2/1 and light openers

[EricK]

I have heard it repeated that if you play 2/1 GF then it is not a good idea to play light openers.

 

Now this makes sense if the opening bid is 1M - partner's 1NT becomes too wide ranging. But why does it still make sense if the opening bid is 1m so that 2/1 is no longer GF?

[foo]

I have heard it repeated that if you play 2/1 GF then it is not a good idea to play light openers.

 

Now this makes sense if the opening bid is 1M - partner's 1NT becomes too wide ranging. But why does it still make sense if the opening bid is 1m so that 2/1 is no longer GF?

Lot's of reasons:

 

1= pd can't X as confidently or as often if they can't trust your openings to have "starch" to them.

 

2= pd can get over excited and put Us in a hopeless spot.

 

3= 5m needs more tricks. Therefore hand that are highly likely to not end up in 4M need to be sounder in case we can't play 3N.

 

4= When We don't play the hand, any bidding We have done helps Declarer play the hand more DD.

[cherdano]

I have heard it repeated that if you play 2/1 GF then it is not a good idea to play light openers.

 

Now this makes sense if the opening bid is 1M - partner's 1NT becomes too wide ranging. But why does it still make sense if the opening bid is 1m so that 2/1 is no longer GF?

I guess it's generally a questionable idea to open too light in the minors in a natural 5-card major system with a strong (15-17) 1NT opening.

[EricK]

I have heard it repeated that if you play 2/1 GF then it is not a good idea to play light openers.

 

Now this makes sense if the opening bid is 1M - partner's 1NT becomes too wide ranging. But why does it still make sense if the opening bid is 1m so that 2/1 is no longer GF?

Lot's of reasons:

 

1= pd can't X as confidently or as often if they can't trust your openings to have "starch" to them.

 

2= pd can get over excited and put Us in a hopeless spot.

 

3= 5m needs more tricks. Therefore hand that are highly likely to not end up in 4M need to be sounder in case we can't play 3N.

 

4= When We don't pllay the hand, any bidding We have done helps Declarer play the hand more DD.

None of these reasons seem to have to do with 2/1 being GF though.

[aelred]

I have heard it repeated that if you play 2/1 GF then it is not a good idea to play light openers.

 

Now this makes sense if the opening bid is 1M - partner's 1NT becomes too wide ranging. But why does it still make sense if the opening bid is 1m so that 2/1 is no longer GF?

Lot's of reasons:

 

1= pd can't X as confidently or as often if they can't trust your openings to have "starch" to them.

 

2= pd can get over excited and put Us in a hopeless spot.

 

3= 5m needs more tricks. Therefore hand that are highly likely to not end up in 4M need to be sounder in case we can't play 3N.

 

4= When We don't pllay the hand, any bidding We have done helps Declarer play the hand more DD.

1= pd can't X as confidently or as often if they can't trust your openings to have "starch" to them.

 

Well, that would be a great loss if you played in the novice game here at Saint Titus. However, I've heard Bro Lucius talking to Fra Paulo yesterday, and he was saying that doubling the opponents is pretty useless at higher levels of the game.

 

2= pd can get over excited and put Us in a hopeless spot.

 

Bro Cameron says this is partner's criminal sin (after all, he knows what you play, so he should know better). However, you should see Bro Cameron when HE gets over excited :D But he usually makes - probably by divine intervention ...

 

3= 5m needs more tricks.  Therefore hand that are highly likely to not end up in 4M need to be sounder in case we can't play 3N.

 

The abbot told us last week: "Novice brothers, you know, when we open the bidding, we must not necessarily stop at game level or more." This was a complete revelation to me. Now I've seen the light!

 

4= When We don't pllay the hand, any bidding We have done helps Declarer play the hand more DD.

 

Yes, I've seen Fra Paulo declaring ...

On the other hand, whenever those pesky opponents open, I seem to have so much trouble buying the contract in the right strain and level - if at all. But what do I know?

I'm just a poor simple-minded novice after all.

 

Aelred

[Guest Jlall]

Eric, you are right the reasons for not wanting to open 1m light in a 2/1 system have nothing to do with 2/1 being GF.

[EricK]

Eric, you are right the reasons for not wanting to open 1m light in a 2/1 system have nothing to do with 2/1 being GF.

In a thread in the B/I forum you said this:

These hands come down to partnership style. Do whatever your partner will expect. I will say that I think a style where you play 2/1 as GF and you open these hands is a losing style. I would say mainstream style is to pass balanced 11 counts.

