awm, on Sep 8 2005, 01:41 PM, said:
Why should we be interested in the probabilities of making game?
I think a lot of us count points for shape when we open. For example, other than 10-12 notrumpers, I don't think many of us would open this in first seat:
xxx
xxx
Axx
KQJx
However, I know a lot of people who would open:
xxx
x
Axx
KQJxxx
Now, assuming fairly standard methods, it would be logical to open 1♣ on both hands (if we were going to open). This steals basically no space from opponents. It doesn't particularly direct a lead (in this case the clubs are good, but we have to open 1♣ on three small at times so I don't think partner can bet on good clubs). It doesn't really help us in competitive auctions much, because partner won't know we have six clubs on the second hand and can't really raise the suit very aggressively.
So why is it that people open the second hand and not the first? The reasoning is that the second hand is somehow "better." Suppose that partner has some random thirteen count and we end up in a game. The top hand is likely to be a disappointment, and our chances of making 3NT or 4M are probably not good when partner has a "minimum game force." The bottom hand has a nice source of tricks for any contract, and a possible ruffing value if we find a spade fit. It seems likely that we would have play for a game on most 13-counts partner could produce.
As for majors versus minors, I would happily open this hand playing fairly standard methods:
AQxxx
KJxxx
x
xx
I have six losers, 27 ZAR, rule of 20, blah blah blah. Most players would open this hand. It's likely that we have a fit in one major or the other, and we will often have a good chance at game when partner has a decent hand. On the other hand, switch this to:
x
xx
AQxxx
KJxxx
I'm not nearly so eager to open this hand, and would probably pass. If I open, chances are good that we will end up in 3NT when partner has a decent hand (despite a likely 5-3 or 5-4 minor fit). I don't necessarily like our chances of making 3NT. My weakness in the majors suggests partner will need many cards there.
I should also note that many modern systems require that partner make immediate decisions about whether to force game opposite an opening. This includes the 2/1 game forcing method that is so popular, as well as most strong club or diamond response structures. Most relay systems also have this property, even some of the ones where the relay is not game forcing (since the main information discovered before deciding to game force is frequently whether opener's points are max or min, not opener's detailed shape). Obviously being forced to decide whether to set up a game force early in the auction has its weaknesses. But since we seem to have to do it, it will be good to understand how to evaluate distribution in the absence of detailed knowledge about fit.
So the relevent question would seem to be:
How many points do I need, with various distributions, such that the probability of game becomes roughly equal?
I'm not sure how we got from "5521 is more likely to make game than 2155" to "AQxxx KJxxx xx x is an opener and xx x AQxxx KJxxx is a pass." It seems a few steps in the logic chain are missing.
1) There are other variables. Lead direction, saves, preemption. One could argue since you are 2155 THEY are more likely to make a game thus you should open lighter with the minors in hopes that you can find a fit and save. Obviously something is missing from that logic too, but to think that likelihood of game is the only variable in opening seems wrong.
2) Passing does not preclude getting to game. We are more likely to make game with the majors, true, but only if we find a fit. If we pass first and then later find a fit, we can upgrade accordingly. It is not like it's now or never and we have to guess. Maybe we should wait to find a fit before doing our upgrading?
3) Bridge is a partnership game. Partner also knows major suit games are easier than minor suit games (or light HCP 3Ns) and can adjust his aggression according to where we are likely to play. If he has a minor suit fit, for instance, he will be less agressive than if he has a major suit fit.
4) Even if it were only about likelihood of game, the chance may be great enough to open the second hand. Alternatively, it may be so low even with 5-5 in the majors that we should pass the first one. All of this is moot, of course, since there are other things to consider.
Let's not jump to conclusions because of a priori odds that involve only 1 variable and 1 person in the partnership. Perhaps there is more to bridge than that.