opening bids

[sceptic]

with a tendnacy to open lighter and lighter, some times i use rule of 19 20 or just a hand I like, it is not just me but a lot of BIL members seem to do it and a lot of pick up pards seem to do it.

 

my question is this

 

is opening weaker and weaker ok with the real experts because they can play well and bid well, and have thought through how this will effect their whole system,

 

should people of my level (and some of you have seen me play and seen my posts so you should have some idea what standard I am) stick to solid openers?

 

and should you as a rule (or do you think) that it is better to open solidly with pick ups pards,

 

I would like to see a debate about solid openers and the weaker style of openers

[whereagles]

When I was a junior, the motto was: "juniors must bid 2 levels above the correct one, so that they learn how to play the cards".

 

Open light, play 'em good!

[EricK]

You should stick to a well-designed system.

 

If your system uses light openers that's fine. If your system uses solid openers then that's also fine. But if you take a system which uses solid openers and try to use lighter openers than it was designed to handle then you will get into trouble, as it is unlikley that you will be skilled enough to make all the necessary adjustments.

[awm]

Assuming I'm playing 2/1 with a reasonable pickup, my general thought process is:

 

"Suppose partner has some thirteen count without a particularly good fit, and forces to game. Am I going to be happy playing 3NT on this hand?"

 

If the answer is yes, I'll open... if not I'll pass (or preempt). Of course in 3rd/4th seat the rules are different and I'll open any hand with a decent suit.

 

In general my observation has been that many "experts" open very light and it very frequently gets them into extremely poor game contracts. Excluding those who play methods which systemically deal with light openings, I see mostly poor results from opening weakish hands. I think a lot of people do it because they want to emulate pairs like Meckstroth/Rodwell (who play methods which systemically deal with light openings) and think that they can somehow do this without discussion or agreements. It also works against weak opponents who tend to misdefend the resulting poor game contracts...

 

Of course, there is something to be said for overbidding in order to reach low-percentage contracts and practice your declarer play, but I wouldn't say this is a sound or successful style in general.

[rbforster]

if you take a system which uses solid openers and try to use lighter openers than it was designed to handle then you will get into trouble

Exactly. The issue is that you shouldn't have too wide a range of values for your bid and that you and your partner agree on the "light" end. When I was playing I light opening system with 8-15 openers, our weak 2 bids were 2-8. You had to remember that a 20 count and a fit opposite partner's 2♥ bid was an invite...

[Flame]

Your bridge level shouldnt make you more conservative, feel free to be agressive.

On the other hand i think the world is over the light opening style, I believe today the common knowlege is to open light when you play a limited opening system while open sound when you play a 2/1 or sayc system. the huge range of the 1 level opening in a natural system is big enough no need to streach it even more.

[mikeh]

Agree with all that is said above, especially the need not to overbid as responder if your methods permit light openings.

 

Standard methods have, as a major weakness, a very wide range for 1-level opening bids. Lowering the minimum requirement complicates matters not only by requiring more from responder to establish a game force but also by widening the range of strength shown by opener's rebid structure, unless the upper end of the 1-level bid is also lowered, which, in turn, impacts upon the integrity of the strong 2♣ bid. In other words, the seemingly minor concept of opening lighter than normal hands has the potential for significantly impacting many other sequences.

 

Consider this simple problem: you open 1♠ and partner responds 1N... you have a 2-level rebid.... what range are you showing?

 

No matter what you do with your 2♣ opening requirement, the fact is that is in all coherent standard methods known to me, a jumpshift by opener is game force. An aggressive opening style does not make your cards any more powerful, nor games easier to make, than one finds with normal opening methods. So you cannot safely reduce the strength needed to force to game. This means that the upper limit of your non-forcing 2 level rebid is unchanged, yet the lower limit is less than for normal bidders.

 

Okay, how does that impact us? It significantly changes the risk equation for responder on borderline invites. He is pressured to invite since you may have 17 hcp or so, just as would a normal opener. Yet you may have 10, and now his invite is not to game but to disaster.... perhaps a zero at mps and a loss of 5 or 6 imps on a 'nothing' hand at imps.

