open?

[jillybean]

An interesting analysis that seems to demonstrate the benefits of calling this hand a 1NT open. Of course the fact that the strong 1♣ will not be playing in 1♣ means that if those hands could be excluded, the very slight +.02 imps for the 1♣ opne would also be negative.

 

I'm not convinced that this does prove the benefits of opening 1N. If you look at the hands from the JEC games, isn't the total score -42 imp, -1.4 average?

Although the amount of data that Ben can search is impressive, (tyvm for doing this Ben) I would not say that it consists of good bridge.

 

This entire debate could be rather futile, 1♣/1N may not significantly change the state of the match.

[han]

Kathryn, the 1S suggestion by your partner is very poor.

 

1NT is not unreasonable, but if you want to respected by the cool kids you should open 1C.

 

Helene goes way over the top. Surely if you open 1NT and partner invites you have a completely automatic accept, this would be a very maximal 1NT opening.

 

Having said that, once upon a time in the LM pairs I opened 1C on a 4333 15-count, lefty overcalled 1S in my KJx, my partner invited with 2S. I bid only 2NT and my partner 3NT on a balanced 11-count, down 1. I should never have told this story to JLALL and JDONN, who've been making fun of me ever since.

[han]

It is not a good 4333 18 but it's certainly not one of the worst, and that's what I would reserve an 18 point downgrade for.

 

I agree with this. This hand has 1 ace and 3 kings, a 4333 hand with no aces and many queens and jacks (no tens) would be worse.

[inquiry]

Long Rambling Rant Warning. Looking at upgrade/downgrade ideas....

 

AQ75, K64, KQJ, K52

 

It is interesting that some (at least justin and han) consider this hand a"good 18" because it has an ace and three kings. Good enough to overcome the poor distribution (4333). Perhaps they are right. Certainly in Justin's case and perhaps in han's they take more tricks with 18 hcp than I do,so they don't need to be as cautious when downgrading hands. But I want to consider what factors influencea decision to upgrade (better than average) or downgrade (worse than average) a hand.

 

You might think we should not be talking about upgrading this 18 hcp (after all it has more than the maximum for 1NT opener) so only downgrade values that should be considered. However, I automatically downgrade all 4333 handpatterns, and not just for opening 1NT. So for me NOT to open 1NT on a 4333 hand with 18 hcp, it would have to have some feature to make me upgrade it for the downgrade came automatically with this hand pattern.

 

What features might cause someone to upgrade an 4333 hand? Well, clearly controls are one feature. Both Justin and Han mentioned this hand has an ace and three kings (5 controls). Another is the presences of Ten's and nine's (the more the merrier). Location of honors in combinations is another as well as honors in the long suit (for example AQxx Kxx KQJ Kxx is better than KxxxAQx KQJ Kxx because of two honors in the long suit in the first case).

 

But how rare is FIVE controls when holding 18 hcp and a balanced distribution.The maximum is eight controls (something like AKx Kxxx Axx Ax) and the most frequent holding seems to be six controls can be gotten to several ways (AxxAJxx Axx AJx, AQxx Axx Axx Axx, AKx Kxx. Kxx. KQxx, AKx Kxx KJx KJx). The fewest controls you can have with 18 is two (specifically two kings and all four queens and jacks, so that is very rare).

 

So one question might be, is 5 controls a lot for a flat 18 hcp hand? That is, is it relatively uncommon a holding with the average considerably less than 5 controls?

