Balanced minimum without 4 card major

[EricK]

Assuming you play strong NT, in first seat, is it worth opening balanced minimum hands without a 4 card major?

 

Here, in no particular order, are some reasons why it might not be:

 

If you have a game, partner is almost bound to have an opening bid in third seat, so there is no particular rush to open.

 

If it is a part score hand your way, then the chances are it is because partner has a reasonable hand with a long major. In those instances he will have a third seat opener or enough to bid over LHO

 

If the par score is their way then bidding will only help them to place the cards, and might also encourage partner to overcompete.

 

If LHO has an opening bid of 1 of a major he will still be able to bid it over your 1m. But the reverse is not necessarily true - he may have a hand which would bid over your 1m but would pass if you pass.

 

If you don't open these hands, then a 1NT rebid by you when you do open 1m will promise length in the other major (so eg 1♣ 1♠ 1NT will show 4♥ in a balanced hand. Similarly 1♣ 1♥ 1NT can promise 4♠ and 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ can promise 5♣ and 4♠).

 

If you do open 1m and the bidding goes eg (1♠) X (P) you will often not have a reasonable bid.

 

Have I convinced anyone?

[MickyB]

Hmm, the problem is that 12-14 bal isn't terribly easy to show if someone gets in there before you - particularly 12-14 bal without a 4 card major because you are unlikely to be suitable for a later takeout double. Also, what are you responding to a 3rd seat opening?

[EricK]

Hmm, the problem is that 12-14 bal isn't terribly easy to show if someone gets in there before you - particularly 12-14 bal without a 4 card major because you are unlikely to be suitable for a later takeout double. Also, what are you responding to a 3rd seat opening?

I would probably only try this if I were playing 14-16 NT (which I prefer to 15-17 anyway) - thus restricting the "problem" hands to the 12-13 range.

 

Obviously one would have to adjust the system to cater for this sort of hand. Depending on what sort of hands you open in third seat, either a forcing NT (which opener is only allowed to pass if he is subminimum) or an old-fashioned Drury which doesn't promise a fit.

 

You are right that 12-13 point hands are not easy to show in competition, but that is also often the case if you are forced to open them 1m!

[david_c]

I don't see what problem this is trying to solve. If I pick one of these hands, and ask whether you'll be better of passing rather than opening 1m, I think the answer is pretty clearly no. Certainly you won't be doing too badly, for all the reasons mentioned, but it's not going to win you IMPs on these hands.

 

So you must be expecting some gain on the hands you do still open. Whatever this is, I can't see it. You do have the inference that a 1NT rebid shows a 4-card major, but this seems to be virutally useless to partner while being very useful for the opponents.

[EricK]

I don't see what problem this is trying to solve. If I pick one of these hands, and ask whether you'll be better of passing rather than opening 1m, I think the answer is pretty clearly no. Certainly you won't be doing too badly, for all the reasons mentioned, but it's not going to win you IMPs on these hands.

 

So you must be expecting some gain on the hands you do still open. Whatever this is, I can't see it. You do have the inference that a 1NT rebid shows a 4-card major, but this seems to be virutally useless to partner while being very useful for the opponents.

If responder responds 1♠ with 54 in the majors and you rebid 1NT he knows there is a 4-4 ♥ fit. If he responds 1♥ and you have 4♠ you can bid 1NT with a balanced hand and 1♠ with an unbalanced hand. Notice that this hand type - the balanced hand with 4♠ - is a major source of controversy (whether to rebid 1♠ or 1NT), and this method solves it.

 

It is not clear to me though why, in principle, passing can't win IMPS. If it is not your hand then you will likely win IMPS by not bidding, and if it is your hand you might win IMPS (when LHO has an overcall but not an opening bid) or you might lose IMPS or (most likely) you won't gain or lose.

 

That doesn't mean I am convinced that this method would gain IMPS, but why are you convinced it would lose IMPS?

