responses to opening one bids?

[mike777]

What is the minimum hand you will respond to an opening one bid?

1) With a fit?

2) Without a fit?

[Guest Jlall]

disclaimer: very abnormal response.

 

After a minor opening i will respond with:

 

a 5 card fit and 0+ points.

a 5 card major and 0+ points.

a stiff in partners minor and 0+ points

any 4 points that don't contain 2 jacks

any hand with a stiff and 0+ points.

 

After a major opening if NV I will respond with:

 

3+ trumps and 0+ points

any 4 points that dont contain 2 jacks

any hand with 5+ spades

any hand with a stiff heart over 1H

any king

any hand with a 6 card suit

 

Vul I would pass some kings and some hands with 6 card suits and some hands with 3 card support.

 

NOTE: If the auction goes pass on my left partner opens, and pass on my right, my requirements change considerably.

[awm]

My answer is (as expected) a bit more conservative than Justin's:

 

6+ points with any hand

4-5 points with a 5cM biddable at the one-level

4-5 points with any singleton/void (even in pd's suit)

4-5 points with a known fit (3+ in a major, 5+ in a minor)

0-3 points with a 7cM biddable at the one-level

0-3 points with 5-5 or better in two suits including at least one biddable 5cM

0-3 points with a HUGE fit (5+ in a major, 7+ in a minor)

[HeartA]

Mine is close to Adam's, but even more conservative.

1) Any hand with 6+ hcp or 2+ controls

2) 4+ hcp with biddable suit at 1 level

3) 4+ hcp with fit

4) Any hand with excellent fit.

[pclayton]

My answer is (as expected) a bit more conservative than Justin's:

 

6+ points with any hand

4-5 points with a 5cM biddable at the one-level

4-5 points with any singleton/void (even in pd's suit)

4-5 points with a known fit (3+ in a major, 5+ in a minor)

0-3 points with a 7cM biddable at the one-level

0-3 points with 5-5 or better in two suits including at least one biddable 5cM

0-3 points with a HUGE fit (5+ in a major, 7+ in a minor)

Mine is like Adam's.

 

FWIW, I think Justin's approach should be alertable.

[fifee]

I like light action so someone must be conservative, at least a bit more conservative than Justin.

 

For the most part, I will keep the bidding open for my partner with an Ace or with a King and a fit and some shape.

 

The better the shape, the less I have to have. The better the fit, the less I have to have to respond.

 

With 4-6 dummy points and 3 cd support, I will bid 1NT and then show a preference for partner's opening suit. ( Not enough to raise to 2 immediately for me.)

 

With 4 card or longer support, depends on agreements. Bergenesque raises are 0 to whatever for jump raises. I prefer the tighter Goldway raises which are mostly 3 point spreads.

 

With no fit, depends on shape more than count. The shapelier, the less HCP needed to respond. :P

 

Be thoughtful, most importantly.

 

Thanks, Ben, for helping me get back into forum!

[Guest Jlall]

I like light action so someone must be conservative, at least a bit more conservative than Justin.

Actually if partner has a LIGHT opener it will pay off huge to bid with really bad hands since the opponents have a game and you might well steal from them. It's when partner has a good hand that it will often work out poorly to respond with nothing.

[Guest Jlall]

FWIW, I think Justin's approach should be alertable.

heh, Grainger and I were pre alerting it in the spingold since the matches are long. It probably should be pre-alertable or on the card somewhere. I think having to alert every response to a 1 bid would be a bad system though.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

Jlall's bidding is somewhat more conservative than mine in responding to one bids.

 

I do play a Big Club type system so 'if' partner opens a non 1C bid, my agreement is that I may respond with 0+ HCP.

 

Partner cannot have a huge hand so it is very unlikely that he can try and bury me. The system is also very souped up so that jump shifts promise 6-5(+) hand shapes plus max. type non 1C values.

