M-2NT as 11+ dummy points with 3+ trump support.
Rebids:
3C dead min
3D better, but not enough to force to game
Other - GF, singleton or void.

This allows a "re-invite" by opener. You can then "invite" with 11 opposite potential junk. Sometime 3 is too high, but OTOH your conservative opps probably haven't found a fit.

You give up on distinguishing 3 vs 4 card support (except for splinters), but nothing is free

Peter

Perhaps this works but I really dislike this for many reasons.
1) gives up option of playing in 1nt with junky hand across from junky hand. with semi-force 1nt. 5332 and 11 across from junky 11-12 hcp 3325 you want to be in 1nt not 3 spades.
2) 2nt can be more useful with other uses.
3) too important to know the number of trumps 3 or 4, if you are opening light.

[luke warm]

zar, rule of 20, whatever you use, just clue partner in... i don't see much downside to the rule of 20... i'd open an 11 count 5332 hand if the 5 is a major and if i had 3+ controls, otherwise i'd pass it... i'd open most 12 count balanced hands, and i'm not crazy about off shape no trump (unless there's just no better bid)

unless playing a system that limits the opening (ie, some strong club type) i think we've gone too far with the weak openings... just my opinion

[Double !]

luis, on Aug 10 2005, 03:29 PM, said:

There's only one adjustment you need: You need to play better :-)

If this response was directed toward me, then, well, you stated the obvious. (I believe that I have a reasonably good sense of my personal bridge-related strengths and weaknesses.) If it was intended to imply that card play, and partnership-related issues are more important in general than what bidding system or style one adopts, well I strongly agree with you up to a point. However, this post was not intended to address any of the many personal bridge-related strengths or weaknesses that I have or that any other forum member might or might not have. It purpose is an attempt to try and clarify several issues to the degree that they might be clarified, and to survey what styles people have adopted, why they have adopted them, the degree to which these have or have not led to success, and why or why not.

I recall a brief discussion in the original Kaplan-Sheinwold book ("How to Play Winning Bridge") about the distinction between two approaches to the game: 1) trying to stay with or slightly above the field in terms of bidding and winning via superior play, decision-making, and defense, and 2) trying to win in terms of staying with or a little above the field in terms of play and defense, and trying to win via superior bidding (and, consequentially, competitive decision-making). So, there are different views on that topic, and I feel that I am reading a variety of views on this forum about issues of style, approach, evaluation, and systems to name a few.

Another currently-running thread has resulted in a number of opinions in terms of whether or not either of two hands should be opened, and various opinions on the merits of lighter initial action than the style that I am used to. I am looking for the reasoning behind adopting or not adopting a lighter initial action style, the ramifications that such an approach might have on the structure of any system that one utilizes, on how this impacts on what inferences one might take based upon action that partner has or hasn't taken (negative inferences), and the level of success that people have experienced using their' preferred styles and approaches. I or anyone else reading this thread might or might not adopt lighter initial action styles; those are individual and partnership decisions to be made. Pressure bidding seems to be in vogue these days. However, we all will likely have to play against them at some point, and understanding will be helpful in many areas, especially in competitive auctions.

DHL

[hrothgar]

How light is light?

Regardless, here are my thoughts based on extensive experience with MOSCITO and Magic Diamond...

I don't think that light openings work unless they are also limited... Each time you lighten up your opening by 1 HCP, you are increasing the frequency of your constructive by an enormous amount. In turn, as you note, this places enormous pressure on your response structure. As I've commented many times in the past, I don't beleive that traditional North American 2/1 response structures are compatible with light opening systems. Your 2/1s NEVER come up. Your forcing NT response gets terrible overloaded. Equally significant, when you open light you want to position partner to be able place the hands in an acceptable contract. Once again, this requires a lkimited opening scheme.