 

This problem is made even worse because responder, in order to avoid forcing to game on a mere 13 hcp, is compelled to invite. So he has to invite on hands catering to opener having a near jump shift and also on hands with as much as a conservative opening bid. Now opener has to guess well.

 

So the truth is that either the partnership resolves to miss a lot of games or to consistently overbid or they try to play it down the middle, but, in that case, missing more games than do standard bidders while also getting overboard, at 2N or higher, more frequently.

 

Of course, light opening bids are not all negatives. There are real advantages to the style, but they arise in competitive scenarios, not purely constructive. If the hand belongs to the opps, the light opening bid style will usually afford an advantage. The problems with occasionally being nailed for a penalty or offering a road map for declarer are offset by the disruption caused by your side's consumption of bidding space, especially if responder has a fit for opener. Sometimes one steals outright: Bergen once opened a weak 2 in a suit which was the only denomination in which the opps could make a slam!

 

As for the Rule of 20: ask yourself this question: what use is a method that tells me that 65432 65432 AK K is as much an opener as AQ1098 A10987 1098 void?

 

Yes, I know that the apologists for the Rule argue that you have to use it with judgement... with adjustments. So what?

 

I'd rather use my judgement directly on my appreciation of the playing strength of the hand, not on some metric that barely touches upon playing strength. In my view, anyone who knows enough to adequately modify the results of this Rule doesn't need it, and anyone who lacks that knowledge is going to really screw up.

 

It reminds me of the Rule of 15. A couple of years ago, I was playing against a strong pro and his client. The client passed a hand in 3rd seat with 14 high and a ♠ void. The hand was passed out. We lost 3 imps (and the match) because our partners bid to a reasonable, if aggressive, slam and it failed. The client announced that he wanted to bid but the Rule of 15 prevented him from doing so.

 

Now, any decent player would know not to apply the Rule there, but the trap into which the client fell is very similar to the traps awaitng the novice user of the Rule of 20.

 

I think the problem is that the Rule of 20 measures two characteristics of the hand independently each of the other. More reliable (but still imprecise) tools, such as the LTC, measure these factors concurrently: they take into account not only length/shortness but also the location as well as the number of important high cards.

 

Other adjustments such as in-out valuation, looking at combining honours, recognizing the presence or absence of spot cards afford a direct measure of playing strength, wasted if looked at only as adjustments to an inherently flawed arithmetical rule. Hand evaluation is difficult, it is subtle, it requires practice, but these realities do NOT suggest that learning a simplistc and retrograde formula is the path to success. It is retrograde in that it is a method one has to unlearn (or learn to ignore) once one learns how to play, and meanwhile, it distracts you from doing just that by offering you (if you are a beginner, overwhelmed by the complexity of the game) an easy way to avoid thinking.

[1eyedjack]

I would just add that it is a good idea to be conscious of your position at the table. Opening light in second seat tends to carry the greatest risk, as that is when partner has highest likelihood of going overboard.

 

Opening light opposite a passed-hand partner carries relatively low risk, as long as partner is on the same wavelenth, and some partners introduced Drury or the like to cater for it. Third in hand is the classic situation. 4th is more difficult because you have the guaranteed option of passing it out.

 

1st in hand is something of an odd case. You are reasonably likely to hit partner with a good hand, but also it is the most preemptive time to act.

 

Some play Drury even as non-passed hand, to cope with light openers. There is always a cost. And Drury is not much help if the auction gets competitive before you get a chance to use it.

[Tola18]

If you look at th WM-matches from say the 60ies - or any, it is amazing how light they did open sometimes! Open or contest.

But is is of course like others already said. If you system allows it. If your partner knows you often bid lightly and knows how to copy. And these partnerships are of course well knowing each other. And they are well eguipped to show weak support, medium support or strong GF support.

 

So why experts are opening lighter and not billies is probably experts do have fast partnerships when they do looong serious training.

[Finch]

Watch real experts on BBO vugraph and (I think) that you see:

 

- many pairs playing limited openings (typically in a strong or Polish club base but also the odd pair playing strong two openings) whose system allows them to open light without having an uncomfortably wide range

 

- many pairs who keep their opening bids "up to strength" (12+ HCP balanced, 10+ with a 6-card suit or 5-5 and sometimes not even then)

 

- a very small number opening hands weaker than the traditional in 1st and 2nd seat without playing any sort of strong opening other than 2C.

