You should open the bidding if...

[EricK]

Various "authorities" will give different opinions as to what constitutes an opening bid - 12 HCP, rule of 20, 26 Zars etc etc.

 

But what is the reasoning which underlies any of these rules of thumb?

 

I suspect it is something like one of these:

 

a) you should open the bidding if the chance that you can make game is above some probability, g

 

:rolleyes: you should open the bidding if the chance that the highest making contract is your way is above some probability, c

 

c) you should open the bidding if the chance that the par score is your way is above some probability, p

 

The reason I think this is that it tries to relate whether to open or not to some concrete bridge related statistic rather than to some arbitrary scale.

 

Do you think I am on the right track here? And if so, what is the approximate value of these probabilities?

[Stephen Tu]

You can't just make blanket statements that "this hand should be opened", and "this hand should not be opened". It's system dependent. Some systems are designed to be able to show very light opening bids without partner hanging you. Others aren't.

 

The fundamental rule, IMO, is "open this hand if you think, given your system agreements, in the long run your net score will be higher by opening than it will be by passing." Net score includes potential losses/gains on other boards due to increased/decreased opening bid ranges affecting your accuracy.

[Echognome]

Agree very much that it is system dependent. I also believe it's position dependent. It's quite clear that people treat 3rd in hand openers much different from 1st, 2nd, or 4th openers. 4th seat openers tend to be sounder than all other positions.

 

I think you are addressing some of the issues concerned with opening, but don't forget things like directing the lead, helping the defense (but don't forget you are simultaneously helping declarer), and disrupting your opponents bidding machinery. Also in regards to par, there are many versions of par (see S.J. Simon for a good discussion of this) and of course opening affects all of these.

 

I'm not saying it's not an itneresting debate, just that there are a lot of factors to consider.

[EricK]

You can't just make blanket statements that "this hand should be opened", and "this hand should not be opened". It's system dependent. Some systems are designed to be able to show very light opening bids without partner hanging you. Others aren't.

 

The fundamental rule, IMO, is "open this hand if you think, given your system agreements, in the long run your net score will be higher by opening than it will be by passing." Net score includes potential losses/gains on other boards due to increased/decreased opening bid ranges affecting your accuracy.

Yes it is system dependant, but given any system I still think there must be an underlying reason why some hands should be opened and some not. An underlying reason relating to how likely you are to reach various sorts of contract. A reason why opening a hand leads to a higher average score than passing it.

[neilkaz]

I'll stir the pot a bit and state that you should open the bidding with a forcing bid if there's a very good chance to make game opposite a hand PD will pass if you just open with a 1 bid.

 

Yes..what I am saying is that they typical "American" 2♣ system can and should be improved.

 

Food for thought ?!?.., anyhow I am off to enjoy my turkey .. neilkaz ..

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

Bidding is a matter of the partnership 'likes.'

 

The current trend appears to be to open with weaker and weaker hands. Some exceptions continue to exist. One Italian pair currently plays a virtually unlimited one bid opening. Roth Stone cut a path in American bridge starting in the 50s(?) with their 'very sound' openings and solid 'free bid' standards.

 

I suspect that most people like to bid, so they use a method that allows them to open more hands. Precision methods seem to have spread because they allowed more bids with hands that were passes using other methods.

 

My Precision style from several decades ago was to play Precision '2 up and 2 down.' We played Precision with 1st and 2nd seats using ranges 2HCP lower and 3rd and 4th seats using ranges that were two HCP higher. 9-13HCP was the limited opening range in 1st and 2nd seats.

 

Since we opened so light, we used a slightly more conservative style in 3rd and 4th seat. It was fun and we were able to bid more hands. Responder merely 'added' or subtracted' 2HCP to make the proper bid.

 

IMO a system is chosen because a pair 'likes' to bid using 'that style.' Almost any good system will produce good results 'given a decent' partnership. A lesser pair will simply not produce the same results 'even' if they are trying to play the exact same methods.