With this said and done, the response structure that I use for MOSCITO is based on

1. Natural, constructive, and non-forcing 2/1s responses

2. Multiple specialized bids to show major suit fits including

A) Constructive and preemptive raises
Fit jumps
C) Splinters
D) Game invitation raise with 4+ trump

2. First step relays for hands with game invitational+ values and no fit (transfer responses are also playable, but I don't like em myself)

4. Natural and non-forcing NT response

Many of the best players who use light opening styles are also aggressive penalty doublers... Many of your best results will be based on crucifying yahoo's who like to poke their noses into low level non-fit auctions

In an ideal world, you preemptive style should complement the limited opening system. You want a smooth transition (no gaps) between your minimum strength onstructive openings are your maximum strength "preempts"

[Double !]

luke warm, on Aug 10 2005, 06:05 PM, said:

unless playing a system that limits the opening (ie, some strong club type) i think we've gone too far with the weak openings... just my opinion

An opinion that I share and value. That is one reason why I am trying to determine how many of the advocates of lighter initial action are playing limited openings, what impact widening even further the range for a 1-level bid is having if not playing limited openings (if any), and what adjustments and/or specialized bids people who are playing lighter initial action without limited 1-level opening bids might be employing to address this expansion (or if they feel that none are needed)?

[the hog]

Optimum opening range is 8-12, as these rae the most common hand types. This meshes well into a strong pass system, or a system such as Moscito.

[inquiry]

luke warm, on Aug 10 2005, 07:05 PM, said:

unless playing a system that limits the opening (ie, some strong club type) i think we've gone too far with the weak openings... just my opinion

It isn't the weakness of the light opening bid that is the problem, it is the great expanse of the strong rebids. There is quite a difference between a 17 hcp reverse in a four card suit, a jump shift in a three card suit to establish a force, and some monster two suiters that are opened 1 of a suit. It also is associated with the vast differences between super fits and strong hands, versus jsut nice fits and a bit more than minimum invitational values.

What I do is:
Open strong two suiters with artificial bid (MisIry)
Open strong balanced hands 2D (multi 2D)
Open strong 3 suiter with 2C and rebid 2NT
Open "good one suiters in majors 2C 8 tricks (where 2H/2S is neg responses and passable)
Open "good one suiters in minor (9.5 tricks) with 2D (multi)
Open game forcing one suiters 2C as well.

With these strong hands removed, the only great hand left after you open is a super fit. I don't like creating a bid with a jump shift then raise. Instead I jump to 2NT to show big fit with responder. (Jacoby 2NT by opener!!)

That leaves just the 2/1 GF hands. As others have stated, if you make your openings lighter and lighter, your 2/1's are best with elevated minimums. I like jump shifts by responder over 1M as invitational upto bad 13 hcp and the bid suit. No fit in partners suit.

I add Riton 2C (thanks Henri) and use new minor by opener as one round force. Richard will tell you this isn't 2/1 GF. Well, ok. But it is natural and looks like 2/1 GF, but maybe he is right.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Aug 11 2005, 06:45 AM, said:

I add Riton 2C (thanks Henri) and use new minor by opener as one round force. Richard will tell you this isn't 2/1 GF. Well, ok. But it is natural and looks like 2/1 GF, but maybe he is right.

Call, me pedantic, however, I fail to understand why you would WANT to call this 2/1 game forcing:

2/1 game force is a name for a family of bididng systems that share certain common characteristics: Traditionally, the most distinctive have been

1. Sound initial action
2. Forcing NT response
3. 15-17 HCP NT opening
4. 2/1 responses as natural and forcing to game

I'll note in passing that their are LOTs of systems out there that use 2/1 responses as a game force, however, they aren't called "2/1 GF" because that simply confuses people...

I'm sure that Ben has a nice playable system, however, when the system is distinquished by

1. Light initial action
2. Artifical 2♣ response
3. 1M - 2♦ = 1 round force
4. Misery preempts with strong 5/5 hands
5. Significantly weakening the strong 2♣ response

Its not part of the same family of systems. I wouldn't defend against this this system the same way and I fail to understand why someone would want to mislead the opponents reagrding what they are playing.