Which does seem to suggest that 2/1 being GF does have an affect on whether you open a balanced 11 point hand with 1m.

[Guest Jlall]

You're right, my statement applied to SAYC, what I really meant was a system that doesn't use limited opening bids (I used 2/1 GF as my example since that is what I'm used to). Not a carefully worded post, sorry :D

[EricK]

You're right, my statement applied to SAYC, what I really meant was a system that doesn't use limited opening bids (I used 2/1 GF as my example since that is what I'm used to). Not a carefully worded post, sorry :D

That makes more sense. Thanks!

[pbleighton]

Why you should, in theory, open 1M more soundly in 2/1 vs SAYC (a little):

 

1NT forcing handles invitational hands poorly, as the opener's 2m rebid is artificial, and in the absence of 3 card support, usually the only invitation available on the respnder's rebid is 2NT. 2/1 aouctions, OTOH, are very nice. In 2/1, also, you have to make an immediate decision, whereas in SAYC, you can wait a round and see partner's rebid before you decide whther to press to game. This encourages responder to make a 2/1 responses with marginal hands. It's therefore helpful for the opener to have a better hand.

 

One possibility to mitigate this is to play 1NT as semi-forcing, so that a 2m rebid shows 4+ cards (you have to play Flannery to guarantee this over 1H-1NT).

 

Peter (who opens nice 11 counts and great 10 counts playing 2/1 with 1 NT forcing)

[foo]

1= pd can't X as confidently or as often if they can't trust your openings to have "starch" to them.

 

Well, that would be a great loss if you played in the novice game here at Saint Titus. However, I've heard Bro Lucius talking to Fra Paulo yesterday, and he was saying that doubling the opponents is pretty useless at higher levels of the game.

 

2= pd can get over excited and put Us in a hopeless spot.

 

Bro Cameron says this is partner's criminal sin (after all, he knows what you play, so he should know better). However, you should see Bro Cameron when HE gets over excited :P But he usually makes - probably by divine intervention ...

 

3= 5m needs more tricks.  Therefore hand that are highly likely to not end up in 4M need to be sounder in case we can't play 3N.

 

The abbot told us last week: "Novice brothers, you know, when we open the bidding, we must not necessarily stop at game level or more." This was a complete revelation to me. Now I've seen the light!

 

4= When We don't play the hand, any bidding We have done helps Declarer play the hand more DD.

 

Yes, I've seen Fra Paulo declaring ...

On the other hand, whenever those pesky opponents open, I seem to have so much trouble buying the contract in the right strain and level - if at all. But what do I know?

I'm just a poor simple-minded novice after all.

I strongly suggest you not ever play money bridge against competent opponents.

 

1= "Hey there Little Red Riding Hood, you sure are looking good." I get rich against opponents who think that X and XX don't exist. Your ficticious monks aside, go check records of =real world= international competitition. Even at the highest levels, X and XX are used and are useful.

 

2 & 3= Sorry, if your bids are too wide ranging, pd can't field them accurately enough and you =will= be either too low or too high on plenty of boards.

 

3= "You can't fight tanks with pillows.", Edgar Kaplan. _Why You Lose at Bridge_ by AJ Simon. A whole host of =real= world experts, including David Bird (The Abbot in real life), in various teaching texts. When you bid, play and defend as well as any of them do, you will have more justification for arguing with them. About the minors vs the Majors or anything else in Bridge.

An opening 1bid is the start of a conversation whose goal is to hopefully find game or slam. That means you should take into account what games or slams are more likely when deciding whether or not to Open.

This is even more of an issue for 5cM systems where the 1m opening has already been made more wide ranging due to the allowed variance in suit length.

 

4= Sometimes Our best chance for a good score is to *gasp!* Defend! What a shock! If We are disciplined, We give Them as little information as possible and occasionally We even get to *shock!* =X= Them.

[foo]

...

None of these reasons seem to have to do with 2/1 being GF though.

Actually, they do.

 

Since a 2/1 is GF, Responder can't make one unless they are willing for Us to be in game. At this point, most experts playing 2/1 GF even play the auction 1D-2C as GF.

 

The weaker your minimum 1bids, the stronger Responder's minimum GF 2/1's have to be.

Too much variation in what a 1bid shows, and Responder's task becomes more and more guesswork until it's hopeless.