 

The Blue Team destroyed virtually all competition for several decades using an assortment of systems(Roman and Blue Team were just two of their bidding methods)

 

I have seen comments that the Italians of those same years would have still won playing the methods of the other teams. I have little doubt that this was true.

 

I currently play a highly modified Big Club system(it started out as Precision) so I think that the problem with typical "American" 2C methods has already been solved. :rolleyes:

 

The advantages of a big club system are mainly gained from using the 'limited' bids.

 

Regards,

Robert

[zasanya]

My Guru explained it this way about 25 years (may be more :-)) ago.

There are 40 points in the pack using the Milton Point count.The number of tricks is 13.So average is 10 points per hand and 3 points per trick.The opener should be 1 trick more than average .Hence 10+3 is a sound opening.Over the years people refined the Milton Point, enhanced the value of Aces and kings and long suits and started opening on lighter hands.

The main advantage of precision in my opinion is the various gadgets available after the 1♣ opening which leads to better slam contractsIt is the 16+ hands which are difficult to describe in natural methods.Precision makes it easy if there is no interference.Alas these days thats a big if.

[sceptic]

to open you need 0-40 hcp and at least 0 cards in the suit you bid

 

You just need to find something that suits you

 

I DOUBT there is a right or wrong answer unless you start making it system specific, anyway that is my pearl of wisdom today

[jillybean]

Maybe its just me but when I ask this question or respond to the same I am using sayc, 2/1 standard type bidding not Clauses version of Regres, Moscito or any other fringe system, lets not make it more difficult than it already is :)

[inquiry]

You should open the bidding if...

• You have an opening hand
  
• you really want partner to lead a particular suit
  
• you think by opening you might make it more difficult for the opponents to get a good result (psyche)
  
• it is your turn to bid and you want too
  

[rbforster]

Don't forget this one - any other action would imply a stronger hand than you have and would hence mislead partner. 2♣ fert here we come...

[matmat]

You should open the bidding if...

• 
   
  
• it is your turn to bid and you want too
   
  

I'm with Ben.

[pbleighton]

"Maybe its just me but when I ask this question or respond to the same I am using sayc, 2/1 standard type bidding not Clauses version of Regres, Moscito or any other fringe system, lets not make it more difficult than it already is"

 

Even within your parameters, system and agreements matters. I am definitely more aggressive playing with some people than others, and am more aggressive playing SA than 2/1.

 

With SA or 2/1, if you agree to pass the majority of (literal, unadjusted) 12 counts, this is definitely a playable style (though I wouldn't want to play it for aesthetic/fun reasons). With SA, you can also agree to open most 11 counts/good 10 counts, and this is also playable. The definitions of weak, invitational, and GF hands by the responder obviously will differ between these two styles.

 

I prefer a light style (actually weak/mini NT too), but with a pickup pd playing "SAYC" (whatever that turns out to be), I tend to be pretty literal, opening 11 counts only when 5-5 or with a 6 card suit, and the hand looking pretty good otherwise (not too quacky, no unguarded honors, reasonable suit(s) quality). I probably "should", in this case, pass bad 12 counts, but somehow I never feel like it :)

 

Peter

[the hog]

When should you open the bidding?

 

Well this is dependent on many things, the primary one being system. And system is to a very large extent dependent on your philosophy, approach, likes and dislikes and attitude to the game.

 

There are differing philosophies in play here, a fact which has already been alluded to by some of the posters above. There is a big difference in attitude between 2 handed and 4 handed bridge. US players seem to greatly prefer 2 handed bridge; that is they like to have a meaningful dialogue with their partners and attempt to bid to the best contract possible. This is reflected in the regulations in force in the States and also in many European countries, where a conservative approach to the game is taken.

 

Players from some other countries prefer to play 4 handed bridge. That is the realization that there are 4 players at the table and that we should try to make life as difficult as possible for the other side AS WELL AS trying to find a good place to play for us.

