2/1 and light openers

[awm]

Perhaps a good question to ask is: what's the point of opening light?

 

Having a sound opening style helps partner in competitive auctions after an opening bid. It also makes it harder for opponents to place the cards on the bidding, since a pass could still be a quite good hand. A sound opening style also helps because partner can better judge our game prospects opposite a more limited hand, and there is less need for a wide range of "invitational" sequences.

 

There are two major reasons not to play a sound opening style as best I can tell. These are:

 

(1) It's possible to have a making game on a hand where neither partner has an opening bid. These games are hard to find if you don't open light in first/second seat, even assuming that the hand doesn't pass out.

 

(2) Opening can help in competitive auctions, especially when the suit opened is our side's best fit. In this case we can often bump the auction to a level that makes it hard for opponents to compete, whereas after an initial pass it might be difficult for us to even find our fit.

 

Note that both these reasons are much more applicable to opening 1M rather than 1m. The hands that produce game where neither partner has 12 hcp typically produce game because of a good suit fit. Since 4M is a lot easier to make than 5m, this good suit fit is normally in a major. In competitive auctions, you're more likely to outbid opponents when you're bidding a major. Especially in a five-card major style where the 1m opening isn't even a real suit, you're not going to win in competition because you opened 1♣ on your balanced 10-count. In fact opening 1m light on a balanced hand may well make it easier for opponents to enter the auction, because most people have higher standards for major suit openings than for one-level overcalls.

 

Opening light wins the most when your opening bid:

 

(1) Shows a real suit that partner can raise.

(2) Delivers substantial playing strength in the presence of a fit.

(3) Takes up enough space to obstruct the opponents' auction.

 

These just don't apply to 1m openings in 2/1.

[mike777]

You would think not but many of non top 100 or top 1000 players seem to have problems even over opening one of a minor.

 

All of that said I think sound openings can win.

[cherdano]

(1) It's possible to have a making game on a hand where neither partner has an opening bid. These games are hard to find if you don't open light in first/second seat, even assuming that the hand doesn't pass out.

 

(2) Opening can help in competitive auctions, especially when the suit opened is our side's best fit. In this case we can often bump the auction to a level that makes it hard for opponents to compete, whereas after an initial pass it might be difficult for us to even find our fit.

I think there is also (2a), it helps in competitive auctions when it makes it easier for partner to introduce his suits, e.g. his 4-card spade suit with a negative double. This is much safer after partner has opened the bidding. I think this is the main reason why Meckwell/Greco-Hampson/... are having successes with their nebulous 1♦ opening, which they often open very light.

All your of your above reasoning against light 1m in 2/1 would apply to that opening, too, even more so, actually. [The big difference is of course that their 1♦ is limited, so partner often knows he is just competing for the part score/can just bid game/etc etc.]

[helene_t]

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

True. Two minor points, though:

- An advantage of opening light in all four suits is that partner can preempt with sound hands in 3rd/4th seat without being afraid of missing game. Now if a 1st/2nd hand "pass" could be a decent 11-count with a 5-card major, said advanatge of opening light in the minors disappear.

- On the other hand, you probably play 2-way Drury since a a passed hand would not be able to force to game opposit a 3rd/4th seat opener. Now if you don't want to open light in the minors you may pass some hands that are uncomfortable by responding with a NF 1NT to partner's 3rd/4th-seat opening.

[ArcLight]

>But anybody who actually follows any published book to the letter is at a huge disadvantage compared to the Meckwells of the world.

 

And all along I thought Meckwell have an advantage over me because they are better players, not because of their system. :)

 

 

At their level system can add a few IMPS here and there. Taking an extra 15 Imps in the Bermuda Bowl against world class opponents is important. Theya re all that good. Against lesser players, they would collect scores of IMPS.

Meckwell using SAYC would probably destroy most players here.

 

When you start placing in the top 10 in national tournaments, then start worrying more about system and concentions. Till then, worry about basics. (you still need a reasonable system, but donn't go over board. Concentrate on agreements, carding, and knowing your fundamental system thoroughly. Know all follow ups of your conventions, and how they are impacted by interference)

 

 

> 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.

 

Try reading some of Mike Lawrences books on 2/1 and especially the CD. Its almost all about the core system, rather than the conventions ( the CD does have a section on some conventions).

[jtfanclub]

Ummm...I don't disagree with anything you're saying Arclight, so I think my original post was misunderstood. I apologize for my poor writing. Let me rephrase:

 

When you look at a 'name' system like SAYC or 2/1, the book you're reading has been deliberately simplified to make it easy to understand and use. The experts using the system either don't use the simplified version, or they're willing to play with the handicap of playing a simplified system because it makes them more money.