 

One way to approach this is to manually examine a lot of hands. The hands I printed out from some old JEC matches on the first page of this thread showed this frequency for controls

 

From JEC match posted earlier
Controls      Frequency
    2                 0
    3                 0
    4                 1
    5                10
    6                22
    7                14
    8                  3    

 

This suggest that 5 controls is a "bad" 18 hcp in the context of what is usually held by hands with 18 hcp. Of course a better way is to use math to determine the expected frequency of hands with so many controls for 18 hcp, or to use a large database of hands dealt and played to estimate the expected frequency. I combined dealer hands with 18hcp and 4333 distribution across five Bridgebrowser databases to get a collection of 106,954 played hands which worked out to be 6366 unique deals. When you break down thedeals the ratio of hands per control was (normalized to 5 controls)

 

 

 

Cntrls  Normalized
2       0.000806
3       0.013999
4       0.179365
5       1
6       2.087943
7       1.563372
8       0.538245

 

So it turns out, 5 controls is less than the expected number of controls for a hand with 18 hcp. The average number of controls is actually 6.22 controls (based upon this bridgebrowser data) So as far as

upgrading, a good 18 might be more than 5 controls with 5 controls below average for 18 hcp.

 

One speculative evaluation method is Banzai points as recommended by Ron Klinger. The original hand in this post evaluates out as 25 Banzai points, and Klinger suggest opening 1NT with 22 to 25 Banzai points.Adding just one TEN to the hand would make it too strong for a Klinger 1NTopening bid. Interesting, swapping the ACE for two queens would reduce the controls to 3 but but would increase the Banzai points to 27. Would that simple change make the hand stronger or weaker? In Klinger's view, it makes the hand stronger.

In the real world, that is an interesting question.

 

The hand AQ75, K64, KQJ, K52 (25 Banzai points, five controls) would changeto something like

QJ53, KQ6, KQJ, KJ2 (27 Banzai points, 3 controls).

 

Interesting, if you put the Control rich (8 control hand) into the mix, it has even less Banzai points. (AKxx Axx Kxx Axx) = 18 hcp butonly 23 Banzai points, close to a minimum 1NT opening bid using Banzai as your "method."

 

So this spurred me to ask the following question. Does the average result of opening a 4333 balanced hand change with number controls (with respect to a 1m or 1NT opening bid)? To test this I combining a lot ofbridge hands from multiple online play, creating a new database of 106,954 hands where the dealer had 18 hcp and specifically 4333 hand pattern. Next, I probed it based upon the number of controls held. Lets start with the overall results for opening 1m or 1NT (for the sake of argument, we will forget about the other possible openings, so things like Mexican 2♦ and four card majors are not included in any of the following, but those bids do have some influence on the averages of the other bids.

 

First, for all 18 point hands lumped together.

 

Bid    Deals     AvIMP     # Imp      AvMP    #MP
1C    33066      -0.03      31126    49.84    1940
1D    13822      -0.11      13110    47.91     712
1H      777       -0.81       758    47.94      19
1S      727       -0.93       706    54.13      21
1NT   56584        0.12     54992    51.27    1592
2C      143       -1.51       141    63.34       2
2D       69       -0.67        63     53.74      6
2H       11       -1.46        11     50         0
2S        4       -5.4          4     50         0
2NT    1245      -0.94       1208     49.95     37
3H        1       5.6            1     50        0 
3S        1       -5.8           1     50        0
3NT      91      -2.19          90    37.5       1
4C        1      -12.27          1     50        0
4H        1       -5.13          1     50        0
4S        1        -9.73         1     50        0
4NT       3       -5.38          3     50        0
5NT       3       -7.27          3     50        0

 

Next lets compare results for imps for 2 to 8 controlsand only opening 1m or 1NT. To simplify the comparison, I averaged the resultsfor 1♣ and 1♦ opening bids for the comparison (taking into account thenumber of bids and the average score for the number of bids by this equation.

 

[/font][/size]

              1[cl] bids x average 1[cl] result, + (1[di] bids x average 1[di] results)
1m average =    ____________________________________________________________________
                                (total 1[cl]+1[di] opening bids)[/font][size="3"] 

Cntr 1mimp 1N imp 1m hands 1N hands

2    -2.42    0.80        4      12
3    -0.60    0.48      111     163
4    -0.17    0.20     1365    1878 
5    -0.095   0.15     8170   10289 
6    -0.084   0.15    17237   21650 
7     0.005   0.08    12793   15697 
8     0.057   0.01     4536    5285

 

Understanding the limitation of looking at data from which this is extracted is important. First some pairs still play 16-18 notrump, others play precision or similar forcing club. The normal 16=18 peoplehave no problem worrying about what is being thought/discussed here. Theprecison guys can open 1C and rebid 1NT easily enough. So drawing too much of aconclusion is risky. But one thing seems clear, as controls increase(especially to 7 or 8), opening 1NT becomes less advantageous and open 1m lessdisadvantages as reflected in the average scores. DO NOT read anything into the2 control and 3 control data, as there are far too few hands played in the current data to reflect useful information.

