mike777, on Sep 7 2005, 02:48 PM, said:
Ok, how do you conclude this? Why is it better to open aggressively with length in majors compared to minors? I assume there are just as many advantages to opening agrressively in the minors, how does this refute that in favor of the majors? We all know it takes one less trick in the majors but so what? The chance for game in 8 or 9 card major is almost always greater than the same in a minor with same number of cards, so what?
I see the data but I do not see this conclusion, can anyone help?
There are some underlying assumptions here I may not have mentioned. Perhaps the main question is: why should I open the bidding, as opposed to passing? Some reasons:
(1) If I think we might have a game, I should bid so we can reach that game.
(2) In order to get in the opponents' way, to make it harder for them to find a contract.
(3) If I think we can make a partscore, perhaps I should open so we can get there.
(4) In order to help partner on defense, to find the right lead, count my pattern, etc.
All of these are perfectly fair reasons for bidding. But assuming fairly "constructive" methods, it seems like (1) is the major reason for opening at the one level. Keep in mind that one-level bids don't steal a huge amount of space from the opponents. Of course, things change a little bit in 3rd seat (where 3 and 4 become bigger concerns) and in 4th.
Note that many systems seem to base an opening bid on "I have half what we need for game." We see this with Goren (26 hcp for game, 13 to open), with LTC (14 losers for major suit game, 7 losers to open), and with ZAR (52 for game, 26 to open). All of these seem to be working on the assumption that (1) is the major reason to open.
So if we're willing to assume that the main reason for opening is to find our games, it seems like an opening should announce that game is reasonably likely given opener's hand. This is really what the methods above are going for isn't it? So that seems to support opening lighter with major suit length.
To give a simple example, suppose I am deciding whether to open a balanced eleven count in first seat. Since I'm balanced, directing a lead from partner (condition 4) isn't a big deal. Since I play fairly standard methods, my opening on any (4432) pattern will be one of a minor, which doesn't really take any space from the opponents. So the only real concern here is, what do I think are our chances at game? It seems from Tysen's data that it might be reasonable for me to open a 4-4-2-3 eleven count, but that with a 2-3-4-4 eleven I should probably pass.