 

We do pre alert(and also alert our suit bids which may have anywhere from 0+HCP upwards) because we 'are trying to steal' and feel that it is only fair to let the other side in on our little joke.

 

If you happen to hold zero HCP, the odds against holding 'that' hand are something like 1800 - 1 odds. You normally hold a couple of HCP so we normally have 3/4+ HCP for most of our bids.

 

We do like to think that the 'balancing in direct seat' bidders will have major problems with our choice of values for our bids.

 

Regards,

Robert

[mikeh]

FWIW, I think Justin's approach should be alertable.

heh, Grainger and I were pre alerting it in the spingold since the matches are long. It probably should be pre-alertable or on the card somewhere. I think having to alert every response to a 1 bid would be a bad system though.

I cannot imagine not alerting this type of approach, although (for me) one pre-alert would be enough.

 

I have played against this style and it is effective, altho at some cost in terms of system integrity... but it is far more effective against opps who are unaware of it than against those who are aware of it: and that factor alone should drive a player as ethical as Justin (who deservedly enjoys an excellent reputation in that regard) to alert.

 

If you think that a pre-alert is appropriate playing against the calibre of player who enters the Spingold, consider how vulnerable the average matchpoint opp is to this sort of undisclosed agreement B)

 

If the requirement to alert is so tiresome that it spoils the fun of the method, maybe that says something meaningful about the technical merits.

[sceptic]

I will bid with zero points and lots of the suit opened, I will not respond with less than zero points and I think any one that does is a fool, I do take seating and shape into consideration

[Finch]

For a 1-level response to 1 minor, I will bid on most hands with an Ace; on many but not all 5-counts, and on pretty much all 6-counts.

 

Opposite a potentially short club I will respond with many 4/5 counts with a king, a 5+ card major and short clubs.

 

For a 1NT response to a 5-card major opening, I generally require either 5+ with 3-card support or 6+ without support. NV I may have (much) less, but partner doesn't make allowances: he bids assuming I have my announced values. There are also some very strange hands which might bid with less, but they aren't really systemic.

 

After P P P 1 something P I will strain to respond as partner often has a very strong hand unsuitabley shaped for a 2C opening; particularly in the partnership that doesn't play strong 2s in 4th seat.

[Guest Jlall]

FWIW, I think Justin's approach should be alertable.

heh, Grainger and I were pre alerting it in the spingold since the matches are long. It probably should be pre-alertable or on the card somewhere. I think having to alert every response to a 1 bid would be a bad system though.

I cannot imagine not alerting this type of approach, although (for me) one pre-alert would be enough.

 

I have played against this style and it is effective, altho at some cost in terms of system integrity... but it is far more effective against opps who are unaware of it than against those who are aware of it: and that factor alone should drive a player as ethical as Justin (who deservedly enjoys an excellent reputation in that regard) to alert.

 

If you think that a pre-alert is appropriate playing against the calibre of player who enters the Spingold, consider how vulnerable the average matchpoint opp is to this sort of undisclosed agreement :P

 

If the requirement to alert is so tiresome that it spoils the fun of the method, maybe that says something meaningful about the technical merits.

Interesting...maybe I should be alerting. I think in this case pre alerting is much better, otherwise every response to a 1 bid would be "alert." The opps having no clue why I'm alerting (maybe its a transfer, etc) would ask every single time, and I would have to explain a bid that is normal 99 % of the time (and is a reasonably common style anyways). This would slow down the game and be the opposite of what the alert procedure is for. On an extreme, if every bid were alerted because it might be light or sound, the alert procedure would be useless. "very light overcalls" and "light third seat" openers are black on the card, so as far as I know they aren't alertable, presumably for the same reason. I do write light responses to 1 bids on the card and attempt to comply with the ACBL regulations as far as I know them. Maybe I'm supposed to go "above and beyond" in this case but why should it be up to me to determine where I do and do not agree with alert regulations and then go against it?