 

This problem is actually worse for 2/1 GF than it is for SA since SA is better equiped to have delicate auctions involving Invitational hands. 2/1 GF sacrifices that delicacy in order to improve your game and slam bidding when 2 opening bids face each other.

[pbleighton]

I strongly suggest you not ever play money bridge against competent opponents.

 

Aelred, you had BETTER not play money bridge against competent opponents.

 

The Anonymous Bridge God has spoken!

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

There is nothing wrong with opening 11-point 1minor, if you do not use the wrong response structure and if your partner knows how to bid properly.

 

There is nothing wrong with opening light majors, in the context of 2/1 GF, if you do not use the wrong response structure and if your partner knows how to bid properly.

 

1NT as "semi-forcing" does not create a requirement that 2minor be 4+, nor should it. It simply means that you won't bid 2minor with junk; you might have short minors if sound.

 

The strength of a hand, by the way, is not controlled by one specific form of analysis, especially when that form of analysis was designed in the first place as one of several alternative (the easiest) crutches anyway.

[hrothgar]

Hi Erik

 

I very much agree with this sentiment. I think that there are two main problems with using light openings in the context of a 2/1 type system.

 

1. You are significantly increasing the range of your opening bids. Lots of bread-and-butter auctions like

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♣

 

or

 

1♥ - 1♠

2♥

 

start to get complicated because the opener's rebid could be made on very weak hands or some quite strong hands.

 

2. Your response structure really needs to complement your opening bidding style. Some structures that work extremely well after a relatively sound opening style are sub-optimal (to say the least) after a very light opening style. I think that 2/1 GF responses are a classic example. Back in the day, I ran a LOT of simulations looking at the frequency of a 2/1 response opposite a light opening. Simply put, 2/1 responses were few and far between while the forcing NT was terribly overloaded. I never felt comfortable during constructive auctions.

[pbleighton]

1NT as "semi-forcing" does not create a requirement that 2minor be 4+, nor should it. It simply means that you won't bid 2minor with junk; you might have short minors if sound.

 

This can be true, however, if you are willing to open 1NT with 5 card majors consistently, and play Flannery, 2m will always be 4+ cards. With balanced hands opener passes the minimums and rebids 2NT with the maximums.

 

This creates very clean auctions.

 

Peter

[jdonn]

1NT as "semi-forcing" does not create a requirement that 2minor be 4+, nor should it. It simply means that you won't bid 2minor with junk; you might have short minors if sound.

 

This can be true, however, if you are willing to open 1NT with 5 card majors consistently, and play Flannery, 2m will always be 4+ cards. With balanced hands opener passes the minimums and rebids 2NT with the maximums.

 

This creates very clean auctions.

 

Peter

That is not true. Opener can't pass with any hand where he would accept a three card limit raise or invitational notrump bid (which are hands responder can have.) This includes most balanced 14 counts. I suppose if you played a 14-16 notrump where you upgraded good 13s and opened 1NT with five card majors and played flannery then it would be true that a minor suit rebid after semi-forcing notrump promises 4+.

[pbleighton]

That is not true. Opener can't pass with any hand where he would accept a three card limit raise or invitational notrump bid (which are hands responder can have.) This includes most balanced 14 counts. I suppose if you played a 14-16 notrump where you upgraded good 13s and opened 1NT with five card majors and played flannery then it would be true that a minor suit rebid after semi-forcing notrump promises 4+.

 

Yes, that is what you do. Can play 14+-17 also, and just pass flat 13 counts after 1NT.

 

Peter

[aelred]

I strongly suggest you not ever play money bridge against competent opponents.

 

Aelred, you had BETTER not play money bridge against competent opponents.

 

The Anonymous Bridge God has spoken!

 

Peter

I thank him for the advice. It's well taken.

 

Anyway, I'm too much involved in the brand new form of the game these days to play "cut for partners" - you know, the one they call "duplicate" :P

 

My sincere apologies to mr. Foo. I thought the discussion was about what one may or may not play with one's partner, after careful discussion, not about one might play with a random godzilla. Therefore I found little to no value in all his arguments. I stand corrected.

 

Aelred

[jtfanclub]

I have heard it repeated that if you play 2/1 GF then it is not a good idea to play light openers.

 

Now this makes sense if the opening bid is 1M - partner's 1NT becomes too wide ranging. But why does it still make sense if the opening bid is 1m so that 2/1 is no longer GF?

