Opening bid?

[awm]

Suppose you have agreed 2/1 with a strong partner. You are not playing any sort of "two-suited" preempts, and have not specifically discussed opening style. Which of these look like opening 1♥ bids in first chair, all NV, IMPs?

[han]

I would expect everybody to open the last hand and pass the first hand.

 

I would open the next to last hand but I don't think it is bad not to do so.

 

The middle hand I could go either way, although playing with cherdano it is a clear opener.

 

The second hand I would pass although I might open it when playing with cherdano.

[neilkaz]

Middle hand is an opener for me, 2nd hand is too weak lacking aces.

[skjaeran]

The first one is just too weak for me, the rest I'd open. Of course provided that's my partnership style - I'd pass the 2nd hand with some.

[RichMor]

3, 4, and 5 I would open. 2 is a maybe, might depend on the 'X's

[jdonn]

3+ always. 2 depends on spots and vul and partnership. 1 is obviously too disgusting to open in any sort of normal system, and frankly I wouldn't want to play a system that tells me to open it.

 

BTW it's not totally clear that 4 is better than 3...

[kfay]

I'd open all of these except #1

 

After we go down in some contract on #2 and partner glares at me I'll just shrug, no apologies.

[rogerclee]

I would open (2).

[655321]

All the hands except for (1) are comfortable openers for me.

 

I would Pass (1) under the stated conditions (all NV). Vulnerable, it is an easy Pass, w/r I would always open (but I agree the hand is a bad hand, not 'worth' an opening bid).

[effervesce]

Everything but (1). (2) is close, but the rest are clear-cut openers IMO, and passing such hands is losing bridge.

 

With hand (2), how happy would you be with the auction

p-(1♠)-p-(2♠/3♠)? Double is possible, but partner wouldn't know you have 5 hearts.

 

Playing 2/1, I think it is far better to open lighter hands and GF as responder with stronger hands, than to open with sounder hands and GF with lighter hands.

[benlessard]

3+ always. 2 depends on spots and vul and partnership. 1 is obviously too disgusting to open in any sort of normal system, and frankly I wouldn't want to play a system that tells me to open it.

 

BTW it's not totally clear that 4 is better than 3...

Agree 100%.

 

I prefer to have 2 real quick tricks when opening light.

 

Playing 2/1, I think it is far better to open lighter hands and GF as responder with stronger hands, than to open with sounder hands and GF with lighter hands.

 

This doesnt take into account that sometimes you want to X the opponents.

[gwnn]

I open 2.65 or so.

[ochinko]

I like to have 2 defensive tricks when I have only 11 HCP and 5 cards suit(s), so #3 is my choice.

 

Playing Precision ♣ one would hardly pass #2 though.

 

BTW, I think that if we end up playing in a red suit #4 promises more than #3 even with an Ace less, but if we end up defending, I prefer to hold #3.

[Apollo81]

(2)

[whereagles]

I'll pass 1st hand due to bad hcp placement.

 

Open all others. Note that the suit is hearts and we're short on spades. If we don't bid those hearts now, we might not have another chance.

[mike777]

Suppose you have agreed 2/1 with a strong partner. You are not playing any sort of "two-suited" preempts, and have not specifically discussed opening style. Which of these look like opening 1♥ bids in first chair, all NV, IMPs?

I open all but the first one but change the first one just a little, example give it 6Hs and I open it one heart. Of course partner needs to expect this.

[Jlall]

second one

[maggieb]

Well I have to agree with Josh again, hand 3 is better than hand 4. I would certainly open hands 3 and 5 (of course), the rest I consider a style issue. Playing with my husband (who is intermediate or advanced-intermediate) I would pass with the other hands. Playing with my favorite (bridge-) partner I would open all but the first hand but please keep in mind that we frequently open 5332 11-counts as well.

[y66]

2 also. Nice poll! Good stuff for discussion.

[Winstonm]

Last one only.

 

Would argue, though, to lighten this opening requirements at MPs back to hand 3, but then, at MPs with this opening style would argue against 2/1 use, so go figure.

 

As far as hands 3 and 4, 3 is more defensive while 4 is more offensive, so in the sense of opening offensive potential 4 is slightly superior - whereas, JDON is clearly inferior so he shouldn't be opened at all. B)

[han]

Why does opening light argue against 2/1? Does your argument against opening light and playing 2/1 as gameforcing also hold when playing precision?

 

Why is hand 4 more offensive? By offensive I assume you mean that its expected number of tricks on offense is higher, if my assumption is incorrect let me know.

[Winstonm]

Why does opening light argue against 2/1? Does your argument against opening light and playing 2/1 as gameforcing also hold when playing precision?

 

Why is hand 4 more offensive? By offensive I assume you mean that its expected number of tricks on offense is higher, if my assumption is incorrect let me know.

Let me take these in order

 

Q: Why does opening light argue against 2/1?

A: It doesn't. I believe at MPs being able to stop at 2 or 3 after a 2/1 is helpful. So my statement concerns form of scoring rather than opening style and system.

 

Q: Does your argument against opening light and playing 2/1 as gameforcing also hold when playing precision?

A: See first answer. I don't make the argument you infer. As for Precision, 2/1, and opening light I think it doesn't much matter. If you decide to open light, you simply have to beef up the 2/1 responses to compensate. BTW, I have played "Power Precision" which combined precision, strong NTs, and 2/1. It had no real bearing on the lower limits of opening, for me. I saw the benefit as restriction on the upper limits of the 1-bid. (And still do. This goes all the way back to Shenken's thinking on the value of strong clubs.)

 

Q: Why is hand 4 more offensive?

A: It has its high-card strength working in pairs and also has all of its high-card strength in its long suits.

[Finch]

Recently I've started taking more account of vulnerability when deciding whether to open light or not. Interesting that your poll doesn't mention the vul...

[han]

Q: Why does opening light argue against 2/1?

A: It doesn't.  I believe at MPs being able to stop at 2 or 3 after a 2/1 is helpful.  So my statement concerns form of scoring rather than opening style and system.

 

 

 

I would argue that your initial statement was complete gibberish written in unintelligible language, which is why I asked you to clarify it. I still don't follow why A follows rom B the way you state that A follows from B.

 

Q: Why is hand 4 more offensive?

A: It has its high-card strength working in pairs and also has all of its high-card strength in its long suits.

 

Yes I can see that. Unfortunately you did not answer my question about what the word offensive means so as I cannot be sure how you meant it.

 

One possible interpretation is that hand 4 is more offensive than hand 3 if the expected number of tricks opposite a random dummy is higher. To test this I dealt 300 deals for each hand and let dealmaster pro determine the number of double dummy tricks for each deal with hearts as trump. For hand 3 had the total number of tricks was 1412 and for hand 4 the total number of tricks was 1413. Clearly I should run a larger test if I wanted to be absolutely sure which hand is more "offensive", but it is already clear that if the expected number for hand 4 is indeed larger, it will only be larger by a very small amount.

 

I suggest that the matter is not as simple as you make it seem.

[han]

I wasn't quite happy with my simulation because obviously we are only interested in the number of tricks in hearts when we have a heart fit. Who cares how many tricks we take with hearts as trump when partner has short hearts, as in that case we would never declare hearts. And maybe winstonm was right that hand 4 does indeed play better when a fit is found.

 

The truth is it doesn't. This time I dealt 400 hands for each and I gave partner 3-4 hearts. The total number of tricks for hand 3 was 3560 and the total number of tricks for hand 4 was 3539, again a very small difference but this time in favor of hand 3.

 

So no, I am not convinced that the offensive potential of hand 4 is larger.