 

A more complex rule may seem to make more sense because it does make more sense, however, it wasn't worth the extra difficulties in learning and remembering the system to add it, in the opinion of the author.

 

In this particular case, I don't think that there's really any reason to open some minor suit hands in SAYC that you wouldn't open in 2/1 (although I hadn't considered protection when I said that). It's just easier for people to learn "don't open junk" than "don't open certain kinds of junk", and the difference in the results should be small.

 

Was that more coherent?

[foo]

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

LOL. Ok, I deserved that. The advice was perhaps not worded as diplomatically as it could have been. However, the attitude shown in that post pretending to be a monk is a seriously dangerous one if you ever play for money.

 

My advice, poorly worded as it was, is sound and in the spirit of being helpful.

 

...and =please= do not put words in my mouth Peter. I have never claimed to be even a demigod...

[foo]

One of the things reading this thread brings to my mind is that "light" and "sound" are being used very freely here without much of a definition.

 

How good a hand is can only be very roughly approximated with HCP.

 

Therefore, defining an opening as "light" or "sound" solely or even mainly on the basis of HCP is flawed logic.

 

Axx.Axx.xxx.Axxx 9 loser 12 count. Worst shape in Bridge.

...and just about everyone except maybe Al Roth would open it.

Why? Because it has 6/7 of the controls need to make 3N or 4M.

 

QJT.QJT.QJT.QJTx 8 loser 12 count. Same shape.

...and just about everyone, including Marty Bergen, would not open it.

The utter lack of controls taints the hand.

 

The "average" hand is balanced or semi-balanced with ~10 scattered HCP.

 

An Opening bid says you have significantly more assets than that "average" hand.

"Pointy's" is not the primary evaluator of this.

Power tricks, losers, controls, ODR, etc are.

Bridge is about taking =tricks=, not HCP.

 

There are 9 counts I consider perfectly reasonable openings even within the context of a "middle of the road" or sound opening style. ...and there are 12 and 13 counts that I consider poor openings even playing a light opening style.

 

"The Limit Bid is the most important call in Bridge" said our ancestors.

People sometimes forget that "pass" is a limiting call just as many bids are if used properly.

[pbleighton]

...and =please= do not put words in my mouth Peter. I have never claimed to be even a demigod...

 

I need to use <sarcasm> tags?

 

Peter

[foo]

...and =please= do not put words in my mouth Peter. I have never claimed to be even a demigod...

 

I need to use <sarcasm> tags?

 

Peter

Oh, the sarcasm was quite evident; thank you very much.

[pbleighton]

Oh, the sarcasm was quite evident; thank you very much.

 

Excellent!

 

Peter

[fifee]

 

  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.

Please do not ignore the fact that whichever side opens has a definite edge. It is much harder to get into the auction after an opening by opps.

 

If opener can be light then responder must be disciplined and solid with responses. No 3 level rebids by opener with sub minimum opener, etc. Lots of pdship agreements, etc. There is a lot to say for opening that 10 point wonder with a nice 6 card !H suit. :P

 

P

[foo]

Please do not ignore the fact that whichever side opens has a definite edge. It is much harder to get into the auction after an opening by opps.

 

If opener can be light then responder must be disciplined and solid with responses.  No 3 level rebids by opener with sub minimum opener, etc.  Lots of pdship agreements, etc. There is a lot to say for opening that 10 point wonder with a nice 6 card ♥ suit. :P

Yes, I open that "10 point wonder with a nice 6 card ♥ suit"...

 

...2♥

 

 

That edge you are talking about only holds if We buy the hand in a reasonable spot. Else it helps =Them=.

 

If We open real trash, We =will= get X'd more frequently and more successfully. Or help Declarer. Or end in the wrong level. Or end up taking more phantom saves. etc.

 

Simply put, Hrothgar is correct.

[kenrexford]

There seems to be what I consider a somewhat flawed analysis going on here as to the reason why "light" openings are bad for causing problems.

 

The analysis seems coherent. You have two problems -- directing the declarer if the opponents buy the contract and problems with tweener hands for Responder. Of course, it is not good to have Declarer better informed rather than clueless, and of course problematic auctions are problematic.

 

That being said, the logic flaw is in assuming that passing solves the problem. This is far from something that can simply be assumed as accurate.

 

You must compare the resuling auctions between a "pass first" auction and a "bid light" auction to determine whether a problem actually exists.

 

Problems also arise by passing. Passing creates that all-too difficult P-2♥-P-P-? problem. Passing misses an opportunity for a lead-director, such that not helping the opposing declarer comes at the cost of not helping the on-lead partner.