 

As far as this method being far more effective against people who are unaware of the possibility, I definitely disagree. What kind of defense are you going to use against it? Bid more in sandwich seat? Then you will probably go for more penalties. I probably have an abnormal response 1 out of 100 times, so doing something strange to cater to it is just not practical. The most effective part of the style is when you steal from the opponents, and no matter how good or aware they are, sometimes they will be stolen from. Sometimes neither of them can bid. Basically, everyone loses accuracy.

 

As for the last statement, I don't play any methods because they are "fun" and I don't fail to alert anything because it's "not fun", I play methods that I think are winning bridge. In my experience, even against very good players, it is winning bridge to very rarely pass a 1 bid. You have plenty of upside and only a small downside (parnter jumpshifting or bidding 2N, or the auction becoming competitive and partner not knowing what to do). When you pass a 1 bid the opponents can play the hand double dummy and have a free ride in the auction, which is a worse thing against good players than bad players.

[cherdano]

To me it feels wrong to alert these very light responses. Esp. in North America, many experts agree with Justin's style (including Mikeh's most famous bidding theory countryman...). So I think it's one of the styles you have to expect at the table, and if you need to know, you have to ask. Similar as you need to ask whether a w2 bid can routinely be made on 5332 with a good suit etc.

Alerts seem more helpful when they are reserved for bids with unexpected meaning, not just those that are on the aggressive side of the typical styles for a bid.

 

Arend

[awm]

Actually, the ACBL alert chart indicates that very light openings (less than 10 hcp) or overcalls (less than 6 hcp) are both a pre-alert and an alert during the auction.

 

Most directors don't know this, and the official ACBL convention card (which is not an authority on what is/is not alertable) does't have it marked in red.

 

Responses to a one-level opener that "could be very light" are not alertable or pre-alertable in the official regulations, although they might (or might not, depending who you ask) fall under the category of "highly unexpected strength or range" and therefore be an alert.

 

I should also mention that this is an area where (as Elianna would say) the rules on the ground are very different from the official rules. Opening light in third seat is considered "normal" and even though the alert charts indicate that an agreement to open on less than 10 hcp in third seat should be both an alert during the auction and a pre-alert, no one ever alerts it and no director will ever rule that there was damage from a failure to alert it. On the other hand, opening light in first seat will often be ruled damaging if not disclosed.

[awm]

A related question to those who sometimes respond on zero points without exceptional shape (like Justin for example):

 

If you have one of these very light hands, and partner makes a forcing rebid (jump shift, reverse) do you typically pass or bid on? And if you typically bid, how much would you really lose by playing an ehaa-like style without a strong bid, given that 1-suit is being treated as "almost forcing" anyway? There are all kinds of fun and annoying uses that a weak 2♣ bid can be used for, after all. :P

[hrothgar]

As far as this method being far more effective against people who are unaware of the possibility, I definitely disagree. What kind of defense are you going to use against it? Bid more in sandwich seat? Then you will probably go for more penalties. I probably have an abnormal response 1 out of 100 times, so doing something strange to cater to it is just not practical.

The question whether or not to alert this type of light advance style is a very tricky one. I can see arguments on both sides:

 

Consider the following auction

 

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - 1NT

 

Traditionally, this NT bid was treated as natural, showing (roughly) 16 - 18. More recently people switched to a so-called sandwhich NT, where I NT showed some form of 2-suited takeout. Even more recently, I've seen a number of top experts stating that they are switching back to the original natural meaning. They specific cite weak-advance styles as the reason for this move.

 

I ran a very quick and dirty script to see whether this was reasonable.

 

North had 11+ HCP (placeholder for an aggressive opening)

East had 0-8 HCP (placeholder for a pass)

 

I then calculated a frequency distribution for West's HCP's using two different conditions.

 

Condition 1: South had 6+ HCP (placeholder for a standard advance style)

Condition 2: South had 0+ HCP (placeholder for a highly aggressive advance style

 

Using condition 1, West held 16-18 HCP 3.84% of the time

Using condition 2, West held 16-18 HCP 6.4% of the time

 

The question becomes: Is this chance significant? Do you believe that people should make significant changes to their methods based on this subtle a shift in frequency?

