Jump to content

When to open?


Which of these do you open?  

72 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of these do you open?

    • None of them
      0
    • A only
      11
    • A and C only
      48
    • A, B, and C
      2
    • A, C, and D
      6
    • All of them
      5
    • Other
      0


Recommended Posts

I've noticed recently that there are several different opening criteria out there. Let's assume you're playing with a regular partner using whatever methods you prefer. Which of these qualify for a constructive one-level opening bid (not counting whatever preemptive methods you use for weak hands)?

 

A.

 

AQT94

K83

QJ4

T8

 

B.

 

AJ864

KQ2

984

64

 

C.

 

AQ984

4

KJ862

32

 

D.

 

AT854

4

KJ862

32

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A, C, D.

 

B is not a 1st/2nd seat opening hand unless you play light open by agreement.

Neither are C or D. :) (Note: Constructive!!)

 

While many may open them on the basis of rule of 20 (or ZAR), I will assume we are referring to first/second seat openings in a 2/1 context. These hands do not meet criteria for constructive openings in my methods.

 

A barely qualifies, and only because of the suit texture in the spade suit.

 

In 3rd/4th seats, ABC are all openers. I would never open D, regardless of position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing MOSCITO, A, C, and D all qualify for a 1 level opening

 

Here's a few examples of minium strength constructive openings with unbalanced hands.

Balanced or three suited hands require a decent 11 count, which rules out B

 

Hand 1

32

KJ74

6

AT9632

 

Hand 2

64

A2

QT976

K975

 

Hand 3

KT872

A5

Q2

T653

 

Hand 4

9

AT9753

A65

842

 

Hand 5

J87643

AK94

6

T3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zar followers would open all but B which has only 24 ZAR POINTS. I would certainly open A and C, hand D I would open with certain parnters, hand B might open at matchpoints not vul due to the concentration of hcp and as long as I was playing semi-forcing 1NT.

 

So I guess my answer is A and C aare claer openers. Hand D with some partners (say 50/50 opener) and hand B almost never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing MOSCITO, A, C, and D all qualify for a 1 level opening

 

Here's a few examples of minium strength constructive openings with unbalanced hands.

Balanced or three suited hands require a decent 11 count, which rules out B

 

Hand 3

KT872

A5

Q2

T653

To me, this hand looks weaker than Adam's hand B in all respects (including playing strength). So what is the rationale for opening this one but passing with hand B?

 

Arend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are two basic ways to evaluate hands. Either you count distribution heavily or you don't. Of course within this there are a lot of options as to exactly how to do the counting. When I wrote the poll my feeling was that almost everyone opens 5332 12-counts, so A would provide a baseline (and just in case some Fantoni-Nunes or Roth-Stone style players want refuse to open any of these hands constructively that's available). I agree that if you count distribution heavily, C could easily be considered stronger than A, but I'd be surprised if there were many who open C and not A. Feel free to pick "other" if this is you. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing MOSCITO, A, C, and D all qualify for a 1 level opening

 

Here's a few examples of minium strength constructive openings with unbalanced hands. 

Balanced or three suited hands require a decent 11 count, which rules out B

 

Hand 3

KT872

A5

Q2

T653

To me, this hand looks weaker than Adam's hand B in all respects (including playing strength). So what is the rationale for opening this one but passing with hand B?

 

Arend

I agree that Hand B offers more playing strength than Hand A, however, MOSCITO has different standards for balanced and unbalanced hands.

 

I feel a lot more exposed opening a 5332 pattern than I do opening a 5422.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All four in Echo club. However, B is certainly optional. I personally would not open it at vulnerable in 1/2, but I wouldn't mind if my partner did. D is a common opener for us, so that if partner shows a 55 shape, we are mindful that he could be very light. Playing my 2/1 systems, Menagerie MPs or Menagerie IMPs, I would open A and C, but not B and D, but would perhaps open D playing MPs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think every answer except "none of the above" works in at least one of my partnerships (and I could see none of the above if I played Fantoni-Nunes type methods too). In particular:

 

(1) Playing two-over-one in any number of semi-regular partnerships, I would open only A. This is because I expect partner to force to game on a good twelve or any thirteen without a spade fit, and if a diamond fit fails to materialize as well (give partner Jx AKxxx xx KQxx for example) then I'll get into trouble if I opened C. My partners will open pretty light in 3rd/4th especially if holding 4+, which tends to protect the initial pass on hands C and D.

 

(2) Playing what could loosely be called standard american with Elianna (including a number of Italian conventions like Gazilli) I would open A and C. The nice thing about these methods is that partner can make a 2/1 with misfitting hands and still stop short of game when a misfit is discovered.

 

(3) Playing strong club and light openings with Sam, I would open A, C, and D. Once again our decisions whether to game force on a non-fitting hand are delayed a round, allowing the misfit to be evaluated. In fact if Sam held the aforementioned Jx AKxxx xx KQxx, our auction opposite hands C or D would be 1-2-2-Pass. Note that we are not particularly aggressive about opening balanced hands, and would not really consider opening hand B (balanced hands need to be worth a game bid opposite a 13-count from partner).

 

(4) Playing strong diamond and light openings with David, I would consider opening C and D only (the other response). Our 1M openings guarantee unbalanced shape, so hands A and B aren't possible 1 bids. Our 2/1 structures are similar to what I play with Sam. We typically pass balanced 12-counts at vulnerable, although I would consider upgrading hand A to show 13-15 balanced. At NV we play 10-12 notrumps so I would open all four hands.

 

(5) Playing strong club and light openings with Josh Sher, I would definitely consider opening A, B, and C. We play game forcing 2/1 bids, but the misfitting hand (Jx AKxxx xx KQxx) is probably not strong enough to make one. Our opening range is generally 10-14 in 1st/2nd seat. This makes my opening philosophy similar to what I'd open playing 2/1, except that I'm basically "adding a queen" which brings hand B into the opening range but creates the same problems with hand D that a straight 2/1 approach might have with hand C.

 

Anyways I thought this was an interesting survey. The results seem to indicate that people are willing to open about 2-3 points light with a 5-5 hand, which seems to me that it could get them in trouble if they play an approach where partner must immediately decide whether to game force (either via 2/1 GFing or a GF relay) without knowledge of side suit fits. Then again my opinions are decidedly non-mainstream in this regard. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Anyways I thought this was an interesting survey. The results seem to indicate that people are willing to open about 2-3 points light with a 5-5 hand, which seems to me that it could get them in trouble if they play an approach where partner must immediately decide whether to game force (either via 2/1 GFing or a GF relay) without knowledge of side suit fits. Then again my opinions are decidedly non-mainstream in this regard."

 

I share your dislike of 2/1, though I play it (when in Rome...). Your objection above is valid, but the horrible 1NT forcing convention is to me a far worse defect.

 

That said, I open hands like C playing 2/1. The downside of passing seems worse than the occasional bad 2NT/3NT contract. Mileage may vary.

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A is a clear opener in the classical way.Everybody would like to open other shapely two suiters even though they do not conform to the minimum classical requirement of 12+ points.

I think the matter can be easily resolved if one plays Tartans/RCOs and multi 2.Then all these hands can be opened without compromising on the classical requirement of 12 points and 2 defensive tricks.

This of course cannot be done in pick up partnerships.I wonder why very few regular partnerships play Tartans with multi 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This of course cannot be done in pick up partnerships.I wonder why very few regular partnerships play Tartans with multi 2D."

 

You are again misstating what Tartan 2 bids are. Please look them up in the Encyclopedia or Chris Ryall's web site to avoid confusing posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...