 

 

A couple of things I did note.

 

1) upgrade with SEVEN or EIGHT controls seems right. Also, it is 7 or 8 that is "more than" the average 18 hcp hand holds

 

 

2) Banzai points were not supported. That is, an eight control hand has the fewest Banzai points but the data suggest opening 1m-then rebidding 2NT is a better choice than downgrading and opening 1NT. Also, despite the small sample size, the 2 and 3 and 4 control hands tend to be richer in Banzai points and yet those were the worse for treating as too strong for 1NT.

 

3) anyone drawing too much out of this is crazy. However, I have the database of hands if someone wants to propose interesting questions, say, how does the different 18 point hands average opposite a partenr with 8 hcp? Etc.

[1eyedjack]

Personally I hate rebidding 3N. Too much space consumed both for investigating slam and for investigating trump strain.

I am also not keen on opening 2N with a flat 20 count. 2N opened and passed out does not make often enough, and the responses to 2N are necessarily less accurate than where both partners make a bid prior to reaching there.

So for me, when playing either 12-14 or 15-17 1N oener a jump rebid to 2N is 18-20 and almost forcing.

I also don't play strong 2 openers, so responder is under pressure to respond to 1-suit.

This results in some uncomfortable game contracts after a 2N rebid, but hey, I can't have everything and that seemed the smallest price worth paying.

Actually, you can have (almost) everything by playing 14-16 and transfer Walsh, but that is not for this forum and I am for the purpose of this discussion focusing on a natural and standard launchpad.

 

In the above context I lean in favour of opening 1NT on this hand, not because I am particularly happy about it but more because I am in the long term less happy about the likely consequences of following up with a 2N rebid. I am not particularly worried about stopping in 1C as the justification although I suppose that could add a small amount to the argument.

 

That said, I think that it is a close decision and I would not be bothered by a partner who decided to open 1C.

[Phil]

Ben, this is a nice analysis, thank you.

 

I have an ex-partner that always downgraded 4333 15's out of 1N. I would be very curious if this is good strategy at IMPs or MPs.

[han]

AQ75, K64, KQJ, K52

 

It is interesting that some (at least justin and han) consider this hand a"good 18" because it has an ace and three kings.

 

In my opinion either your reading comprehension is very poor or you are misquoting Justin and me on purpose. Also, it is obvious that Banzai points are ridiculous and investigating data that doesn't take into account the notrump range is a waste of time. For serious evidence that Banzai points are ridiculous there have been plenty of simulation results on this forum.

 

I am shocked that Phil considers this a nice analysis, perhaps I am biased because I was insulted by the first line of your post.

[jmcw]

 

AQ75, K64, KQJ, K52

 

It is interesting that some (at least justin and han) consider this hand a"good 18" because it has an ace and three kings. Good enough to overcome the poor distribution (4333). Perhaps they are right. Certainly in Justin's case and perhaps in han's they take more tricks with 18 hcp than I do,so they don't need to be as cautious when downgrading hands. But I want to consider what factors influencea decision to upgrade (better than average) or downgrade (worse than average) a hand.

 

You might think we should not be talking about upgrading this 18 hcp (after all it has more than the maximum for 1NT opener) so only downgrade values that should be considered. However, I automatically downgrade all 4333 handpatterns, and not just for opening 1NT.

 

 

Re-reading the posts leaves me wondering why you believe previous comments indicated this was a "good 18". Seems to me just about everyone regards this as an average 18 at best, and many are favoring about 17, hence the votes favoring a 1NT opening bid.

