fourbyone

[joshs]

This is perfect. This helps me understand what you are trying to argue and we can at least debate it with a basis. I do agree with you that if partner is a passed hand, we might want to consider any marginal calls, especially vulnerable against not. However, I try not to adjust my bidding too greatly.

 

You mention having two ways of getting to the same spot as being inefficient. I think you're missing the fact that once partner does not act in a certain way, then you can infer certain things about the hands. I am saying that it seems your style is to put tremendous pressure on the balancer.

 

So Hand 1:

 

North: xx Axx QJxxx xxx

South: QJx KJx Kxx AKx (you need an extra card here, but agree it won't matter)

 

P - (1♠) - ?

 

I personally didn't find the auction 1N - 3N that realistic. I imagine North would invite on the hand and South would sign off. But even if North chose the aggressive action, it could easily be a push versus NOT bidding 1N. For what is south to do when it goes:

 

P - (1♠) - P - (2♠);

P - (P) - ?

 

So I now have to balance on my 3=3=3=4 or my 3=3=4=3 or let the opponents rob me blind? Is partner supposed to guess that one of my hand types is a balanced 16 count with a stopper in their suit?

 

I am not quite sure what you're advocating. If I had to guess, you are saying that South should pass twice. Then South misses an easy 3NT vs xx xx AQJxx Qxxx. Or South should balance. Then NS are in real trouble vs xx xxx xxxxx xxx. OK, NS is in trouble by bidding 1NT as well, but at least they can get out a level lower. I think the principal is to get in and out of an auction quickly rather than having to guess when to balance.

 

I guess I'm agreeing that we should all make some adjustments based on our opening style. I think in particular when to balance or protect, but also when to overcall 1NT. But I think it's rather extreme to move my 1NT overcall style to be, e.g. 17-19 just because partner is a passed hand. For me to change to that, I would have to be playing 8-13 point openers or the like. I currently play 10-15, but will routinely pass bad balanced 12 counts. Thus I don't see the need to adjust my 1NT overcalls.

I was not advocating the auctions I presented. I was commenting that two virtually identical hands (I switched the club and spade holdings) had vastly different expectation of tricks at NT when the oppoents opened a 5 card major, than when the oppoents opened a nebulous minor. The point was that there are a number of factors that can influence the optimal ranges for bids.

 

Most authorities advocate bidding 3N on 23-24 points (23 only with a good potential source of tricks) when the opps open, and your side overcalls 1N (as oppossed to the 25-26 normally required). This algorithm again over simplifies, since it ignores the difference between the opps opening a known 5 card suit (they will be ahead in the race to establish there tricks) and when they open what is potentially a 3 card suit. I was commenting that when the oppoents opens 1 of a minor, and your partner overcalls 1N and you have the kind of good 7 count I presented (5 card suit with some values in it, and a sure entry on the side) that blasting 3N is certainly a reasonable bid (you will have play opposite many 15's when the opponents minor is not 5 cards long OR when the opening leader leads something else not knowing it is 5 cards long). The values required for bids, changes as the information you have changes. If you are playing a light opening bid system like Moscito (the opening bids are 9-14, unbalanced, 5332's with a major and 9-10 are opened 2M, and there is an 11-14 NT) it is suicide to overcall 1N on 15's opposite a passed hand. At best partner has stuff and you break even with pass or x (x is safer then 1N if you have reasonable support for the other suits).

 

With the example hand: QJx KJx Kxxx AKx a 17 count, I would probably overcall 1N anyway even opposite a passed hand (well maybe only NV its really close), but this is pretty min and I don't mind xing instead. Change the hand to QJx Kxx Kxxx AKx and I would x 1S, although I don't mind pass. And weaken it still to: QJx Kxx Kxxx AQx its not even in the range of a 1N overcall opposite an unpassed hand (15's are suppossed to have a double stopper, or a source of tricks-e.g. really be worth at least 16) and I would pass.

 

If my partner has a stiff spade and it goes 1S-P-2S he will act really light with appropriate shape, having already denied having a ten count. With a doubleton, he will probably wait for 8-9 and the right shape to x in. Honestly, when the opps have shown a fit, this really is not as dangerous as you think. I think a 1N overcall on a hand too weak to make game opposite ANY hand partner might have, is dangerous. I mean why not just play 10-12 1N overcalls? The reason is, it doesn't gain that much when partner has stuff (partner will be able to act, and even if he doesn't, defending isn't that bad), and it loses big time when partner doesn't have stuff. Further it doesn't solve the problem of getting to game or not when game is in the realm of possibility.

