Free Style

[Flame]

In some books which discuss bidding (not new books) there are suggestions of free style using judgsment to decide if opening 1NT with 5 card major or 1M, opening 4 card major when apropriate. hiding 4 card major in responde to 1m and such things.

I wonder if this kind of style, which takes skills and is also lots of fun has passed from the world taken over by suit length only which might be apropriate for the law of total tricks world we live in. Are there players at top level who still use free style ?

 

P.S. I believe this forum is more systems discussion in general then non-natural so i post this here.

[NickRW]

I can't tell you what top players do and how this compares with a generation ago. Not many can I suspect.

 

Playing strong NT, would you open this 1N or 1♣?

 

AKxx

xxx

xx

AKJx

 

I'd plump for the latter probably, so we're not all slaves to system.

 

Nick

[helene_t]

Can't speak for top players either. But my impression is that there is a difference between opener's strategy and responder's.

 

Opener (except for light 3rd seat openers) must describe his hand accurately so that responder can place the contract. This doesn't necessarily mean that you pay no attention to honor location, but it is something you will make agreements about.

 

Responder is usually captain so he is allowed to think practically. You may see responders applying the principle of preparedness or making tactical bids.

[awm]

You still see a fair number of tactical actions. For example, it is very common to open a good four card major in third or fourth chair, or to overcall on a four card suit with a concentration of values there. These sorts of evaluations come into play a lot when deciding whether to preempt too.

 

But I think this sort of stuff is less common in constructive auctions than it used to be. Some of this is because of the prevalence of IMP play, where game and slam bidding is critical. On the example hand of:

 

♠AKxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣AKJx

 

It is true that opening 1NT could lead to playing in notrump with a suit wide open, and that it could lead to missing a good fit in spades. But opening 1♣ in standard methods creates many more problems than it solves. Suppose partner bids a red suit and you rebid 1♠; next partner bids 1NT. Do you pass (but partner could easily have 9-10 hcp)? Raise (but partner will expect a better hand and will accept on virtually all 8s)? Say you open 1♣ and get lucky -- partner bids 1♠. But now your hand is really too good for 2♠, but not up to the standards most people expect for 3♠.

 

Many actions which lead to avoiding a potentially "bad" 3NT game have been found not to work so well -- you miss too many "good" 3NT games in the process. In the modern game it is much more common to open 1NT on a normal "suit opening bid" such as 5332 with a good major or 2236 with a good minor in order to show the values rather than distorting in the opposite direction to open 1m with a 4432 or 5332 hand in the notrump range.

[TylerE]

Playing strong NT, would you open this 1N or 1♣?

 

AKxx

xxx

xx

AKJx

I can't *imagine* opening that hand anything other than 1NT playing from a 13-15 to 15-18 NT. If you don't open that 1NT you forever lose the ability to accurately describe the hand. If you CAN show this hand after opening 1♣ in a Strong NT system, then your system has such an overlap of bids as to be severely sub-optimal. The modern trend among top players is to open 1NT more, not less, with 1NT openings on 5M332, 2=2=(54), 6m322, etc becoming more and more common.

[pclayton]

I can't tell you what top players do and how this compares with a generation ago. Not many can I suspect.

 

Playing strong NT, would you open this 1N or 1♣?

 

AKxx

xxx

xx

AKJx

 

I'd plump for the latter probably, so we're not all slaves to system.

 

Nick

I'd open 1♣ too.

 

I am a slave to no system, but I am a slave to Kimi :)

[NickRW]

[i can't *imagine* opening that hand anything other than 1NT playing from a 13-15 to 15-18 NT. If you don't open that 1NT you forever lose the ability to accurately describe the hand. If you CAN show this hand after opening 1♣ in a Strong NT system, then your system has such an overlap of bids as to be severely sub-optimal. The modern trend among top players is to open 1NT more, not less, with 1NT openings on 5M332, 2=2=(54), 6m322, etc becoming more and more common.

I largely agree with you. I certainly open 1N quite often with 6m322, also some 5M332, some 22(45), even 5m4M22, plus the odd 4441 and I've even done it (54)22. But they are generally all with scattered values, lots secondary honours, intermediates etc.

 

I suggest that the example I gave is at least worthy of consideration of going in the opposite direction - all values in only two suits, primary honours, no intermediates. These tend to do well in a suit contract.

