Open bidding Strategies

[meto]

Different strategies bring different styles of bidding.

 

In IMP scoring we push the board to game however the final decision should be based on clear information; whether to play game/slam or penalize the opps. That's why we have to be more strict and abide the terms of minimum values and features of the hand required for open-bidding. My belief is such that we should not be below 12hcp when open bidding in the 1st and 2nd seat.

 

As the second critical information to pard ; the nature of the hand should be such that it should promise at least 1,5 defensive tricks. Suppose we have the only values of AKQJx in ♣ and Qxx in ♠ reaching a total of 12hcp..We should never open-bid with such a hand in the 1st or 2nd seat when it comes to playing an IMP scoring match.

 

The reason is that in the auction the bidding may reach such a critical stage that the responder should make the final decision..whether to play the hand , sacrifice or penalize the opps. That bit of information about the defensive nature of the declarer's hand becomes very critical in such a position.

 

In MP scoring the story is quite different; since the main goal is not to sell-out the hand to cheap contracts we may open-bid with poorer hands and with less defensive nature; just to take advantage in part-score battling. So that the competition will find it more difficult to enter the auction. However, unlike the IMP strategy, concluding about the level of the contract is something taken with a more conservative approach.

[inquiry]

I will just respond to this post by saying that your views on opening bids at imps are, well, not necessarily shared by many top players. We could start with hands from world class play as examples.

 

In the 2003 Bermuda Bowl, these hands were opened 1st or 2nd seat, just from the first SEGMENT (16 boards):

 

S-7 H-KQ754 D-Q6 C-KT832 (bd 5, by Merckstroth and by molson in venice cup)

S-Q6 H-AJ8543 D-832 C-KJ (bd 11, opened 1H at both vc tables and 1H at one and 2H by Nunes in the Bermuda bowl)

S-32 H-AJT984 D-87 C-A86 (bd 12, opened 1H first seat at all 4 tables)

 

In the Jimmy Cayne's matches on the BBO, at Jimmy;s TABLE (playing imps) in extended team game (28 boards) by expert or world class players, opening bids were made with less than 12 hcp a lot of times. There were 548 hands were an opening bid was made with less than 12 hcp (once with 8 hcp, 16 times with 9 hcp, 102 times with 10 hcp, and 429 times with 11 hcp), and in second seat, 307 times (less chance to open due to a first seat opener). The opener held 8 hcp twice, 9 hcp 3 times, 10 hcp 67 times, and 11 hcp 234 times.

 

If you want to look at a lot of hands were in world class play, hands were opened light check out Zar's pages that shows world class players opening weak hands that his evaluation system also suggest should be opened. His basic webpage is http://www.zarpoints.com

[meto]

World Class examples do not hold to be a good comparison base though, since they elaborate too many special partnership agreements which support the systems in a wider scope.

 

What we are talking about here are the general guidelines and suggestions which may apply to most partnerships; even to those partners playing for the first time.

 

Of course, there is no single truth in bridge systems but meaningful approaches.

[Fluffy]

This is suposed to be youth bridge, AKQxx is alreadya an opening, AKQJx Qxx is almost a reverse.

[ochinko]

Hmm, if you're not going to learn from the best, what other points of reference remain?

 

The only thing that could improve Ben's statistics is to group the openers into systems like strong clubs where 1M is limited to 15 pts, and those like SAYC, 2/1, Acol, etc. where it could be 19. It is easier for strong clubbers to open lightly.

[meto]

Hmm, if you're not going to learn from the best, what other points of reference remain?

 

The only thing that could improve Ben's statistics is to group the openers into systems like strong clubs where 1M is limited to 15 pts, and those like SAYC, 2/1, Acol, etc. where it could be 19. It is easier for strong clubbers to open lightly.

if you are going to learn their system as a whole..no objection to that !....but taking a particular bit is of no use for sure !

[Tola18]

and those like SAYC, 2/1, Acol, etc. where it could be 19. It is easier for strong clubbers to open lightly.

Now, the Acolists have always been known for their light openings, especially in majors. But this was of course when Acol was ACOL, ie with Acol 3/4 strong openings = the Acol-twos.

 

Modern proselytes to Acol can of course use Multi2D + Acol-twos, and thus still have the best possible from these worlds. I like this solution very much.

[han]

Meto, who are you and why do you think you can teach people here how to play bridge?

[cherdano]

I will take a stab and claim that no world class player will pass with ♠Qxx and ♣AKQJx. If they all agree on that, that's a pretty good indication that it is losing bridge to pass such a hand.

[awm]

Partscore swings still count at IMPs. You'd be surprised how those four and five imp swings add up. In some sense it is actually safer to compete aggressively at IMPs because people don't like to double you in partials as much. It also can pay to interfere with opponents -- you want the opponents guessing whether they have game, whether they have slam, which game is right, and so forth. It is hard to bid slam after your opponents opened the bidding! Everyone (from world-class pairs down to intermediates) has a lot more trouble getting to the best spot when the opponents are in the bidding.

 

While there's certainly some advantage to maintaining standards for defensive strength in one level openings (helps partner decide whether to double for penalty and such), there seems to be more advantage to getting in early on shapely hands. In addition to messing with the opponents, there are pairs of hands where game is cold and neither partner has a clear opening bid. Perhaps some of these can be opened with preempts (especially if you have methods to open two-suited hands with preempts) but there's still a range problem (if you open 2♠ showing spades and a minor with both ♠KJTxx ♥xx ♦Qxxx ♣xx and ♠KQJTx ♥x ♦KQTxx ♣xx it's hard for partner to reply accurately).