 

I'd probably agree with Justin that modifying the methods is likely to be more trouble than its worth.

[Guest Jlall]

A related question to those who sometimes respond on zero points without exceptional shape (like Justin for example):

 

If you have one of these very light hands, and partner makes a forcing rebid (jump shift, reverse) do you typically pass or bid on?

Typically pass without any hope for a game.

[Guest Jlall]

Actually, the ACBL alert chart indicates that very light openings (less than 10 hcp) or overcalls (less than 6 hcp) are both a pre-alert and an alert during the auction.

 

Most directors don't know this, and the official ACBL convention card (which is not an authority on what is/is not alertable) does't have it marked in red.

 

Responses to a one-level opener that "could be very light" are not alertable or pre-alertable in the official regulations, although they might (or might not, depending who you ask) fall under the category of "highly unexpected strength or range" and therefore be an alert.

Maybe this is the problem then... how can there be a rule that opening light is alertable, but then its not enforced because its normal (in third)? How is anyone expected to know what theyre supposed to alert or not if this is how things are run?

[Elianna]

"very light overcalls" and "light third seat" openers are black on the card, so as far as I know they aren't alertable, presumably for the same reason.

As Adam said, they're alertable.

 

(This is not just directed at Justin) The convention card color-coding is not the official alert chart. The alert chart can be found at http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html. The cc cc (love those abbreviations!) is just a guide.

[Elianna]

Actually, the ACBL alert chart indicates that very light openings (less than 10 hcp) or overcalls (less than 6 hcp) are both a pre-alert and an alert during the auction.

 

Most directors don't know this, and the official ACBL convention card (which is not an authority on what is/is not alertable) does't have it marked in red.

 

Responses to a one-level opener that "could be very light" are not alertable or pre-alertable in the official regulations, although they might (or might not, depending who you ask) fall under the category of "highly unexpected strength or range" and therefore be an alert.

Maybe this is the problem then... how can there be a rule that opening light is alertable, but then its not enforced because its normal (in third)? How is anyone expected to know what theyre supposed to alert or not if this is how things are run?

Some officials need to take a course in logic (and this doesn't apply to just bridge officials).

 

Adam got an email that basically said:

 

a ) The rules for first and third seat openings are the same.

 

b ) You must alert if you have an agreement to open light, and you may not have an agreement to open with less than 8HCP.

 

c ) You may have an agreement to open in third chair with less than 8HCP ("because they all would open those hands")

[mikeh]

It is not merely a question of changing methods... I agree that there would not usually be any basis for adopting different methods. But that is less than half of the story.

 

Consider the following auction: 1x P 1y p 3y p p.... or imagine dealer raised to 4y.

 

You are on defence. Is any self-respecting expert seriously going to argue that they have no interest, in the defence of the hand, in knowing whether, by sysemic agreement, declarer could hold 0 hcp? Will it make a difference on every hand...no, of course not. Will it be always irrelevant....no, of course not.

 

When one is defending at imps, one strives to beat the contract and we all know that we are supposed to picture and play for layouts that permit this. We can picture different layouts, and different degrees of risk-benefit depending on the assumptions we make about the hidden hands. If we assume that declarer has at least a decent 4 count, for example, we are apt to come up with a different line than when we can expand the possibilities to include a zero count.

 

For example, we may conclude that we cannot beat the hand at all if declarer holds as many as 3 hcp and that trying to beat the hand will usually cost an overtrick. If we can assume that the opps bid as in 'standard', we cash out and avoid the needless loss of an imp. However, had we been alerted to the possibility of a zero count (or a 1 or 2 count) we will defend differently.