This style is characterised by light openings, frequent and undisciplined pre empts, frequent obstruction and the use of systems such as Moscito, strong pass systems with their ferts and 8-12HCP opening bids etc etc.

 

This is not an argument that one philosophy is superior to the other, simply the acceptance that 2 or more views exist. The regulations of governing bodies reflect this. Regulators dislike the 4 handed game because it is more adverserial and thus can lead to friction at the table from "social player" or those who are simply unwilling to understand. A typical "knee jerk" reaction can be seen by the response taken to Bergen 2 under pre empts in the States, and in the almost hysterical reaction by administrators in the WBF such as Damiani to anything that is different from the norm.

[EricK]

OK thanks for all the responses. But I am not asking what style of opening is better than others or anything like that.

 

Let me give an example:

 

Compare ♠AQxxx ♥AJxx ♦xxx ♣x with ♠x ♥xxx ♦AJxx ♣AQxxx. These hands have exactly the same trick taking power on average, so in that sense they are as strong as each other. But because of the way bridge bidding and scoring work the former is a much more useful hand than the latter - in a bridge sense it is a stronger hand.

 

Now this difference in strength actually relates to things like the probability that your side can make the highest contract (because majors can outbid minors) or the probability that the par contract is your way (for the same reason), or the probability that your side can make game (because ten tricks in a major happens more often than eleven tricks in a minor). So the actual strength of a hand should be fundamentally linked to these sorts of statistics.

 

eg Take a system such as Moscito. This divides opening hands into four types - "strong" hands (which open 1♣), slightly weaker hands (which open with 1♦ - 2♣), still weaker hands with distribution (which open with a pre-empt) and finally all the other hands (which pass). For simplicity's sake the borders between these groups are expressed in terms of various HCP and distribution Points. But a hand is strong because it has a certain number of points, it is strong because it is more likely to make various sorts of contracts.

 

So theoretically the dividing line between these groups could (should?) be expressed in terms of the sorts of things I listed. And I suppose I was really just wondering what those dividing lines are (for various systems).

[hrothgar]

You've opened a very complicated can of worms and I doubt that you are going to find a very satisfactory answer. From my perspective, the only system designers that were really studying these types of issues seriously were the various light opening theorists; most of whom gave up on this type of work when it became apparant that the the regulatory authorities were more interested in preserving the status quo than in technical merit of different approaches to bidding. Accordingly, what you are going to see is silly little rules of thumb like the you want 13 HCP because this is one trick stronger than average.

 

Here are the break points for MOSCITO taken from my system notes. I given up on using HCPs or adjusted HCPs or Zar points or anything like that. I prefer providing example hands.

 

Constructive openings promise 6+ Slam points. Extreme two suiters with 10+ cards in the two longest suits require 5 slam points

 

Minimum unbalanced hands suitable for a constructive opening

 

♠ 32

♥ KJ74

♦ 6

♦ AJT932

 

♠ 64

♥ A2

♦ QT976

♣ K975

 

♠ KT872

♥ A5

♦ Q2

♣ T653

 

♠ 9

♥ AT9753

♦ A65

♣ 842

 

♠ J87643

♥ AK94

♦ 6

♣ J3

 

Balanced hands require more High Card strength than unbalanced

 

♠ KQ65

♥ QT3

♦ QT32

♣ Q9

 

♠ K3

♥ 87632

♦ A73

♣ A32

 

♠ J42

♥ KT6

♦ KJ86

♣ K42

 

♠ QJ852

♥ A9

♦ K73

♣ J75

 

♠ A932

♥ KJ

♦ QJ7

♣ T762

 

Here's a bunch of hands that I think are right on the dividing line between a strong club and a constructive opening

 

♠ Q3

♥ AKJ73

♦ K

♣ Q8754

 

♠ J

♥ AQ54

♦ AQ96

♣ Q843

 

♠ AKJ4

♥ J

♦ KJ863

♣ Q87

 

♠ K643

♥ AQJ62

♦ Q

♣ K62

 

♠ Q98543

♥ Q

♦ AK

♣ KJ74

 

♠ QT2

♥ KQ4

♦ KQ3

♣ QJ62

 

The boundary conditions between pass and preemptive openings are a lot more complicated. Issues like suit quality are often a lot more important than the raw strength of the hand.