 

I don't really see the problem that some have alluded to with the rebid either. 1S is always available over 1 red and we bend over backwards to avoid 1N over 1C if at all possible - plus I don't play a forcing 1 NT, so if pard thinks 1N is the best response he is probably right.

 

Though it is true to say that I'm actually from a weak NT area of the world, so the example is meaningless to me - you'd need to remove a king for it to be something on my radar screen in real life.

 

Nick

[Flame]

Playing money on BBO today i held something like this:

72

AQJ7

AQ43

1082

 

i opened 1H and passed partner 2H.

Parnter gave me something like this:

1063

942

62

AQ763

 

I think we reached the best partscore, it could be better if partner didnt have such a nice club suit but still 2H is fine, and it made it harder for them to get to thier 2S.

Im not sure what could have gone wrong. Maybe i should be afraid of partner supporting to the 3 level on 4 card suit on competition.

[Guest Jlall]

I can't tell you what top players do and how this compares with a generation ago. Not many can I suspect.

Don't you think bidding knowledge and theory has come a long way since a generation ago? I doubt the best players a generation ago could even beat second tier players now, they would be better card players but the bidding advantage would be too huge to overcome.

 

I think people who hold on to the thinking of an old generation in an evolving game quickly fall from the top. It is important to adapt. The fact that you are one of maybe half a dozen experts who would open 1C with this hand now when before it was standard should indicate something to you. Maybe it really is better to open 1N!

 

I don't really see the problem that some have alluded to with the rebid either. 1S is always available over 1 red and we bend over backwards to avoid 1N over 1C if at all possible

 

You really don't see the problems? If it goes 1C p 1r p 1S p 1N p p p you could easily have missed a 25 HCP 3N. That is a disaster for most people. If it goes 1C p 1S p 2S you have really underbid, but if you bid 1C p 1S p 3S you have really overbid. That is because 15-17 balanced is not a possible hand, so there is no bid to later show that. If the auction goes 1C 1S X p 1N you have shown 12-14 and you have a nice 15. Again you could easily have missed a game.

 

The problem is you will never be able to show your strength. You will usually end up treating your hand like a minimum opener when it isn't. You are going to miss games just to avoid declaring NT yourself.

[NickRW]

What you say has truth. Equally partner can hold

 

Qxx

QTxx

Axx

Qxx

 

You'll maybe end in 3N and, when the spades don't break, you're one off, while I collected 120.

 

Frankly it was only an example - I don't really want to make a big deal about it all.

 

Also perhaps I'm more used to weak NT methods when 1C and later 1S doesn't show anything extra, but the hand, to make the example consistent, would have been a king weaker anyway. Many of you guys here have far greater experience of the pros and cons of doing different things in the context of a strong NT than I do.

 

Nick

[pclayton]

I think it's closer than Justin and Adam are indicating. While this hand might get difficult to describe (I wouldn't do this playing Walsh since I cannot handle 1♣ - 1♦) there are some nice benefits. You will almost always get to a better part score, you get a nice lead, you will right side 3N when partner has red suit tenaces, and you can sensibly look for 4-3 spades.

 

1♣ - 1♠? I would 3♠ and only characterize it as a mild overbid. We'd all 3♠ without the ♣J but with a stiff heart.

 

To me the biggest downside to not opening 1N is that you've given them information on the lead.

 

I also wouldn't 1♣ in MPs since it is soooo anti-field, unless I felt like I needed to swing a little.

 

If all of this gives you heartburn, then just imagine you have AKxx xx xx AQxxx, which evaluates pretty close to the OP.

[Finch]

I think there's still a lot of 'free style' bidding around, but it tends to be a bit more tightly constrained within overall system considerations, because regular partnership systems that evolved to the point where they form an interlocking whole.

 

So (for example) if you have no way of showing a 2533 16-count after 1H - 1S then you have to open these hands 1NT.

 

Within the parameters of the systems I play, for example,

 

- I can choose whether to open 1NT or 1M with a 5-card major (the default is 1M)

- I can open with a 4-card major in 3rd seat though not 1st or 2nd

- I could call AKxx xx AKJx xxx a 1D opening if I wanted to (I'd then need to bid it as a 4144 which isn't such a bad thing)

 

But:

- I can't conceal a 4-card major in response to a 1minor opening and ever 'recover' into a major suit fit

- I can't successfully open AKxx xx xxx AKJx 1C (although actually I'd quite like to) and ever get my shape across, but funnily enough

 

There's also then the matter of partnership agreements about where 'free style' is allowed to be applied (e.g. are you allowed to be creative with your 1-level overcalls, or does partner always have to take you seriously?)

