My thoretical problem with forcing 1x open

[Flame]

When designing a system we sometime streach a bid including more types of hands in it then we can hadlde effectively. for example we open 1x with hands that can miss a game when partner pass.

Same thing happend when we responde 1x to 1m opening on light hands, we know partner might bid 2nt and we wont be in best spot.

In both these examples we have a non perfect situation, but what conenct these two is that the problematic hand type has less frequency, the 18-19 bal is rare as well as the too strong 1 opener, the rare case does not effect the more frquent case, responder will not fear to bid light on 1m because we might have strong 18-19 because this is rare, responder will not fear to pass 1M because this is rare, and when the bad situation come we might get a bad result but again its rare.

And now i get to those forcing 1 level bids, to show that the mechanizm is just the opposite, responder must replay to 1 level even with 0 hcp , this mean we let the rare hands dominate the system, on most hands responder would have been better to pass with a weak hand but the rare hand prevent him from doing that.

I term freqency that i use isnt exacly right (especilly playing imp rather then mp)and i could better say overall effect of the hand type.

Id add that this is just a thoretical point and i have almost no expirence with forcing 1 level opening and it might just be that the 1M or maybe even just the 1S is too much.

[MickyB]

I agree, Flame. Obviously it depends on the system, but when I've played unlimited openings I've responded on all 4 point hands, passing some three counts. Always fun to see what opps will protect on now :rolleyes:

[david_c]

And now i get to those forcing 1 level bids, to show that the mechanizm is just the opposite, responder must replay to 1 level even with 0 hcp , this mean we let the rare hands dominate the system, on most hands responder would have been better to pass with a weak hand but the rare hand prevent him from doing that.

I agree too. Well said.

[Echognome]

The only problem with this argument is that the conditional probability of partner having the big hand when we are really weak and opponents silent is greater. Although, I'm not quite sure really what you are advocating and what you are condemning. Please elaborate.

[david_c]

Please elaborate.

Here's my take on this:

 

The reason we want to pass with very weak hands is so that when we do find a bid, opener can rely on a little bit of strength opposite. If you're not allowed to pass when you have complete rubbish, then you will have to sort out the varying degrees of rubbish later on. That consumes a lot of bidding space (or else requires a lot of guesswork), which would be better spent on more commonly-occuring hand types - note that hands which are too weak to respond to a non-forcing 1-bid don't come up very often.

 

I like to think of it in terms of the total bidding space in the system. If you don't allow sequences like 1♥:pass, then you have less space available overall. No matter how you arrange your opening bids (you can play transfers, or whatever), you can never get this space back.

[tysen2k]

If you are playing MP, I don't think you lose a lot if you allow yourself to pass potentially strong 1-bids with trash. Sure, you can lose out if partner has a strong hand, but maybe the opps will balance. Plus there are gains everywhere else in your bidding. Hopefully you've designed your bidding system to take advantage of this. This is assuming the potentially strong 1-bids are natural.

 

Even playing IMPs, I think the harm is not too great, especially if you can gain some sort of advantage somewhere else in your bidding structure by having the strong 1-bids in the first place.

 

Tysen

[awm]

I'm not totally sure what the complaint is here. If we're trying to maximize the number of sequences, the ideal method would be a system where every single call is unlimited and non-forcing. But I don't see anyone seriously suggesting this, and it doesn't seem likely to work all that well at finding the best contract.

 

Even so, a transfer-based system may lose the auctions 1x-pass, but it can gain:

 

1♦-1♥-Pass

1♥-1♠-Pass

1♠-2♦-Pass

2♣-Pass

 

None of these auctions exist in standard bidding. So the total number of sequences hasn't really changed.

 

If the argument is that it's nice to be able to stop low when responder has a bad hand, the major suit transfer auctions accomplish just this. You lose the ability to stop in 1-minor. However, my experience has indicated that when the bidding goes 1m-all pass this is usually a poor result for the opening side. While the apriori odds that opener has only 3-4 cards in the minor and extra values are rather low, the fact that neither opponent could act tends to indicate that they both have a fair amount of length in the minor (otherwise might double) and neither has a huge surplus of points (surely they would find a call with 16+). So this greatly ups the odds that opener has whatever strong balanced range is included in 1m, and that you'd be better off if you could somehow reach 1NT rather than playing your minor-suit moysian (or worse).