 

 

This kind of thing occurs all the time in bridge. Consider the auction:

1C(you)-(1S)-P-(P)

1N

 

What does 1N show? 1N shows 18-19. It in fact shows 18-19 even if you are playing weak NT (some will stretch this to 17-19 which is fine). The reason it shows 18-19 and not a 15-16 count is not because with 15-16 you would have opened 1N. It is because partner is nominally about 0-6, except for some moderately uncommon awkward hands, or a penalty pass hand. You don't bid 1N because you like to bid 1N. You bid 1N because you

a. expect to make it a fair % of the time given the information that you have

b. still have some (although maybe faint) hope of making a game

 

Without sufficient values, you may still be able to compete the hand, but you are best off competing in a suit rather than bid 1N when outgunned.

 

If playing a weak NT, and you bid 1N there on 15's

a. you will often go down a lot, and sometimes get xed

b. you will not be able to handle the 19's effectively. xing and bidding 2N (or jumping to 2N which ever you play as weaker) will lead to frequent disasters when partner is broke and bidding 1N will result in missing games, if partner thinks you might have 15.

 

This sort of adjustment to ranges is well known in a number of auctions (I cited in my previous post the 1C-(1H)-1N auction which has a different range playing a weak NT then playing a strong NT), but it is not well enough understood why the adjustment occurs, which leads the the "mistake" in the auctions opposite passed hands when playing light openers.

[joshs]

At some point I had some issues with this too. I think it's mostly a communication issue. The main point is that there are two ways to play opening bids:

 

(1) Mostly count high card points. Don't adjust very much for distribution until you know for sure you have a fit.

 

(2) Assume you have a mild fit and bid accordingly.

 

Which style you play makes a huge difference in the subsequent auction. Let me try to explain why:

 

(1) This is Josh Sher's preferred style. As he opens light, virtually all 10-counts will open. Very few 9-counts will open. Obviously you can adjust your high card point value as you see fit, but the point is that a 5-5 8-count is not an opening bid in this style whereas a balanced 10-count is. Playing this method, there's a very strong inference that a passed hand will not have ten points. This should definitely effect your bidding opposite a passed hand, especially when you are balanced and can tell that game is unlikely opposite partner's 0-9.

 

(2) A lot of people play this style, often without discussion of the impact on the rest of the system. Here, a 5-5 8 or 9-count could easily be an opening bid whereas a balanced 10-count (and maybe some 11s and 12s) would be a pass. In this style, there is not a particularly strong inference about partner's lack of values due to failure to open (he could still have a balanced 11 or whatever). In this case you shouldn't change your bidding much opposite a passed hand (or not much more than standard bidders do) because it can be extremely difficult for two balanced hands to get into an auction later if you pass at first opportunity.

 

It's possible for either style to be internally consistent, and we can argue forever about which is "better." I would make the point that Josh's style (1) is a better fit for a 2/1 game force type followup structure where partner has to be able to decide whether to force game on a misfit at his first bid.

A few points here.

 

1. I am not talking about my prefered style. I am talking about moscitio as published given its opening bid ranges.

 

2. The point here is that if partner makes a bid that is well defined, your bidding is not effective if you can't take advantage of it.

 

If partner's 1H opening showed 11-14ish with 5 cards, you really do not need to be able to distinguish a 2344 5 count from a 2344 8 count. Both are too weak to make game, and both (probably) belong in hearts. These both can be lumped together effectively. You can also jump to game on a 2344 14 count knowing that you are not missing a slam and thus making it harder for the opps bid bid and for the opps to lead. On the other hand if 1H was 11-20, you need to have a way of distinguishing the 5 count from an 8 count and from a 10 or 11 count.

 

If you opened all 10-14 point hands, then Pass is more well defined. If partner passes (0-9), and RHO pre-empts its crazy to bid 3N on a 4333 15 count. Probably -500/800 occurs more often than +400/600. And, further, when +400/600 was available, your partner might still bid.

If You only opened 13+ hands, then pass showed 0-12, and partner is not as well placed since you are less well defined (a wider range). Conseuqently, he may need to gamble on 3N since he can make it not only opposite partners best possible hand, but opposite quite a few of partner's average hands.

 

 

If you played 10-12 NTs, but never have a 5 card major in them, and the other opening bids promised 12 points then pass shows 0-9, or 10-11 unbalanced, or 10-11 with a 5 card major, then you are at a real disadvantage in the the P-3S auction. Partner is slightly weaker on average than normal, but has plenty of hand types which are good enough to make 3N.

 

 

Now this is not a commentary on the work point count. If you used a different evaluation method and opened all hands with 23 zars, or with 15 pubics, or whatever if your partner's pass restricts his range, you need to take advantage of it. Its compeltely irrelevent if you are opening all 10 point hands, or all 8 AKQ hands or all bergen 18's or whatever the method.

 

The comment is that if your system has the following GOOD system property, "that using system evaluation method E (assuming its a reasonably good method), if hand A is stronger than hand B using E, then you never open B and Pass A", then Pass becomes very well defined, and you should be able to take advantage of it. If there is a slight overlap then its a minor flaw, in that your pass becomes a little less well defined. (For instance in standard, you might sensibly open Axx x Kxxxx KJxx but pass Axx x KJxx KT9xx (a better hand) because of the rebid problem. This can be a sensible decision but it is not without weakness, in the effect it has on the descreptive value of your pass.