 

To your point of automaticalling downgrading all 4333 patterns. I for one regard this as a very speculative strategy!. Without knowledge of the potential hand pattern that your patner is likely to have, how can one possibly discount the potential of a likely fit! For example:

 

Which would you rather play?, a 5332 opposite a 2335 or a 4333 opposite a 2335?, surely you would agree that playing NT with a 5/3 minor suit fit is likely to produce more tricks than playing a 5/2 fit, especially when the long suit is contained within the weaker hand, where entries will be at a premium. Indeed, I'm prepared to speculate a bit further. If NT is a likely final contract, then a 4333 pattern should NOT be downgraded unless all potential for an 8 card can be eliminated.

 

Since the hand contains 18 HCP and a somewhat average collection of controls and suit quality, then no downgrading is warranted for an opening bid.

[inquiry]

In my opinion either your reading comprehension is very poor or you are misquoting Justin and me on purpose. Also, it is obvious that Banzai points are ridiculous and investigating data that doesn't take into account the notrump range is a waste of time. For serious evidence that Banzai points are ridiculous there have been plenty of simulation results on this forum.

 

I am shocked that Phil considers this a nice analysis, perhaps I am biased because I was insulted by the first line of your post.

 

Well, first off, you quoted the "first line" of my post discussing the hands, which was.... (emphasis here added now by me)

 

It is interesting that some (at least justin and han) consider this hand a"good 18" because it has an ace and three kings. Good enough to overcome the

poor distribution (4333). Perhaps they are right. Certainly in Justin's case and perhaps in han's they take more tricks with 18 hcp than I do, so they don't need to be as cautious when downgrading hands. But I want to consider what factors influencea decision to upgrade (better than average) or downgrade (worse than average) a hand.

 

So while it is true justin specifically said "It is not a good 4333 18" so in fact he didn't say it was a "good18", his post continued "but it's certainly not one of the worst, and that's what I would reserve an 18 point downgrade for"

 

In my discussion of the hand, I pointed out that one Justin and probably you take more tricks with you 18 hcp than I do, so.... "They (read justin and han) take more tricks with 18 hcp than I do, so they (read justin and han) don't need to bas cautious when downgrading hands." I went on to EXPLAIN my view of 4333 and that for me the question is never should you downgrade a 4333, but should you "upgrade it" (that is count it as full value. This was slightly implied in the first paragraph, but spelled out in detail in the second.

 

You might think we should not be talking about upgrading this 18 hcp (after all it has more than the maximum for 1NT opener) so only downgrade values that should be considered. However, I automatically downgrade all 4333 handpatterns, and not just for opening 1NT. So for me NOT to open 1NT on a 4333 hand with 18 hcp, it would have to have some feature to make me upgrade it for the downgrade came automatically with this hand pattern.

 

So far, I gave justin and probably you as props as better players, but the key thing here is DEFINED what I meant by "good" when discussing the hand. ... GOOD ENOUGH not to downgrade it. Since you mistaken took this to suggest that I meant it as this was a "GENERIC GOOD 18 HCP", I will apologize for not writing the description accurately. In hinsight, I should have said "good enough not to downgrade"... but COME ONE, anyone reading the paragraphs should see that is what I am taling about. I go on to suggest areas where one might try to evalute what factors to consider upgrading/downgrading hands. I even said that I start off downgrading all 4333 hands then search for features to "upgrade" (get them back to their real point count).

 

Now having apologized for poor wording, I have to comment on your discussion of Banzai points. I actually added the Banzai point stuff because the data taken from online play strongly suggest that BANZAI points is NOT EFFECTIVE (I think the point you were making). OF course for you, you referenced "simulations", I didn't simulated, but seems we agreed on Banzai points. i would not have mentioned it BANZAI unless I could draw some conclusion for the random data I searched. The specific conclusion on Banzai points was "Banzai points were not supported." along with a sentence or two on why I could say that.

 

Now let me turn to this quote from jmcw

 

To your point of automaticalling downgrading all 4333 patterns. I for one regard this as a very speculative strategy!. Without knowledge of the potential hand pattern that your patner is likely to have, how can one possibly discount the potential of a likely fit!