[david_c]

That doesn't mean I am convinced that this method would gain IMPS, but why are you convinced it would lose IMPS?

Theoretically speaking, for the reason MickyB gave.

 

Alternatively, given that the most widely-played systems in the world involve opening 1m on minimum balanced hands, if passing was better don't you think someone would have noticed by now? :)

[awm]

The information about a side major tends to be much more useful to the opponents. Suppose the auction goes 1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT-All Pass. This is now a virtually automatic club lead, because opener must have 4♦+4♥. If responder had four hearts, he would be bidding two hearts or using checkback anyway so the opening side hasn't gained much of anything.

 

There's also no reason that a minor suit can't win a competitive auction. Bidding like 1m-P-3m can put a lot of pressure on opponents. Opening relieves some pressure on partner in auctions where opponents preempt; for example suppose LHO is bidding 2♠ and partner has a balanced 13-count. If we started with pass, partner will have a tough time especially if the wrong shape for a double. And our (first seat) hand isn't really the right shape to double either (no 4-card hearts). We could easily miss game on a hand where people opening have no issues finding it.

 

Part of the problem is that, as you've mentioned, these hands tend to be hard to show later in auctions after the initial pass. We have the wrong shape to takeout double (usually you want four cards in the other major). Say I pass and LHO opens and partner overcalls 1M... this hand is probably too good for pass or 1NT, but 2NT is a poor contract and punishes partner for overcalling on 8 points for the lead. Much easier to open and rebid 1NT.

 

I just don't see a lot of benefits. In fact I've had much better results passing shapely hands with long clubs (tends to be relatively easy to back in later). With a balanced hand it's good to announce your shape and values right away. Admittedly a 1m opening doesn't actually "show" 12-14 balanced, but as this is by far the most common hand type it's what partner will assume in competition.

[inquiry]

This is an interesting concept. The down sides to this approach might miss:

1) a good lead directing bid if your minor is strong

2) more hands will be passed out when your side might be due to a plus in 1NT or 2 of a minor

 

As I understand it (using 11-13 hcp as "minimum"), you propose that

 

Kxx Qxx AQxx Qxx is not an opening bid, but

Kxx AQxx Qxx Qxx is an opening.

 

I suspect that passing balanced 11 hcp with such hands would be a winner. I almost always pass those hands with or without a four card major. Even passing with 12 hcp and 4333 or 4432 with out at least one four card major is something I do in first/second seat often. But passing with 13 hcp, especially with 4432 pattern is not something I think I can easily accept.

[Winstonm]

Although you address the positive issues (and I generally agree with you and don't open a lot of flattish 12 counts), the secondary issue is that if you do open you put your opponents into defensive bidding mode. Regardless of how good the opps, their defensive bidding schemes are not as compreshensive as their offensive bidding schemes so to put them on the defensive is always good.

[EricK]

Alternatively, given that the most widely-played systems in the world involve opening 1m on minimum balanced hands, if passing was better don't you think someone would have noticed by now? :)

Not if they hadn't thought of it!

 

It is clear (isn't it?) that given any HCP strength of hand, it is better that the long suits are majors rather than minors. Hence whatever your minimum HCP strength is for a hand with a major suit it makes sense (doesn't it?) that your minimum HCP strength should be somewhat better for opening hands without a major suit.

 

Is Qx xxx KQJx KJxx as strong as KQJx KJxx xxx Qx? Just because it pays to open one does it follow that it pays to open the other?

[Winstonm]

Although you address the positive issues (and I generally agree with you and don't open a lot of flattish 12 counts), the secondary issue is that if you do open you put your opponents into defensive bidding mode. Regardless of how good the opps, their defensive bidding schemes are not as compreshensive as their offensive bidding schemes so to put them on the defensive is always good.

 

Also, with minimum and flattish minor hands the usual goal for game is 3N, which means partner will need to provide an opening hand, discounting the odd long, fitting minor and a couple of side aces hand. Bidding in my opinion should be directed toward the most usual occurrences first, and if the oddities can be incorporated fine.