[csdenmark]

 

Constructive openings promise 6+ Slam points.  Extreme two suiters with 10+ cards in the two longest suits require 5 slam points

 

Minimum unbalanced hands suitable for a constructive opening

 

♠ 32  

♥ KJ74 

♦ 6   

♦ AJT932

 

♠ 64

♥ A2

♦ QT976

♣ K975

 

The boundary conditions between pass and preemptive openings are a lot more complicated.  Issues like suit quality are often a lot more important than the raw strength of the hand.

Referring to the old quick trick counting?

 

----------------------------------------

 

You've opened a very complicated can of worms and I doubt that you are going to find a very satisfactory answer.  From my perspective, the only system designers that were really studying these types of issues seriously were the various light opening theorists; most of whom gave up on this type of work when it became apparant that the the regulatory authorities were more interested in preserving the status quo than in technical merit of different approaches to bidding.  Accordingly, what you are going to see is silly little rules of thumb like the you want 13 HCP because this is one trick stronger than average.

 

In my book by Slawinski/Ruminski "Introduction to weak opening systems" they are operating with a term called 'aggressiveness'. Anybody who knows what that term means?

 

They also have a figures for several of the systems:

 

Regres - Mean opening 2.19

BezNazwy - Mean opening 2.18

Lambda - Mean opening 2.09

Antidelta - Mean opening 2.32

Sigma - Mean opening 2.47

Big Beat - Mean opening 1.92

Delta - Mean opening 1.8

Beta - Mean opening 2.09

 

As I understand it means something like the higher the figure the more aggressive the system is.

 

Anybody who really knows about this?

 

Anybody who knows how to construct such calculations?

[hrothgar]

>>The boundary conditions between pass and preemptive openings are a lot more

>>complicated. Issues like suit quality are often a lot more important than the raw >>strength of the hand.

 

>Referring to the old quick trick counting?

 

When I play MOSCITO, my 2♦ shows 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in either major. In my experience, this opening works better if opener promises Hxxx in the major (alternative, any 5 card suit is fine). Accordingly, I'd open 2♦ holding

 

♠ Q963

♥ 6

♦ 87542

♣ KJ3

 

I'd pass holding

 

♠ 8754

♥ 6

♦ Q9632

♣ KJ3

 

>In my book by Slawinski/Ruminski "Introduction to weak opening systems" they

>are operating with a term called 'aggressiveness'. Anybody who knows what that

>term means?

 

The mean opening for a bidding system descibes the expected bidding level for the opening structure. Each opening bid in the system is represented by two numbers.

 

1. The number of steps of bidding space used (Pass = , 1♣ = 1, 1♦ = 2, ...)

2. The frequency of the opening bid. (pass occurs on 32% of all hands, 1♣ on 15% of all hands, 1♦ on 11% of all hands, ...)

 

Multiply the frequency of any opening by the number of steps of bidding space and sum across all openings. If one assumes that all preemptive openings are equally difficult to defend against the metric provides a decent description of the preemptive effect of the bidding system.

[csdenmark]

>In my book by Slawinski/Ruminski "Introduction to weak opening systems" they

>are operating with a term called 'aggressiveness'. Anybody who knows what that

>term means?

 

The mean opening for a bidding system descibes the expected bidding level for the opening structure.  Each opening bid in the system is represented by two numbers.

 

1.  The number of steps of bidding space used (Pass = , 1♣ = 1, 1♦ = 2, ...)

2.  The frequency of the opening bid.  (pass occurs on 32% of all hands, 1♣ on 15% of all hands, 1♦ on 11% of all hands, ...)

 

Multiply the frequency of any opening by the number of steps of bidding space and sum across all openings.  If one assumes that all preemptive openings are equally difficult to defend against the metric provides a decent description of the preemptive effect of the bidding system.