 

I think overall the biggest difference between now and 30+ years ago is that there are more partnerships who have spent serious time discussing the type of bidding that used just to be called 'judgement'

[NickRW]

I also wouldn't 1♣ in MPs since it is soooo anti-field, unless I felt like I needed to swing a little.

Well, hmm. I had some disquiet about this example hand after I replied to Justin. You know, like what if he's right :) I mean, I would only consider it with the black suits personally as any other combination is more problematic over the rebid, so 5 times out of 6 I agree with him anyway for, as Frances mentions, systematic reasons.

 

Anyway, I like running simulations - I know some have problems over these, but they seem to me to be better than nothing at trying to come up with an objective sort of answer. Justin's point was what if parter has a 10 count and we miss 3N. So I ran the sim with partner's hand constrained to 10hcp, no 8 card major fit, no 10 card minor fit - i.e. the sorts of hands where the field is going to try for 3N possibly via Stayman if partner has hearts. Also LHO constrained to not hold any 6 carder, nor any 55 two suiter, nor any 5 carder with 12+hcp - so LHO was relatively likely to be silent and therefore no reason for us not to bid 3N.

 

What I got was only 38 out of 100 3N games succeeded double dummy - so being in 3N at MPs and under these specific circumstances wouldn't have been a winner.

 

Non vul at imps, staying in 2N or 3m if there is a fit there was 60 imps better.

 

Vul at imps, staying out of the game was 17 imps worse.

 

I acknowledge there are often good reasons for not bucking your system and partner, in real life could have had all sorts of other hands etc etc etc.

 

Nick

[pclayton]

I also wouldn't 1♣ in MPs since it is soooo anti-field, unless I felt like I needed to swing a little.

Well, hmm. I had some disquiet about this example hand after I replied to Justin. You know, like what if he's right :P I mean, I would only consider it with the black suits personally as any other combination is more problematic over the rebid, so 5 times out of 6 I agree with him anyway for, as Frances mentions, systematic reasons.

 

Anyway, I like running simulations - I know some have problems over these, but they seem to me to be better than nothing at trying to come up with an objective sort of answer. Justin's point was what if parter has a 10 count and we miss 3N. So I ran the sim with partner's hand constrained to 10hcp, no 8 card major fit, no 10 card minor fit - i.e. the sorts of hands where the field is going to try for 3N possibly via Stayman if partner has hearts. Also LHO constrained to not hold any 6 carder, nor any 55 two suiter, nor any 5 carder with 12+hcp - so LHO was relatively likely to be silent and therefore no reason for us not to bid 3N.

 

What I got was only 38 out of 100 3N games succeeded double dummy - so being in 3N at MPs and under these specific circumstances wouldn't have been a winner.

 

Non vul at imps, staying in 2N or 3m if there is a fit there was 60 imps better.

 

Vul at imps, staying out of the game was 17 imps worse.

 

I acknowledge there are often good reasons for not bucking your system and partner, in real life could have had all sorts of other hands etc etc etc.

 

Nick

So when partner has exactly 10 HCP, and the other constraints, we will make 3N 38 times out of 100?

 

Somehow this doesn't seem to that worrisome.

[OleBerg]

I also wouldn't 1♣ in MPs since it is soooo anti-field, unless I felt like I needed to swing a little.

Whats wrong with bidding anti-field?

[TylerE]

In a case like this it's an easy way to get a bottom when all the LOLs have a simple 1NT-3NT auction.

[OleBerg]

In a case like this it's an easy way to get a bottom when all the LOLs have a simple 1NT-3NT auction.

(Assuming it's an answer to my post.)

 

But if your "anti-field" bid is actually a better bid, it should be even easier to get a pure top.

[TylerE]

Don't confuse a technically better bid with a better (matchpoint) spot. I'd rather be in a 60% 3NT than a 100% 5m all day long at MP. Just because 3N could be down on best defense doesn't mean it will be beaten. I could make extra tricks on careful/sneaky declarer play. Other tables will get less than optimal defense. Basically, 5m will NOT score well, as even when 3NT should be going down, it often won't be, and 3NT is where the field will be.