 

In my experience, it's typically rather weaker players who open very light, and it seems to hurt them more than it gains. I just take my +200 and +300 out of 3NT scoring up with a partial and move on to the next board. (I also see it with a good pro playing with a weaker client, but there is a real justification for that)

[pbleighton]

Generally agree with a lot that has been written here. Mikeh's explanation of the disadvantages of opening light in a natural system was excellent, though I place a bit higher value on the advantages, being a club-level matchpoints player and all :D

 

IMO, if you don't play a strong club system, the best options available to you if you want to open light are:

1) 14-16 NT, 2/1 responses forcing for only one round. The NT range limits your hand on your 1NT rebids.

2) 10-13, 10-12, or 11-14 NT, and make your 1 of a suit openings lightish but not too light. You need a good amount of *risk tolerance* B) to play the mini, especially when vulnerable, but you get lots of good results, and you don't have to use that damned green card so much.

 

I currently play 10-13 NT, 2/1 responses forcing for only one round. I open all but the worst unbalanced 11 counts, and 10 counts which meet Rule of 20 and which have the points mostly in the suits, not too quacky, etc.. I would reluctantly pass the hand in question.

 

I also play 1M-2x-2M as ACOL-style - nonforcing, a minimum hand which wouldn't accept an invitation to 3NT, and which is frequently 5 cards. This has its disadvantages, but allows us to stop in 2M fairly frequently.

 

Peter

[joshs]

The main reason I started writing my hand evaluation column some years ago, was noticing how often intermediate to advanced players were opening

Qxxxx AK Jxxxx x

Going down in game, and saying, but I had to open because of the rule of 20...

 

If the points are all concentrated in your long suits, the rule of 20 is quite appropriate and does reflect the addtional playing strength these lighter hands have. But these bergen 20 hands with scattered values or even worse values concentrated in the short suits, will not make game opposite non-exceptionally fitting 13 counts....

 

Additionally, I think your bidding should not reflect the abstract best play percentages for game, but rather the percentages for game based on your (and your partner's) dummy play skill. In addition to the scoring benefits of going plus, its a bit demoralizing to keep going down in against the odds games, that become hopeless if you can't find the line that actually gives you a legit chance to make it.... Who knows, sometimes you underbid to 3S, misplay it and only make 3, but get some mps anyway, because of the various juniors (or Roland Deciples) who bid your hand up to 5 or 6S.... (or maybe to the wrong strain). In other days you belong in 4S, its an easy to play hand, but happens to go down. There are many ways to win by not over-reaching. There just is no point in bidding 40% vul games, when you only find a 20% line....

 

So in summary, yes I think many players need to tighten up there bidding in general, including their opening bids....

[inquiry]

Opening light within the context of a strong 2♣ system (natural) requires considerable thought to how it affects the remainder of the system. To sit down and say lets play natural or SAYC or 2/1 GF and then open any and all rule of 20 hands is a sure road to frequent disasters with both strongish hand (your partner will worry you hodl the yuck opener) and the weaker hands too.

 

This doesn't mean that a sensible system can not be built that allows weak opening bids within the confines of something other than a strong club system, but it does require considerable effort.

 

Don't torture pickup partnerships by surprizing them with light openers unless the hand has terrific playing stregth as well as being "llight".

 

I open my fairshare of light hands (some less than rule of 20), but not with pickups, and I have a lot of gadgets which, for better or worse, I think allow me to get away with this.

 

For example, I use 2♣ bids by both partners as not-natural forces with one exception for opener (he rebids his club suit at second round) and responder (he raises 1C to 2C). To make room for this stuff, I play Ritong 2C and my 2S and 2H opening bids are "minimum opening hands" with 5+ in bid major and 4+ in clubs specifically.

 

There are other changes to the system as well. I feel that without building an entire system around the light opening bids, it is best not to use them (again, some exceptional playing stregth hands excluded, they can be opened anyway).

[keylime]

I used to be a light initial action guy in my 2/1 p'ships. I've now moved all the way over to near Roth-Stone openings because I am far more comfortable passing initially and balancing back in if needed. That, and it is less stressful once you hear a one-bid from pard.