Sorry Richard I dont understand much of that. The systems I mentioned are all pass-systems. I doubt the 0-7HcP(1♦=2) opening is so very interesting and I wonder why it differs(Regres=2.19, BezNazwy=2.18).

 

Antidelta(2.32) was created because the authors were dis-satisfied with aggressiveness of Delta(1.8). Difficult to see that opps.' is considered important for this.

[hrothgar]

>In my book by Slawinski/Ruminski "Introduction to weak opening systems" they

>are operating with a term called 'aggressiveness'. Anybody who knows what that

>term means?

 

The mean opening for a bidding system descibes the expected bidding level for the opening structure.  Each opening bid in the system is represented by two numbers.

 

1.  The number of steps of bidding space used (Pass = , 1♣ = 1, 1♦ = 2, ...)

2.  The frequency of the opening bid.  (pass occurs on 32% of all hands, 1♣ on 15% of all hands, 1♦ on 11% of all hands, ...)

 

Multiply the frequency of any opening by the number of steps of bidding space and sum across all openings.  If one assumes that all preemptive openings are equally difficult to defend against the metric provides a decent description of the preemptive effect of the bidding system.

Sorry Richard I dont understand much of that.

I'll try to give you a very simple example.

 

Lets assume that you play a very simple system that only used 4 opening bids.

 

30% of all hands that you get dealt are suitable for a Pass

20% of all hands that you get dealt are opened 1♣

10% of all hands that you get dalt at opened 1♦

30% of all hands that you get dealt are opened 2♦

10% of all hands that you get dealt are opened 2NT

 

The average open level for the system can be calcualted as follows

 

Pass used zero stepss of bidding space

1♣ uses 1 step of bidding space

1♦ uses 2 steps of bidding space

2♦ uses 7 steps of bidding space

2N uses 10 steps of bidding space

 

The average opening level =

 

.3 * 0 +

.2 * 1 +

.1 * 2 +

.3 * 7 +

.1 * 10

 

= .2 + .2 + 2.1 + 1 = 3.6

[Gerben42]

When to open the bidding is a very complex game-theoretical question. For every system and style you can measure several things, for example:

 

* What is your average opening level?

* How much distribution do you show on average?

 

Things like that. Let's start with the 2nd question. Showing distribution is important. Playing a system that looks like the following is bad:

 

1♣ 10 - 12

1♦ 13 - 15

1♥ 16 - 18

1♠ 19 - 21

1NT 22+

rest preempts

 

More distribution-showing bids is a good thing.

 

What about average opening. If your average opening bid is higher you trade preemption for precision, sometimes in combination with losing distributional constraints. A simple one: Acol and SAYC.

 

In Acol, 1♠ shows only 4 cards but is opened more often than in SAYC. On the other hand 1♣ promises 4 cards also (but will be 5 most of the time if you open 4♣ 4M with 1M!).

 

Disadvantage: Less precise continuations after 1♠.

Advantage: More often you start with quite annoying auctions from opponent's point of view.

 

Same thing with minimum opening bids. Roth-Stone style is very precise when it comes up, but Pass is a frequent call and badly defined (also does not show distribution, see my 2nd point). Agressive openings get lots of distribution and preemption, but less precise follow-up bidding. The region in the middle is a bit of both. Pick your style :rolleyes:

[csdenmark]

>In my book by Slawinski/Ruminski "Introduction to weak opening systems" they

>are operating with a term called 'aggressiveness'. Anybody who knows what that

>term means?

 

The mean opening for a bidding system descibes the expected bidding level for the opening structure.  Each opening bid in the system is represented by two numbers.

 

1.  The number of steps of bidding space used (Pass = , 1♣ = 1, 1♦ = 2, ...)

2.  The frequency of the opening bid.  (pass occurs on 32% of all hands, 1♣ on 15% of all hands, 1♦ on 11% of all hands, ...)