 

Let's get more mundane, though. If you use drury, even two-way, what do you bid after P-P-1♠-P-?, with an ugly 12 and 2♠/4♥? 11 is not much better. What if your RHO intervenes after partner's 1♠ call, perhaps bidding 2♥? If partner sound, or is he simply making a lead-director?

 

What if your LHO opens light, and partner overcalls something? Is he sound, or junk? What if Opener's suit is raised? Are these tremendous auctions?

 

The point is that the problems described for light openings are problems that will often resurface in a different form if you pass. Passing has not necessarily solved this.

 

The light opening does not automatically help the opposition declarer, and it may help partner. If we open real trash, we may be able to double the opponents more often and more successfully also. If we pass, we may end on the wrong level also. We might also take more phantom saves if we pass (how often have you preempted opposite a passed partner, been doubled, and then seen a bulky, defensive dummy?).

 

If the pro field, playing pros, has lost its mind with wilder and wilder junk opened, maybe they know something.

[foo]

There seems to be what I consider a somewhat flawed analysis going on here as to the reason why "light" openings are bad for causing problems.

 

<snip>

 

If the pro field, playing pros, has lost its mind with wilder and wilder junk opened, maybe they know something.

That's the whole point. The pros !don't! open "real trash".

 

Even if "light " on HCP, they tend strongly to have hands with good ODR and 2 defensive tricks and a reasonable rebid.

 

...and many of them are playing systems that are =designed= and geared to deal with such openings. Far better than SA or 2/1 GF is.

(Not to mention that experts have much better skills in every area of the game than most posters here to allow them more safety when bidding this way.)

[kenrexford]

That's the whole point. The pros !don't! open "real trash".

 

Even if "light " on HCP, they tend strongly to have hands with good ODR and 2 defensive tricks and a reasonable rebid.

I agree with you 100% that there is a difference between an opening that has less than 10 HCP and a light opening, let alone 11 or 12 HCP hands.

 

That being said, I respectfully disagree that the "pros" are not opening utter garbage these days. I have seen many on vugraph from major events. Not all are, but many are.

 

And, I would suggest that a qualification of a good ODR and two defensive tricks is by most people's definition a "light" opening. Sound openings express an expectation of 2 1/2 quicks, not "two defensive tricks," which is substantially and materially less. The term "good ODR" is simply a way of burying in Segalian terms a low losing trick count and an unexpectedly high control count.

 

The addition of a "reasonable rebid" gains something, but little really. What you are really saying, it seems, is that Hrothgar is right that light openings are bad, for many reasons, and that pros do not make light openings because they must have precisely the right hand for a light opening, with which they will make a light opening, which is a good idea.

 

Damn policitians. What have they done to us?

[foo]

IME, "defensive tricks" AKA "honor tricks" AKA "quick tricks".

Their definitions are the same in any book I've seen:

AK= 2, AQ= 1.5, AJ= 1.25, A= 1, KQ= 1, KJ= .75, Kx= .5

 

Other than Roth-Stone's 14 HCP and 2+ Quicks requirements, what system have you seen that requires more than 2 Quicks for a sound opening bid?

 

What I'm saying is that HCP are a p*ss poor way of evaluating what a minimum Opening is. Even if I don't take it to the extreme of the Karen McCallum's of the world.

[kenrexford]

IME, "defensive tricks" AKA "honor tricks" AKA "quick tricks".

Their definitions are the same in any book I've seen:

AK= 2, AQ= 1.5, AJ= 1.25, A= 1, KQ= 1, KJ= .75, Kx= .5

 

Other than Roth-Stone's 14 HCP or 2 1/2+ Quicks requirements, what system have you seen that requires more than 2 Quicks for a sound opening bid?

Culbertson is all the rage. Both the Blue Book version and the modern Gold Book version.

[foo]

IME, "defensive tricks" AKA "honor tricks" AKA "quick tricks".

Their definitions are the same in any book I've seen:

AK= 2, AQ= 1.5, AJ= 1.25, A= 1, KQ= 1, KJ= .75, Kx= .5

 

Other than Roth-Stone's 14 HCP or 2 1/2+ Quicks requirements, what system have you seen that requires more than 2 Quicks for a sound opening bid?

Culbertson is all the rage. Both the Blue Book version and the modern Gold Book version.

...if you call ~1938 "modern" :P

 

In all seriousness, the "physics" of the cards doesn't change. Simply our understanding of them. From time immemorial until eternity bridge will be "The game of A's and K's".

 

No matter what happens, reasonable 4M or 3N games light on HCP are going to require ~7+ controls, low loser counts, and well fitting hands.

 

Thus you should not open "light" on HCP unless the odds are good that such a situation might exist.

...and that deductively leads to the ODR and loser count stuff.