Similarly playing classical KS, where you open much lighter in the majors than in the minors (my prefered style playing KS) has a major weakness when it comes to the meaning of Pass.

[Echognome]

I think that including distributional values into your decision whether to open is rather standard these days.

 

Would we not consider KJx xxx AQx xxxx a pass and still reasonably consider KJxxxx x AQxxx xx an opener?

 

We haven't a fit yet when we open, but we have a lot more "potential" playing strength. Of course we may buy a horrible misfit with partner. But the fact that we might pass with the first hand (and even say a Q more) and we open with the second hand is not inconsistent at all.

 

By the way, I find Adam's comments very understandable and I see the point.

[joshs]

I think that including distributional values into your decision whether to open is rather standard these days.

 

Would we not consider KJx xxx AQx xxxx a pass and still reasonably consider KJxxxx x AQxxx xx an opener?

 

We haven't a fit yet when we open, but we have a lot more "potential" playing strength. Of course we may buy a horrible misfit with partner. But the fact that we might pass with the first hand (and even say a Q more) and we open with the second hand is not inconsistent at all.

 

By the way, I find Adam's comments very understandable and I see the point.

Of course, who ever said I don't use distribution points??? God. I never said anything about my evaluation methods. I said, that using Moscito which opened all hands that are as good as a bad 4432 11 count (which includes some 6-5 7 counts) then ...

 

If you need 45 Planc Points (whatever those are) to make 3N on average, RHO opens 3S and you are dealt a hand with 33 planc points, a balanced hand and a stopper, you should bid 3N. If the auction was slightly different:

P-3S-?

And partner's pass showed 0-12 planc points, bidding 3N on only 33 is now crazy.

 

If you were playing TRex, where an opening pass is 0-4 points (any shape) or 15-20 points without a 5 card major

and the auction went P-(1S) you do not bid 1N on a balanced 16 count. Partner usually has a 2-3 count. and 16 opposite 2 takes about 1.5 tricks less on average than 9 opposite 9. Your expected imp score for bidding 1N on a balanced 16 is about lose 8, and its probably a 35-40% action at mps (so not quite as bad) when NV, but a 10% action red....

[joshs]

(1) This is Josh Sher's preferred style. As he opens light, virtually all 10-counts will open. Very few 9-counts will open. Obviously you can adjust your high card point value as you see fit, but the point is that a 5-5 8-count is not an opening bid in this style whereas a balanced 10-count is. bid.

Just for the record:

AKxxxxx xxx xx x

Is a clear opening bid playing our ranges

as is:

AKT9x JTxxx xx x

(I would open either one vul, although the first hand can be opened a vul 3S, which has the virtue of showing the seven card suit and a hand about this good, so is a better bid)

just not random 5-5 8 counts with scattered honors.

(NV My minimum is about AKxxx JTxxx xx x)

Adam asked me about ATxxx x KJxxx xx (or something like that) which is a slightly worse hand.

 

I also pass KQ Qxxx Jxxx Kxx playing a 10-12 NT without thinking. Its just not a good enough hand. I never liked the 10-12 range all that much because the ACBL doesn't let me open it with Axx xxx KQT9x xx which is a much better hand than the 11 count I am passing. Given the stupid rules, I tend to prefer a 10.5 to 13 range so there are a lot less 9 counts that are worth upgrading (I still will open the Axx xxx KQT9x xx hand, the ACBL be dammed, since its just too good to pass when playing 10-12 NTs since the ace is closer to 4.5 and the T9 is at least another half, and I have at least another 1 for the strong 5 card suit, so this hand is definitely 11...)

 

Adam and I had an accident a while back, when I opened:

AKJ9x x JT9x xxx with 1S, and I got run over, when he wouldn't stop bidding with his balanced 18 count and 3 card support. Hopefully, we got our ranges down now. For the record, I think

AKJxx x J9xx xxx falls into our opening bid range....

 

Anyway, hand evaluation is an individual skill not a partnership skill. So if adam thinks that ATxxx x KJxxx xx is a better hand than AKJxx x J9xx xxx, he is welcome to open it, and the results long term (or bidding with that hand vs passing with that hand) will determine if his hand evaluation skill is correct. Just for the record, KJxxx x ATxxx xx will produce game more often than ATxxx x KJxxx xx (DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WHY?), and will do as well the rest of the time (and the KJ is a slightly better lead direct than the AT). So even though these hands are just as good as each other, you have slightly higher expected value at imps and even at mps, opening the KJxxx in spades hand than the ATxxx in spades hand.

[joshs]

I wrote a series of articles some years ago on hand evaluation. I posted my first two here:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=hand+valuation