 

Opening with 1♠ or 2♣ when holding a one-suited minor hand does put you one level higher when responder has garbage, but this is basically just a preempt. Lots of previous threads suggested that minor-suit preempts can be quite effective, so I don't see a real problem here. Let the opponents start exploring for their game at the two-level.

[Flame]

I'm not totally sure what the complaint is here. If we're trying to maximize the number of sequences, the ideal method would be a system where every single call is unlimited and non-forcing. But I don't see anyone seriously suggesting this, and it doesn't seem likely to work all that well at finding the best contract.

 

Even so, a transfer-based system may lose the auctions 1x-pass, but it can gain:

 

1♦-1♥-Pass

1♥-1♠-Pass

1♠-2♦-Pass

2♣-Pass

 

None of these auctions exist in standard bidding. So the total number of sequences hasn't really changed.

 

If the argument is that it's nice to be able to stop low when responder has a bad hand, the major suit transfer auctions accomplish just this. You lose the ability to stop in 1-minor. However, my experience has indicated that when the bidding goes 1m-all pass this is usually a poor result for the opening side. While the apriori odds that opener has only 3-4 cards in the minor and extra values are rather low, the fact that neither opponent could act tends to indicate that they both have a fair amount of length in the minor (otherwise might double) and neither has a huge surplus of points (surely they would find a call with 16+). So this greatly ups the odds that opener has whatever strong balanced range is included in 1m, and that you'd be better off if you could somehow reach 1NT rather than playing your minor-suit moysian (or worse).

 

Opening with 1♠ or 2♣ when holding a one-suited minor hand does put you one level higher when responder has garbage, but this is basically just a preempt. Lots of previous threads suggested that minor-suit preempts can be quite effective, so I don't see a real problem here. Let the opponents start exploring for their game at the two-level.

The number of totall sequences isnt important, becaused as you said all those ones with passes inside soesnt count.

What imortant is the number of the non passed seqences comared to the amount of the hands they are suppose to show.

So when you play transfers you have the same number of sequeces but alot more to show with it.

This can be mejure, what need to know is what the probebility of responder to hold 0-5 hcp when the bidding go 1X (P). it can be checked quite easily, i would guess 3%. This mean your system has 3% more hand to deliever with the same bidding space.

This again not good math and neglect some details but i got to run.

[Chamaco]

I am not sure if I agree with the principle that most bad responder's hands are better off pass the 1-level opening bid.

 

Even in a Precision context (with REAL diamonds, unbalanced, and NOT with a nebulous diamond opening), as responder, I try as much as I can to find a bid even when I am broke.

Many times this preempt opps and not pard, who also knows I might be broke and won't go overboard.

 

Using this tactics, it's more often opps who have to guess whether I am broke or I do have something, and decide whether to be conservative (and risk missing game) or be aggressive catering for game prospects (and risk going overboard).

In many hands the extra round of bidding usually can stop at a reasonable level.

 

Of course sometimes this approach backfires (e.g. sometimes opener has a harder time to double opps) but on balance I would say that it loses less than it gains ...

 

In a "natural-ish" context, I much prefer the forcing 1-level opening than the approach by which a 1-level opening should promise something but responder cannot withstand passing with Qxxxx-x-Jxxx-xxxx when pard opens 1m.

This last example (responder very weak with a 5+ major) is rather common, and a source of big troubles if responder is indeed expected to have something.

 

Finally, I would add that even many strong club/diamond system shall force responder to bid at first round and after opener's rebid we might find ourselves in a 16-0 contract too high. That's life :)

[Flame]

Chamaco first of all my claim is kind of matematical here, you have bidding seqences avaliable, you can decide what the different is, if you think 1x P should only be right 0.0005%. About your point, its stronger in limit oening system like pecision then 2/1, since when ur partner is limit u know opps has something , and also because 2/1 partnr might take u to game very quick.