 

I will just say it is not my intention to convince anyone to agree with the way I evaluate a hand (to upgrade 18 4333 I need one ten and two 9's or two ten, or seven controls), but it is not at all uncommon bridge players to devaluate 4333 hands patterns. I will tell you that if you use Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator you will find that the hand from the original post evaluates as 17 points. You can try it yourself at Jeff Goldsmiths K/R evaluator

 

For those not interesting in going somewhere else, here are the K/R and Danny Kleinman's HCP evaluation for the OP hand and some minor modifications of it

 

AQxx Kxx KQJ Kxx 17.00 K/R; 17- Kleinman

AQxx Kxxx KQJ Kx 17.50 K/R; 17+ Kleinman

AQxx Kxx KQJx Kx 17.80 K/R, 18- Kleinman

and just to show what a TEN is worth in the right place

AQTx Kxx KQJx Kx 18.45 K/R; 18+ Kleinman, but

AQxx Kxx KQJx KT 17.90 K/R; 18  Kleinman

 

So jmcw, don't downgrade 4333 if you don't want too, but be aware that many people do. I think the number of people opening 1NT compared to 1m with 18 is a suggestion it is fairly common (of course, some people play 16-18 range). I simply start off when I get 4333 I subtract a full hcp, then I start looking for reasons to add it back. If I add it back, it is because I think it is a "GOOD" hand for the point count (rather it is a 12 count for an opening bid, a 15 count for a 1NT opening bid, a 16 point count for a 1C (precision), an 18 for too good for 1NT, a 20 for a 2NT opening, 22 for possible too good for 2NT, etc.

[rhm]

I would open 1NT, because I downgrade for 4333 hand pattern. Nuff said, but here is a little bit of data grabbed from online bridge (tables where JEC played) where 1NT was opened with 18 hcp. Note the one common thread in all these hands. The opener had 4333 pattern.

 

 

NOTE: I searched the data by opening bid, so the person who opened is at the bottom of the diagram (not necessary south). So the true south could be sitting in any position.

Not true that all of them are 4333

However, the trouble is that you do not know which of them downgraded and which played a stronger notrump range.

For this you need the agreements of the pairs or the explanation of the bid.

What would be useful, is the results of those who downgraded.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[nigel_k]

Excuse me while I rant a little bit because there is really a lot of nonsense being talked in this thread. Here are some things I think are obviously true:

 

1. This is a very bad 18. The hand is AQ75 K64 KQJ K52. You have no intermediates, no good honour combinations and the 4333 shape and KQJ tight are bad. Change it to an average 17 such as AQ75 K6 KQ42 K102 and everyone would open 1NT but the trick taking expectation is about the same.

 

2. NV at IMPs you should be not much more aggressive than at matchpoints. And at matchpoints 1♣ may gain by allowing you to stay with the field. So the conditions do not suggest aggression.

 

3. Even if the conditions did suggest aggression, the same would apply if you had a typical 17, such as my given hand. But everybody would happily open 1NT with that.

 

4. If you open 1♣ you have a partner who also can be aggressive and will do so on the basis that your 2NT rebid contains a hand somewhere between an average 18 and an average 19. Which you certainly don't want when you hold this pile.

 

5. Hand valuation is something you do before you bid. You can evaluate accurately then bid aggressively and it's good to do so. But what you cannot do is make two evaluations, one including everything and one just 4321 count, then go with whichever greater. That is not being aggressive, it is just bad bridge. People in this thread may deny that is what they are doing but I will not believe them.