 

Anyways as Ben indicated, the expert tendency has been to open lighter and lighter even in partnerships that don't have the methods to deal with this (i.e. you see expert "pickup partnerships" doing this too, not just established pairs). So there must be some benefit, even though you sometimes see spectacular train wrecks.

[neilkaz]

I will take a stab and claim that no world class player will pass with ♠Qxx and ♣AKQJx. If they all agree on that, that's a pretty good indication that it is losing bridge to pass such a hand.

No kidding !! This hand is lots better than most minimums (if you call it that) as it will most likely provide 5♣ tricks as soon as you gain the lead in NT and as soon as you draw trumps in a suit contract. If you cannot draw trumps in a suit contract, the ♣ may be used to get a pitch or 2. On defence we can hope that the AK cash.

 

Honestly, Meto, if my pickup PD in MBC (I only play IMPs) fails to open this hand, I am likely to appologize and leave due to serious differences in our bidding approach. Most of my regular PD's would open with Jxx,xxx,xx,AKQJx as would I.

 

In IMPs one wants to bid games more aggressively than at MP.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[Fluffy]

Lol guys, you being so hard on meto, this was originally posted at youth bridge, someone moved it.

[jdonn]

Lol guys, you being so hard on meto, this was originally posted at youth bridge, someone moved it.

So it's better to start the wrong lessons started young, where they will get learned for good?

[blackshoe]

The only thing that could improve Ben's statistics is to group the openers into systems like strong clubs where 1M is limited to 15 pts, and those like SAYC, 2/1, Acol, etc. where it could be 19. It is easier for strong clubbers to open lightly.

Certainly it's easier; that's why the pretty much standard range for a non-1♣ one level opener in Precision is 11-15 HCP.

 

The opening one bid in Acol is limited by the existence of the Acol 2 bid, which is, iirc, roughly 19-21 HCP. There is no such limitation in SAYC or 2/1; the upper limit of the opening one bid in those systems is 21 HCP, unless you play the strong 2♣ bid to, in effect, include Acol 2 bids - which seems foolish to me.

[Fluffy]

Lol guys, you being so hard on meto, this was originally posted at youth bridge, someone moved it.

So it's better to start the wrong lessons started young, where they will get learned for good?

Its better to give lessons to the young when you think others ain't doing it, than teaching experts.

[ASkolnick]

While I don't agree with Meto's post, which is certainly not a good example with 5 tricks in hand, there is some argument to opening sounder than lighter in certain situations.

 

In general, I don't think you gain by opening 1 of a minor light in most standard systems. Majors on the other hand, will be more preemptive and get you to game more easily. BTW, AKQJx, side Q is not light. I agree with many of the principles of ZAR points (I have a system based on some of his ideas), but the ability to double gets compromised if you do not promise Quick Tricks.

 

For the most part, aggression works. That is why people play pre-emptive 2 bids instead of strong 2's. But there are plenty of systems where opening sound would work just as well.

 

As for IMPS versus matchpoints, you don't have to compete as aggressively at IMPS because +50 versus +110 is not much of a difference, but you also don't have to worry about the fear of a double. So, it is probably about the same competing in partials.

 

As for IMPS, we all know the rewards for aggression, especially vulnerable. While at matchpoints, the goal is just to beat most of the field, so bidding games in itself is not a reward unless most people are in it.

[helene_t]

I will take a stab and claim that no world class player will pass with ♠Qxx and ♣AKQJx. If they all agree on that, that's a pretty good indication that it is losing bridge to pass such a hand.

Not sure how persuading that argument is but in any case I agree with the conclusion.

 

You want to convey as much information as possible before opps take over the auction. You do this by making the low-level openings Pass, 1♣ and 1♦ approximately equally frequent. It could that I think my bidding system does not assign very useful meaning to the minor suit openings. In that case I would chose another bidding system.

 

I think the "pass" in opening seat, especially first seat, is already overloaded in standard systems.

[Gerben42]

I think the "pass" in opening seat, especially first seat, is already overloaded in standard systems.

 

It is. That's where "weak opening systems" get in. Many NBOs put limits on opening strength though. In Germany where I live now it is particularly tough with the rule-of-18 requirement.

 

On the other hand, the lower your LOWER limit, the smaller your range must be.

 

Fantunes: 13 - 33

SAYC: 12 - 22

Acol: 11 - 19

Precision: 10 - 15

[ArtK78]

I think the "pass" in opening seat, especially first seat, is already overloaded in standard systems.

 

It is. That's where "weak opening systems" get in. Many NBOs put limits on opening strength though. In Germany where I live now it is particularly tough with the rule-of-18 requirement.

 

On the other hand, the lower your LOWER limit, the smaller your range must be.

 

Fantunes: 13 - 33

SAYC: 12 - 22

Acol: 11 - 19

Precision: 10 - 15

Not true.

 

My regular partner and I open light in 1st and 2nd seats nonvul. Our lower limit is 10 HCP. The requirements for our 2♣ opening bid is not any different than it is in any other position. So our opening 1 bid range is 10-22 HCP.

 

I will say that we reduce our opening 2NT bid from 20-21 to 19-21 in those seats. :P