[EricK]

The information about a side major tends to be much more useful to the opponents. Suppose the auction goes 1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT-All Pass. This is now a virtually automatic club lead, because opener must have 4♦+4♥. If responder had four hearts, he would be bidding two hearts or using checkback anyway so the opening side hasn't gained much of anything.

But if opener doesn't have 4 ♥ or 3♠ repsonder is better off not bidding checkback or 2♥!

[awm]

The information about a side major tends to be much more useful to the opponents. Suppose the auction goes 1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT-All Pass. This is now a virtually automatic club lead, because opener must have 4♦+4♥. If responder had four hearts, he would be bidding two hearts or using checkback anyway so the opening side hasn't gained much of anything.

But if opener doesn't have 4 ♥ or 3♠ repsonder is better off not bidding checkback or 2♥!

But this is not what's going to happen. If I open, opponents will know I have 4 cards in the other major regardless of whether partner needed that information.

 

On the other hand, if I start with a pass and partner opens, then I'll bid something (probably a semi-forcing 1NT). If my bid denies four cards in the other major (for example I bid 1NT over 1♥) then opponents know I don't have four cards there. Otherwise partner will still "check back" here by bidding his second suit naturally.

 

The only time opponents really have less information is when you simply sell to their contract without ever making a call. I suspect that an attitude of "I'll just pass throughout unless partner shows a good hand" will not serve you well on these hands.

 

In terms of the strength of opener's hand, I asked about this at some point when people were running a lot of simulations to evaluate ZAR points and other schemes -- the result was that 4432 patterns are only very slightly more likely to produce games than 2344 patterns. It's worth maybe half a point, which doesn't justify opening 4432 11s while passing 2344 13s.

[glen]

My belief, based on study and then trying out various approaches for many years, is:

 

- 3-3-3-4 and 3-3-4-3 12 counts are best passed, though results can be quite variable if points are concentrated.

- 5-3-3-2s with a 5 card minor should open if within or close to the system range - in particular the system should allow 11 counts to open.

- 3-2-4-4 and 2-3-4-4 is a give-or-take. For example it might find a minor fit, but the opponents find a major fit. Not-vul, these should open if within system range, while if vulnerable, only 12+ counts should open.

[SoTired]

i hate "backing in" to auctions. For one, partner will not play me for strength. Second, the opponents get a free ride to describe their hands.

 

So you pass your balanced 12 hcp hand, LHO opens a weak 2S bid, and partner also passes his balanced 13 hcp with a doubleton in the other major. Do you reopen your 12 hcp 3334 or just pass it out? After all, if the hand was not good enough to open at the 1-level how can you come in now, blind, at the 3-level? Of course you pass because if you reopen, you could get killed. So you defend 2H, never knowing that your side has the balance of strength. If you had opened, you would be playing in 3N or a good partial.

 

When my partner passes in 1st or 2nd seat, I want to be able to place no more than 11 hcp with partner.

 

Finally, all top experts are opening lighter and lighter. Roth-Stone experimented with sound openings and failed. Many other ideas from RS have been adopted, but sound openings have not. It has its benefits, but the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

[hrothgar]

The information about a side major tends to be much more useful to the opponents. Suppose the auction goes 1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT-All Pass. This is now a virtually automatic club lead, because opener must have 4♦+4♥. If responder had four hearts, he would be bidding two hearts or using checkback anyway so the opening side hasn't gained much of anything.

Why can't opener hold 2=3=4=4 shape?

 

For that matter, there are a lot of folks who require 4 card support to raise a 1M advance to 2M and might easily be sitting on 3=2=4=4 shape

 

1=4=4=4 isn't out of the realm of possibility....

[awm]

Why can't opener hold 2=3=4=4 shape?