 

</rant>

[jmcw]

 

Now let me turn to this quote from jmcw

 

 

 

I will just say it is not my intention to convince anyone to agree with the way I evaluate a hand (to upgrade 18 4333 I need one ten and two 9's or two ten, or seven controls), but it is not at all uncommon bridge players to devaluate 4333 hands patterns. I will tell you that if you use Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator you will find that the hand from the original post evaluates as 17 points. You can try it yourself at Jeff Goldsmiths K/R evaluator

 

For those not interesting in going somewhere else, here are the K/R and Danny Kleinman's HCP evaluation for the OP hand and some minor modifications of it

 

AQxx Kxx KQJ Kxx 17.00 K/R; 17- Kleinman

AQxx Kxxx KQJ Kx 17.50 K/R; 17+ Kleinman

AQxx Kxx KQJx Kx 17.80 K/R, 18- Kleinman

and just to show what a TEN is worth in the right place

AQTx Kxx KQJx Kx 18.45 K/R; 18+ Kleinman, but

AQxx Kxx KQJx KT 17.90 K/R; 18  Kleinman

 

So jmcw, don't downgrade 4333 if you don't want too, but be aware that many people do. I think the number of people opening 1NT compared to 1m with 18 is a suggestion it is fairly common (of course, some people play 16-18 range). I simply start off when I get 4333 I subtract a full hcp, then I start looking for reasons to add it back. If I add it back, it is because I think it is a "GOOD" hand for the point count (rather it is a 12 count for an opening bid, a 15 count for a 1NT opening bid, a 16 point count for a 1C (precision), an 18 for too good for 1NT, a 20 for a 2NT opening, 22 for possible too good for 2NT, etc.

 

 

I share your sentiments above, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to change their evaluation methods.

 

I have been using KnR evaluator for quite some time, I would say, it offers a more refined evaluation than the basic 4/3/2/1 count.

Using the example hand:

 

AQxx Kxx KQJ Kxx = 17.00

now make the ♣K the ♠K

AKQxx Kxx KQJ xx = 18.70

 

This is quite a stunning difference almost 2 full points.

 

Now, lets give responder

 

xx JTx xxx AQTxx = 8.35

make a small ♠ a small♦

x JTx xxxx AQTxx = 9.35

 

If we added the 2 weaker hands together we get 25.35 KnR

both stronger hands 28.05.

 

In spite of the almost 3 point difference, I would submit, that, the weaker hands offer, at least, as good a chance to make game. The key ofcourse is the fit or lack thereof. Now, KnR evaluates in isolation, taking no stock of the potential fit that may exist.

[jh51]

This reminds me of a hand I played in a Novice (0-20 master points) Swiss teams event many years ago. Partner opened 1C with a hand much like yours and I passed with a hand very much like your partners. He criticized my bidding, saying I should have bid my major. When we compared with our teammates, We were +70 and they were +50. Evidently, their opponents believed as my partner did and got to an unmakable contract. We won both the match and the event.

[mike777]

1c easy

 

 

Lets call it a bad 18...still one club.

 

 

If the opp overcall so be it if not then I might end up in 2nt across from a very poor hand(less than 6), nv and will end up in 3nt across from 7.

[Cyberyeti]

♠

1NT if playing 16-18 NT (say Goren )

1♠ if playing 4 card majors with upper Nt range not higher than 17hcp (say acol )

1♥=18-20 hcp any distribution if playing K D Joshi

1♣in all other systems known to me (sayc, 2/1, various versions of precision/strong club )

Strong diamond anybody ?

 

I'd be sorely tempted to open 1♣ rather than 1♠ even playing 4 card major acol, 1♠-P-1N is nailed on, you've wrongsided it and now have to bid 2N which will not be great opposite partner's 5 count, second prize 1♠-P-2♠-P-2N which can be equally horrible but at least rightsided.

[han]

Hey, Inquiry just upgraded me from "perhaps taking more tricks" to "probably taking more tricks"! Perhaps I was automatically downgraded in the first place, and was upgraded back to where I started. While Inquiry can probably write a whole book about upgrading, downgrading and counting points, I doubt that anybody will become a better bridge player from reading it.

[Antrax]

Which is exactly what people following the thread are interested in, experts' evaluations of one another, preferably in a sarcastic manner. I don't want to go all Lurpoa here, but the question and the answers given are quite interesting, and it's a shame it all has to be interspersed with insults.