[OleBerg]

Don't confuse a technically better bid with a better (matchpoint) spot.

 

Excuse me for being frank, but I believe it is you who are confusing a tecnically better bid with a better matchpoint spot. Obviously, if I know that we will end up in 3nt, it is better to open 1nt. (Actually it is better to open 3nt, and have partner pass it.)

 

But before we open, we do not know, that we are going to 3nt. We might as well be headed for a partscore, for a slam, or end up on defence. Advanced players might even find their occasional way to 4♠ on a 4-3 fit.

 

I'd rather be in a 60% 3NT than a 100% 5m all day long at MP. Just because 3N could be down on best defense doesn't mean it will be beaten. I could make extra tricks on careful/sneaky declarer play. Other tables will get less than optimal defense. Basically, 5m will NOT score well, as even when 3NT should be going down, it often won't be, and 3NT is where the field will be.

 

Obviously this would depend on how likely 3nt is to making overtricks. On a generel note, I do agree though, that you should stick to 3nt, whenever there is the slightest doubt.

 

That is not the point however.

 

After some arguing we might very well com to the conclusion that 1nt has a higher expectacy of scored MP's than a 1♣ opener. (In all the possible continuations there are after the two openings.)

 

But if that is the case, 1nt is a better bid. (Wheter you would add the prefix "technically" is a matter of definition.)

 

And then you should of course bid 1nt. Not because 1♣ is "Anti-field", but because 1nt is simply a better bid.

[bill1157]

Freestyle bidding can and should work well if it the underlying system makes sense. Unfortunately standard american bidding (and 2/1) has a flawed base, and therefore there need to be multiple "patches " to make it work. For example, in 2/1 a forcing nt response is needed to cover for the times you open 1M on a semi-balanced 14 count. If your NT range were 14-16, you would not need 1N forcing....just an example.

 

Bill

[jdonn]

It took me a minute to realize what freestyle bidding meant. Then I realized it's a synonym (sp.?) for judgment.

[awm]

To some degree it's a synonym for judgement, and obviously people still use judgement.

 

But I think modern methods codify judgement for the first few bids of the auction to a very great degree, and modern players are very reluctant to go against this codification. I guess my point is that if you give a player a distribution and a point total, in many cases the choice of bid (for the first round or two of bidding at least) will be independent of location of values. For example:

 

(1) Playing five-card majors, modern players open 1♣ with AKQT Ax xxx xxxx. I think there was a time when most would say that this strong spade suit "looks like five" and open 1♠ despite playing generally 5cM methods.

 

(2) If partner opens 1♣ virtually all will bid 1♠ with xxxx xxx AKQx xx and also AKQx xxx xxxx xx whereas I think there was a time when the first hand responded 1♦ and the second 1♠ ("show where you live")

 

(3) There was once a style of opening the "better minor" with equal length; the current trend seems to be to select an opening by distribution rather than suit quality (some will open 1♣ with 2344 and some will open 1♦, but virtually all make the same call with Kx Kxx AKxx xxxx and with the minors reversed).

 

I think there is still plenty of room for varying the bids in later rounds of auctions based on suit quality, and that people look at suit quality a lot more in competitive sequences (i.e. whether to overcall on a four card suit) than they do in unobstructed auctions.

[pclayton]

I also wouldn't 1♣ in MPs since it is soooo anti-field, unless I felt like I needed to swing a little.

Whats wrong with bidding anti-field?

In this instance, I think you are totally randomizing a MP result by opening 1♣. Obviously, many good things can happen, and many terrible things can happen, or it might not matter a whole lot.

 

Some good things: We get to a nice spade moysian game or p/s, a nice 4-4 club fit or pard plays hearts or NT which might be better from the other side.

 

Some bad things: The opponents are able to compete in a red suit over 1♣. LHO was about to lead a club or spade against NT and we talked him out of it. RHO makes the killing lead against pards contract, where LHO wouldn't have found the lead.

 

But if you think you are one of the better players in the room, and I'm guessing a lot of the forum posters believe they are in most events, you are taking a spin at the big wheel of fate. essentially, you are frequently betting a full board (or fraction thereof) on your judgment.

[han]

This is abuse of the word judgement. It has little to do with judgement.

 

Perhaps "bidding philosophy" is a better term.