As a concrete example: There is a BIG difference between telling folks that you play Kaplan-Scheinwold versus playing 2/1 with a weak NT.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Aug 11 2005, 06:45 AM, said:

It isn't the weakness of the light opening bid that is the problem, it is the great expanse of the strong rebids.

Not sure if I agree...

Your weak hand types are MANY times more frequent than your strong hand types. Accordingly, this should probably skew your priorities.

Its very difficult to design a response structure that can simultaneous provide you with VERY fine grained precision with the very common weak hands and simultaneously describe the long tail encompasssing the strong hands types. Offloading some strong hands by weaking the 2♣ opening and adopting Misery/multi will deifnitely help some. However, I'm still dubious about a stype that opens an 8 and an 18 count with the same bid...

[han]

Agree with all that Richard. How about calling it "modified 2/1"? After all it uses:

1) Natural 1-level openings with 5-card majors.
2) All 2/1's except 1M-2C are gameforcing. 2C is natural GF plus some other hands.
3) Strong 1NT openings.
4) Strong 2C openings.
5) Versions of basically all conventions common in 2/1 systems.

[han]

The_Hog, on Aug 10 2005, 07:30 PM, said:

Optimum opening range is 8-12, as these rae the most common hand types. This meshes well into a strong pass system, or a system such as Moscito.

This seems believable, but can you prove this? It is clear that these hands are most common, but why does that make it the optimal opening range?

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Aug 10 2005, 11:06 PM, said:

inquiry, on Aug 11 2005, 06:45 AM, said:

It isn't the weakness of the light opening bid that is the problem, it is the great expanse of the strong rebids.

Not sure if I agree...

Your weak hand types are MANY times more frequent than your strong hand types. Accordingly, this should probably skew your priorities.

Its very difficult to design a response structure that can simultaneous provide you with VERY fine grained precision with the very common weak hands and simultaneously describe the long tail encompasssing the strong hands types. Offloading some strong hands by weaking the 2♣ opening and adopting Misery/multi will deifnitely help some. However, I'm still dubious about a stype that opens an 8 and an 18 count with the same bid...

Is it not more profitable to design a system based on optimizing risk and reward than frequency?

The ramifications of the long tail is not fully understood in applied statistics.

Perhaps a system based on this lack of understanding in bridge would be more profitable at the table?

If the frequency of occurences in the long tail are in fact more frequent than projected, profit can be made on this information.

Please note I am discussing outcomes not opening bid or shape frequency.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 11 2005, 07:25 AM, said:

Is it not more profitable to design a system based on optimizing risk and reward than frequency?

If we assume that all information is "equally" important - the "return" from a byte of information opposite a 12 HCP is just as valuable as the return opposite a strong hand, than frequency corresponds to expected value.

If anything, I suspect that the "return" for a byte of information about the hands opposite a strong hand is less valuable. Consider the trick taking potential of two hands, with combined strength = 24 HCP... Ceteris Paribus, the two hands will typically take more tricks if their strength is divided 12 HCP HCP opposite 12 than if the points are allocated 18 opposite 6 or some such. This weights the scales even more heavily towards the short/fat tail.

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Aug 11 2005, 01:57 AM, said:

mike777, on Aug 11 2005, 07:25 AM, said:

Is it not more profitable to design a system based on optimizing risk and reward than frequency?

If we assume that all information is "equally" important - the "return" from a byte of information opposite a 12 HCP is just as valuable as the return opposite a strong hand, than frequency corresponds to expected value.

If anything, I suspect that the "return" for a byte of information about the hands opposite a strong hand is less valuable. Consider the trick taking potential of two hands, with combined strength = 24 HCP... Ceteris Paribus, the two hands will typically take more tricks if their strength is divided 12 HCP HCP opposite 12 than if the points are allocated 18 opposite 6 or some such. This weights the scales even more heavily towards the short/fat tail.

Paragraph one seems too big an assumption but we must start somewhere. Again the outcomes may not be normal dist but even if we assume they are...

If I keen your last sentence we are surfing the same wave.