 

At mps, our considerations in the play will be somewhat different, but we will stil lbe interested in assessing whether to play for a set at the risk of an overtrick. We will sometimes be trying to evaluate how good a score we are getting by cashing out (maybe we see that we might have been able to get in the auction and go +110, and we need therefore to be +200). All of these situations, and others, can be affected by the assumptions we make about declarer's hand.

 

And what about when we compete and declare. Are we not entitled to know the opps agreements now? We will often be drawing inferences about the location of missing hcp, and knowing that rho promises or does not promise certain values, by systemic agreement will influence the thinking of any competent player.

 

And what about the decision to balance? While most times, being aware that rho may hold zero wil make little difference, there will be times when our decision to balance is very close. An appreciation of the minimum strength promised by either opponent will assist us in assessing the likelihood of partner having the holdings we need to make a balance a good gamble. Sure, this situation will be rare, and the influence of knowledge subtle, but it is real.

 

Any good, experienced player has drawn inferences from the opps' actions...but the reliability of the inference is dependent upon an understanding of the opps's style. When they use a non-standard method without pre-alerts or actual alerts, their opps are at a disadvantage and I fail to understand how anyone could disagree with that.

 

Now, is the 'I respond on zero' becoming so standard that one should expect it or specifically ask about it? I don't think so, and so I think this approach ought to be explicitly disclosed. I repeat: win on the merits of the methods, not by concealment of non-standard agreements...is there really any poster here who feels otherwise????

[Guest Jlall]

I repeat: win on the merits of the methods, not by concealment of non-standard agreements...is there really any poster here who feels otherwise????

That is a very nice long post with a nice ending, but what is your point? Do you suggest that those who respond lightly are trying to win by concealing their methods? Do you think those who play certain methods have the ability to decide the alert procedures? I'm not really sure what your point is here. Perhaps you should e-mail the ACBL with your post to tell them that responding light should be alertable, but what difference does it make here?

 

BTW perhaps before you make all of your high level inferences you can ask the opps how light they can respond since you know that responding light is not alertable, but that would be too simple perhaps.

[mikeh]

That is a very nice long post with a nice ending, but what is your point? Do you suggest that those who respond lightly are trying to win by concealing their methods? Do you think those who play certain methods have the ability to decide the alert procedures? I'm not really sure what your point is here.

I am not in the least suggesting an improper motive for light openers or light responders. I completely accept that Justin and other users of the method use it because they perceive that the benefits outweigh the costs.

 

As for 'not understanding': why would you pre-alert this method in a Spingold but feel that alerting it otherwise is wrong???

 

If the ACBL says no need to alert (and I don't know whether it does), why pre-alert presumably expert opps in long matches but not non-experts in short rounds?????

 

You presumably pre-alert in the Spingold out of a sense of fair play... is that only applicable to expert opps? Surely the typical non-expert Open Pair opp needs the pre-alert or alert far more than a world champion in a Spingold match?

 

As for my high level inferences, suggesting that a player should be grilling an opp about bidding style in mid-play is silly. Any such questioning by a defender cannot help but convey information to his partner. Any such questioning by a declarer cannot help but convey information about his hand (what problem is he trying to solve?) to both defenders? And what about during the bidding?

 

If I am in the tank over a balancing decision and bid only after asking if rho might be bidding on a zero count, is it truly a 'high level inference' to conclude that I balanced light?

 

Finally, and I am astounded that you 'don't understand', surely the spirit of the game requires disclosure of non-standard agreements. Now, if you believe that your agreement doesn't require disclosure...why do you pre-alert some opps?

[Guest Jlall]

I still dont understand your point. I cannot change the alert laws. If you don't like them thats fine. If you think it should be alertable thats fine, but expecting me to alert out of "the spirit of the game" is ridiculous to put it mildly. I'm not some alerting vigilante. And I really don't think it's in the spirit of the alert system. Do you ever open 1N with a 6 card minor? Do you alert this? It is non standard, by your logic its in the spirit of the game to alert. I really think thats silly and I don't feel like I am concealing anything by complying with the alert procedure.