 

Multiply the frequency of any opening by the number of steps of bidding space and sum across all openings.  If one assumes that all preemptive openings are equally difficult to defend against the metric provides a decent description of the preemptive effect of the bidding system.

Sorry Richard I dont understand much of that.

I'll try to give you a very simple example.

 

Lets assume that you play a very simple system that only used 4 opening bids.

 

30% of all hands that you get dealt are suitable for a Pass

20% of all hands that you get dealt are opened 1♣

10% of all hands that you get dalt at opened 1♦

30% of all hands that you get dealt are opened 2♦

10% of all hands that you get dealt are opened 2NT

 

The average open level for the system can be calcualted as follows

 

Pass used zero stepss of bidding space

1♣ uses 1 step of bidding space

1♦ uses 2 steps of bidding space

2♦ uses 7 steps of bidding space

2N uses 10 steps of bidding space

 

The average opening level =

 

.3 * 0 +

.2 * 1 +

.1 * 2 +

.3 * 7 +

.1 * 10

 

= .2 + .2 + 2.1 + 1 = 3.6

I see - thank you very much. I think I now understand the logic in this.

 

Seems like the estimate depends of the frequency of each opening used. Such must be dependent of the system and I assume those percentages(20% of all hands that you get dealt are opened 1♣) cannot be looked up anywhere - or?

 

The percentage for 1♣ in SAYC and in Regres I assume will be very different. Are such assumptions based on something? Empiri? Wishthinking? Tables?

 

Looks like Gerben has drawn attention to something here. The meaning of the bid in question. Then it is no longer only about the frequency.

[Gerben42]

You can calculate them simply by defining the bids. For example you can calculate that the chance to get a 15 - 17 NT is about half that of a 12 - 14 NT. In Acol you open 1M more often than 1m, in SAYC the other way around.

[jikl]

I think you'll find you open 1m more than 1M in Acol as 4 card suits are bid up the line.

 

Sean

[awm]

Let me try to summarize some reasons to open:

 

(1) In order to reach the best contract, when this contract is played by our side.

(2) To reach a good sacrifice (the par spot) when that is a sacrifice by our side.

(3) To help partner judge when to double if/when the opponents decide to bid.

(4) To indicate a lead in case we end up defending.

(5) To take up space and make it difficult for opponents to judge the par spot.

 

Here are some reasons not to open:

 

(1) Opening may expose you to a penalty for more than opponents can score on their own.

(2) Opening may cause partner to mis-judge (if openings are too wide ranging).

(3) Opening may give the opponents information which they can subsequently use in the play.

 

Looking at these guidelines, one can draw the following conclusions:

 

(1) It makes sense to open with better hands, since the best contract is more likely to be ours.

(2) It makes sense to be more aggressive with shapely hands including a major, because par is more likely to belong to us.

(3) It makes sense to be least aggressive with balanced hands.

 

Of course a lot of this will depend on system. The issue is that openings which are very wide-ranging in terms of strength and/or shape make it harder for partner to judge correctly. This means partner will often go wrong (case 2 under reasons not to open) and also makes opening less useful for reasons 3-5 (if you could have an awful hand, it's hard for partner to know to double, and if you could open a four small suit frequently the lead directing value is reduced, and if you open three-card suits with impunity then partner will often be unable to preempt).

 

Systems like SAYC and 2/1 GF emphasize a constructive approach. The primary reason to open at the one-level is to reach a game or slam played by our side. Openings are quite sound, helping partner to double and/or bid games. Of course there are certainly hands which could be profitably opened (mostly because of preemptive advantages 2 and 5) which these systems require you to pass because opening them within the system constraints will make it too hard for partner to judge other situations correctly.

 

Other systems often tend to be more aggressive, especially strong club systems like Moscito. The idea is that partner's judgement is not too impaired because of the lower upper-limit (openings are still fairly tightly described) and that the advantages from being able to preempt with these hands counter the disadvantages of giving information to the opponents on hands that belong to them and making it harder for partner to double in competitive situations when opener has "real" values.