[kenrexford]

...you should not open "light" on HCP unless the odds are good that such a situation might exist.

OK. So, we are getting closer now. Keep coming, little bird.

 

Your argument has been fine-tuned to a conclusion that one should not open on a "light" hand unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the combination of your two defensive tricks, high ODR, and reasonable rebid with partner's completely unknown hand will yield a better than 50-50 chance of having a minimum of about seven combined controls, a low loser count, and well-fitting hands when you will end up in game because of a possible 2/1 GF call by partner on his unknown hand.

 

Do you notice the wild pimple in the middle of that sentence? How precisely does one look at his hand to gauge whether a hypothetical hand deemed by partner as gameworthy will in fact combine with this specific hand to produce this result?

 

Again, this sounds quite erudite.

 

Why not simply admit that you like light openings with hands that intelligent people would open light? You sound so silly arguing in favor of sound openings while describing and endorsing the theory of light openings perfectly.

[foo]

Because I =don't= open light. I =despise= the Rule of 20 (unless my opponents are using it :P )

 

Playing "natural" systems,

I =routinely= pass 8-9 loser 4333's with as many as 14 HCP unless I am playing 1N= 12-14 or they are control rich. Same goes for many 8-9 loser 4432's and 5m332's.

 

In 1st or 2nd, I =always= have my 2 defensive tricks when I open at the 1 level.

When I have less than "traditional" opening values, I have 6- losers rather than 7-.

 

Even in 3rd with 2way Reverse Drury as a "safety net" I do not open trash.

At the bare minimum, I have a Major suit I want pd to lead above all others.

 

In sum, I have a definition of "proper" opening that has far more kinship with "sound" than "light" because it is based on having considerably more assets than the the theoretical "average" hand which is a balanced or semi-balanced ~10 HCP.

 

What I !don't! do is "bow down before the holy writ of HCP". HCP are good to get novices playing reasonably. They are not what advanced or expert Bridge is about.

[kenrexford]

Because I =don't= open light.

Just out of curiosity, what would be your typical minimum hand for a 1♦ overcall of 1♣? How about a 2♣ overcall of a 1♠ opening? How about a 1♠ overcall of a 1♦ opening? Does vulnerability matter?

[foo]

Because I =don't= open light.

Just out of curiosity, what would be your typical minimum hand for a 1♦ overcall of 1♣? How about a 2♣ overcall of a 1♠ opening? How about a 1♠ overcall of a 1♦ opening? Does vulnerability matter?

In general, Direct Overcalls are 7-5 loser hands with decent shape and values.

=Particularly= in front of pd.

...and yes, vulnerability matters. So do conditions of contest and state of the match.

 

(1♣)-1♦ is usually a =solid= overcall. I may very well have the best hand at the table. Particularly if I do not have Major suit length, 6-4 losers and at least a Strong NT in terms of trick taking strength is not unusual.

(in contrast (1♣)-2♦ is very wide ranging)

 

The general theory of "how much space has been consumed and how much more will you consume with your overcall" definitely matters.

 

(1♣)-1♠ or (1♦)-2♣ or (1♥)-2♦ or (1♠)-2♥ can often be 6-8 losers even if pd is an unpassed hand. (We have agreements as to when it isn't.)

[kenrexford]

Interesting. I admittedly was suspecting a different answer.

 

I find myself somewhat sound to old-fashioned (maybe that's the word) standards when it comes to overcalls, wildly aggressive as to weak jump overcalls (when not unfavorable), and light openings. Meaning, for example, that there are hands that I might open but would consider too weak for a one-level overcall.

 

I expected you to have a converse theory, namely hyper-sound openings and relaxed overcalls, but you seem to just not bid much, except perhaps late.

[foo]

Interesting. I admittedly was suspecting a different answer.

 

I find myself somewhat sound to old-fashioned (maybe that's the word) standards when it comes to overcalls, wildly aggressive as to weak jump overcalls (when not unfavorable), and light openings. Meaning, for example, that there are hands that I might open but would consider too weak for a one-level overcall.

 

I expected you to have a converse theory, namely hyper-sound openings and relaxed overcalls, but you seem to just not bid much, except perhaps late.

Oh no. I bid quite a lot according to everyone who plays with me. :P

 

When We bid, I want to be as close to Absolute Par in as few bids as possible on every board. In contested auctions, I want Them to be taking the Last Guess.

 

If my hand says that the most likely way to get a good score on this board is to defend, I'm as quiet as a church mouse unless or until pd gets me in the auction or They make a mistake- at which point They start getting hit with penalty X's.

 

My openings are =far= from hyper sound from the POV of HCP most of the time.

I simply believe in shape, controls, and sources of tricks more than most advocates of "light initial action".