weak openers at the 1 level

[sceptic]

Hi

 

I realise this may have been bashed to death but I have a question about opening at the 1 level

 

1/. KQJ9x kx qxxx xx would you open this 11 count?

 

1a/. as it is the spade suit does that make it more attractive to open (if you would open at all), if it was C or H or D's I would have passed

 

1b/. is 5/4 a feature worth considering on this or any hand with 11 points

 

2/. AK xxxx Axxx jx would you open this 12 count?

3/. AK 1098x A98x j10 would you open this 12 count?

 

I realise that there are zar points to use, but if I could work them out at the table I think I would be world champion, so from my prospective they are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

 

I am asking this as I failed ( not failed judged not to) to open a 12 count and I opened a hand similar to the first hand

 

hope that makes sense

[helene_t]

Rule of 20 comes pretty close, I think. Subtract a little for non-working honours such as Qx or a singleton honour, by doubt look at spot cards (open hand 3 but not hand 2). Personally, I often chose not to open a hand that is good enough but may give a rebid probem, such as AKxx-xxxx-Axxxx. But I have noticed that most disagree with this so I'm probably wrong.

 

I would open 1 and 3 but not 2.

[Mr. Dodgy]

1a. 3rd/4th seat, maybe. 25 Zar Points. Not that difficult to calculate with a little practise. Zar says to open on 26+, but I like 27+, in part because it is more 'legal to do so in my part of the world, and in part because I'm not THAT good a player.

 

1b. yeah, why not? 5431 I might even open this hand in 1st/2nd seat

 

2. as above. dubious whether the ♣J should really be counted

 

3. yes, I like tens.

[Free]

I would open all of the above hands in a light opening system. However, in a natural system which isn't really able to cope with light openings, I always need a good rebid to show my hand.

 

In the first example, it's close. 1♠ followed by 2♦ will work ok. But what if partner bids 2♥? 2♠ is still ok since my suit is pretty good.

What if the 2nd suit is ♣. I wouldn't like it that much anymore.

5♥-4♦, 5♠-4♥, 5♦-4♣, 5♣-4♠: all PERFECT rebiddable!

What if my 5 card is lower than my 4 card (not 5♣-4♠)? I'll pass because I don't have a good rebid.

 

2 and 3: I'd always open these. Playing any NT range, you have a NT rebid or opening.

[EricK]

You should open them if they are at or above the minimum that partner will expect.

 

So perhaps you are asking "should a partnership agree to open this sort of hand?".

 

There are two main styles:

 

1. Bid as soon as you can whenever you have the chance, and hope that any loss in accuracy when it is your hand is counterbalanced by the difficulties presented to the opponents when it is their hand.

 

2. Bid more cautiously on the first round hoping for things like:

a. If it is your hand you will be able to show your strength/distribution after your initial pass without overexciting partner.

b. If it is their hand you will not given them any clues how to play it

c. If it is a competitive hand, partner will be better able to make a bid on or double decision if he knows your opening bid has some "bite".

But risking that:

d. If it is their hand you might give a free run to find their best contract

e. It might be your hand and neither you or your partner can scrape up a bid.

 

If you have a regular partner, then perhaps what you should do is try both styles and see which one you prefer. But make sure that if you have agreed a style then you stick with it!

[Sigi_BC84]

I realise that there are zar points to use, but if I could work them out at the table I think I would be world champion, so from my prospective they are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Just calculating your Zar points to judge the opening value of your hand is not hard. Zar reckons (correctly in my opinion) that it's not harder than the old-fashioned method of counting HCPs and adding distributional points.

 

Zar Points = HCP + controls + distributional Zar points

 

HCPs and controls are easy, and distributional Zars are not much harder after you've counted them 5-10 times: two longest + ( longest - shortest ).

So 5/4 hands always have 9 + something where something only depends on your shortness: if you have a void, it's 5, with a singleton it's 4, without shortness it's 3.

 

So your distributional Zars for that common hand type are always between 12 and 14, depending on your shortness. This is really easy to calculate in a second even without doing the full maths (which wouldn't take more 3-5 seconds longer...).

 

If you know Bergen points: ZP = Bergen + controls + (longest-shortest).

 

The only "effort" required for ZP is calculating (longest-shortest), there's is not much more to it. It gets more complicated when you want to take partners fit into consideration, but here we're only talking about opening value.

 

I always open using Zar points which eases my mind a lot at the table.

 

--Sigi

[Sigi_BC84]

duplicate deleted

[Sigi_BC84]

1a. 3rd/4th seat, maybe. 25 Zar Points. Not that difficult to calculate with a little practise. Zar says to open on 26+, but I like 27+, in part because it is more 'legal to do so in my part of the world, and in part because I'm not THAT good a player.

Zar also says to open with 25 proper Zar points if you are holding a real spade suit, so the hand in question would actually be a 1st hand opener according to Zar. One could devalue the Kx slightly, but the great spade suit compensates for that in my opinion.

 

I guess in third hand almost anybody will open this.

 

--Sigi

[Walddk]

I often chose not to open a hand that is good enough but may give a rebid probem, such as AKxx-xxxx-Axxxx.

I would open all 3 of them, but it's all about partnership style. To Helene: not sure where the void is. Clubs? If yes, you will have to rebid 2♦ over a 2♣ response.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

I often chose not to open a hand that is good enough but may give a rebid probem, such as AKxx-xxxx-Axxxx.

I would open all 3 of them, but it's all about partnership style. To Helene: not sure where the void is. Clubs? If yes, you will have to rebid 2♦ over a 2♣ response.

 

Roland

I'm guessing she meant it to be spades, so 0-4-4-5. That is a serious rebid problem after 1♣ 1♠ for people in countries where the 2♣ rebid promises six, or rarely a good five. It also seems kind of sick to open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ with such a big discrepency between the suits, and watch partner go back to diamonds when 2-2, or maybe even 2-3.

 

I don't think opening 1♥ on her example hand is outrageous. Even a 4-2 in hearts might scramble a lot of tricks since they can't draw your trumps.

[pclayton]

1. Yes I open. But I pass if the suit is a minor. I don't get excited about aceless 11 counts with 5-4's.

 

2 / 3. Am I the only one who notices these hands both have 12 cards?

 

I open all 4432 12 counts with an Ace. Further, both of these have 3 quick tricks so they are auto openers too.

[whereagles]

In today's bidding it's important to get in as early as possible. So if the hand's playing strength is reasonable, it should be opened. All those hands qualify :P

[mike777]

In today's bidding it's important to get in as early as possible. So if the hand's playing strength is reasonable, it should be opened. All those hands qualify :P

As a Contrarian when I see things like this I wonder if it is time to gain by doing the opposite of what everyone is doing which is getting in as early as possible? Maybe we can gain as much if not more by not doing this?

[whereagles]

In today's bidding it's important to get in as early as possible. So if the hand's playing strength is reasonable, it should be opened. All those hands qualify :P

As a Contrarian when I see things like this I wonder if it is time to gain by doing the opposite of what everyone is doing which is getting in as early as possible? Maybe we can gain as much if not more by not doing this?

That reasoning is valid if you need to fabricate some swings. If not, then you should just play the odds. And practice has shown opening borderline hands works better than passing them.