[Chamaco]

Chamaco first of all my claim is kind of matematical here, you have bidding seqences avaliable, you can decide what the different is, if you think 1x P should only be right 0.0005%. About your point, its stronger in limit oening system like pecision then 2/1, since when ur partner is limit u know opps has something , and also because 2/1 partnr might take u to game very quick.

 

Flame,

my point was to be seen NOT in the classical 2/1 context (where, I agree with you, opener would often go oveboard after a 1-level response), but in the Fantunes system (which is a sort of 2/1 with forcing 1-level openings).

 

In Fantunes, if opener hears responder bidding at the 1-level, he still expects a possible yarborough, and there are some safty mechanisms to be able to stop.

 

What I am saying is that 1-level forcing opening seem good to me, as long as opener knows that responder can be broke.

I think the gains and the losses, including frequency considerations, make it worth playing.

[david_c]

In Fantunes, if opener hears responder bidding at the 1-level, he still expects a possible yarborough, and there are some safty mechanisms to be able to stop.

Precisely - that's the problem.

 

If responder was allowed to pass with a yarborough, you wouldn't need these safety mechanisms. You could then spend your time (and bidding space) worrying about something more important.

[Chamaco]

In Fantunes, if opener hears responder bidding at the 1-level, he still expects a possible yarborough, and there are some safty mechanisms to be able to stop.

Precisely - that's the problem.

 

If responder was allowed to pass with a yarborough, you wouldn't need these safety mechanisms. You could then spend your time (and bidding space) worrying about something more important.

Every advantage has a price to be paid.

 

In my opinion there are many pluses that justify this effort:

 

1) anticipating the real suit rather than opening strong club or such, avoids the usual problems in competition

 

2) allowing for weak responder not to promise necessarily something makes it problematic also for opps to stick in; the guess is 2-way, and often responder is able to make an intelligent decision;

 

3) as i said, many 2/1 players tend to respond very light to 1 m opener even if that should promise a little something.

they have learned the hard way that keeping the bidding alive with light hands is often good opposite a 1m opener.

Of course they also need safety mechanisms, but that happens even with strong club opening when responder has a yarborough.

 

4) with the proper tools (Gazzilli-like relays), it's possible not to waste much space in uncontested bidding; whereas, if the bidding becomes contested, we are much better placed having anticipated the real suit of strong opener.

 

===============================

 

Not to say the forcing opening is perfect, but in my view the cost-benefit analyses, including the relative frequency of hand types (especially when opps might preempt our strong club or similar) is on the plus side.

[DelfinoD]

I agree, Flame. Obviously it depends on the system, but when I've played unlimited openings I've responded on all 4 point hands, passing some three counts. Always fun to see what opps will protect on now ;)

No really need to change your responces after 12-37pc opening.

 

These are so called zero options - because they almost never happen. You may miss a game once a few tournaments, but you gain much more - psychological advantage. Imagine opponent holding:

 

Dxxx

x

KDxx

Dxxx

 

after:

 

1h - pas - pas - ?

 

When 1h is not limited the player may think that opponents have game or even a slam and just pass. And that's how you'll going to get more points than you'll lose from not making a game when there's for example 25pc - 0pc.

 

The best strategy for opponents is not to change their bidding habits (like you don't change your responces, and still pass wiht 5-6pc). You won't have any gain then, but also the chances for opponets saving you are much bigger. And you have free 2c instead of acol, which will give you even more points.

 

Zero options can be used more widely. Other opening example:

 

2s - 6-10 6+s or 18+pc 5440 with 0 spades.

 

The second option never happens, and you should bid as if it was a normal weak two. But now opponets have a real problem, because after an overcall if opener really has 5440 18+ it's going to be at least 1400 ;) Who has stronger nerves? If they stop overcalling after weak two it's good for you.

 

Of course as before the best strategy for the opps is to treat this opening as a normal weak two, same as the responcer does. But they may not know about it or be just too scared to do it.