 

For that matter, there are a lot of folks who require 4 card support to raise a 1M advance to 2M and might easily be sitting on 3=2=4=4 shape

 

1=4=4=4 isn't out of the realm of possibility....

Because the premise is that we're passing balanced hands in the 11-13 range with 2344 and 3244 shape, and opening the 14-counts 1NT.

 

This is exactly why the opponents have a harder opening lead problem if your 1NT rebid does not have to include 4 cards in the other major than when it does.

[EricK]

i hate "backing in" to auctions. For one, partner will not play me for strength. Second, the opponents get a free ride to describe their hands.

Sometimes they get a freer ride if you open. Many people holding eg KQxxx Kxx Jxxx x in second hand won't open if you pass but will overcall 1♠ if you open 1m. And if you play that a pass can hold a fairly strong minor oriented balanced hand then partner can play you for it.

 

So you pass your balanced 12 hcp hand, LHO opens a weak 2S bid, and partner also passes his balanced 13 hcp with a doubleton in the other major. Do you reopen your 12 hcp 3334 or just pass it out? After all, if the hand was not good enough to open at the 1-level how can you come in now, blind, at the 3-level? Of course you pass because if you reopen, you could get killed. So you defend 2H, never knowing that your side has the balance of strength. If you had opened, you would be playing in 3N or a good partial.

And another time you will open your 3334 12 point hand, LHO will overcall 2♠ your partner will double and you won't have a clue what to do. I am not saying that my idea will work all the time. I do know that no method works all the time though, so that is hardly a point against what I am advocating.

 

Finally, all top experts are opening lighter and lighter. Roth-Stone experimented with sound openings and failed. Many other ideas from  RS have been adopted, but sound openings have not. It has its benefits, but the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

I am not suggesting sound openings. I am advocating sounder openings on a particular group of hands. Specifically those hands of "opening strength" where we are least likely to actually want to play the hand (balanced hands with length only in minor suits). I think as many hands as possible with a major suit should be opened.

[hrothgar]

Why can't opener hold 2=3=4=4 shape? 

 

For that matter, there are a lot of folks who require 4 card support to raise a 1M advance to 2M and might easily be sitting on 3=2=4=4 shape

 

1=4=4=4 isn't out of the realm of possibility....

Because the premise is that we're passing balanced hands in the 11-13 range with 2344 and 3244 shape, and opening the 14-counts 1NT.

 

This is exactly why the opponents have a harder opening lead problem if your 1NT rebid does not have to include 4 cards in the other major than when it does.

Sorry, misunderstood your original post

 

too many beers too early in the afternoon

[bid_em_up]

I play in a partnership that does not open balanced 11-12 counts in 1st or 2nd seat. However, this also requires both partners to be on the same wavelength and strive to open weaker hands (9-10 counts) in 3rd/4th seats to protect any partscore your side may have.

 

The drawback to this are mainly due to agressive openings/preempts by opponents in 2nd or 3rd seats. It does require a LOT of partnership trust (not to mention patience) to balance on Axx KJx KJxx xxx after:

 

pass (3♣) p p ? or worse,

 

pass (3♦) p p ?

 

Do you balance? or do you sell out quietly?

 

Sometimes, either partner will get these situations wrong. Oh well. Preempts do work on occasion.

 

Another drawback is that you will miss an occasional marginal game that just happens to make, although this is fairly infrequent.

 

However, the major advantages (to me) outweigh these drawbacks. For the most part, this partnership is very strong on defense so after a full opening bid in 1st/2nd, we are usually much better placed on judging when to double opponents at low levels for heavy penalties when they stick their necks out. It makes game/slam bidding much easier (for us, at least).

 

I advocate this practice in most of my partnerships. However, I also realize it is not the "norm".

 

As always,

 

jmoo.

[Blofeld]

A problem with this approach that hasn't been mentioned is that if there are 12 and 13 point hands which you aren't opening, partner must curb the top end of his or her third seat preempts. Which is going to make it a little easier for the opponents.