The REAL reason (with apologies to all who came before me):

 

2/1 (and all other 'named' systems) aren't designed to win championships. They're designed to sell books and be played with clients. Because, after all, that's where the money is. One of the first questions I had when I learned bridge was, "Why are the 2 heart and 2 spade openings the same range"? After all, 2 spades does a great job of pre-empting hearts, while 2 hearts does a terrible job of pre-empting spades.

 

But if you're playing with a client who can't seem to remember what a game forcing auction is, or trying to teach beginners who have trouble remembering that they can bid a forcing NT without a balanced hand, it all makes sense. The real reason why 2/1 says don't open light is...

 

it's easier to remember than don't open the majors light.

 

I seriously doubt that 'the experts' when playing with each other have such simple rules. They're looking at seat, vulnerability, losing trick count, long suits, rebidding issues, state of the match, how excitable their partner is, how conservative the opponents are, 'table feel', and sometimes what looks like to a non-expert like me like simple randomness.

 

But the rules are for simple people like me, and maybe you. So the rule is there because, well, it's simple.

 

That's the only reason I can see.

[jdonn]

2/1 (and all other 'named' systems) aren't designed to win championships.  They're designed to sell books and be played with clients.  Because, after all, that's where the money is.

I have no idea where you get this from. Are you implying bridge pros would rather make money than win championships? Not the ones I have met. Winning championships is worth more money to them in the long run anyway, and they all know it.

 

IMO Richard has made the best post in this thread so far.

[bid_em_up]

One point that noone has really touched on.

 

In my partnerships, we will not open 10-bad 12 counts in 1st/2nd seats. It makes makes for sounder evaluation in the subsequent auctions, especially when opponents interfere. If you know partner has a "sound" opening, it becomes easier to double the opponents or judging how far your side should be competing a little more accurate.

 

As a result of this, we will open hands lighter in 3rd/4th seat (almost any 10 count) to compensate for the sound openings (to protect part-scores).

[mike777]

2/1 (and all other 'named' systems) aren't designed to win championships.  They're designed to sell books and be played with clients.  Because, after all, that's where the money is.

I have no idea where you get this from. Are you implying bridge pros would rather make money than win championships? Not the ones I have met. Winning championships is worth more money to them in the long run anyway, and they all know it.

 

IMO Richard has made the best post in this thread so far.

Yes, pros are more concernced with making money than winning championships. Has Rose made more money than 99.999% of the pros who have never won any WC let along as many as she has? Has Deutsch?

 

No, I doubt anyone has paid to put them on a team despite their WC belts.

 

Making money makes more money in the long run than winning championships.

Note I only say more concernced not that they would not like both.

 

If they really want to win a championship they can spend or borrow enough money to buy their own team. Mr. or Miss Pro, sell your house and car and spend the money on trying to win a championship if that is more important.

 

You guys know Math.

 

Are you taking a million bucks for a 5% or 1% chance or 10$ for a 60% chance, you do the math. If a million is not enough, then name your price.

[jtfanclub]

I have no idea where you get this from. Are you implying bridge pros would rather make money than win championships? Not the ones I have met. Winning championships is worth more money to them in the long run anyway, and they all know it.

Well, not all of them, obviously. Some of them play 700 page monstrosities that they won't sell.

 

But anybody who actually follows any published book to the letter is at a huge disadvantage compared to the Meckwells of the world. An expert can sell books about 2/1, claim they're playing 2/1, but actually play something that doesn't have stupid black-and-white rules like 'don't open light'. Or the expert can follow the book they sell, and take a big handicap against their opponents, who aren't limited to what a beginner can understand. They still might win, but it's going to be a lot tougher.

[mike777]

I have no idea where you get this from. Are you implying bridge pros would rather make money than win championships? Not the ones I have met. Winning championships is worth more money to them in the long run anyway, and they all know it.

Well, not all of them, obviously. Some of them play 700 page monstrosities that they won't sell.

 

But anybody who actually follows any published book to the letter is at a huge disadvantage compared to the Meckwells of the world. An expert can sell books about 2/1, claim they're playing 2/1, but actually play something that doesn't have stupid black-and-white rules like 'don't open light'. Or the expert can follow the book they sell, and take a big handicap against their opponents, who aren't limited to what a beginner can understand. They still might win, but it's going to be a lot tougher.

Funny enough guys like Bergen and Lawrence who wrote the Bibles on 2/1 seem to have given up top class bridge at a very young age.

 

The top ten teams in the Vandy were all pro. Many of the next 15 are pro. I think that is good news not bad. I hope many more make a living and support their family playing Pro.