Did someone ever play 9-14 openers?

[whereagles]

Hi. I was wondering about an opening structure such as

 

1x = nat, 9-14. Mandatory on any 9-count.

1NT = variable, 9-11 or 12-14 according to vuln. May have 5 card major.

 

If you happen to have some experiences to share about this scheme, I'd be glad to hear them. Don't worry about what I do with 0-8 or 15+ hands. That comes next :)

[hrothgar]

Hi. I was wondering about an opening structure such as

 

1x = nat, 9-14. Mandatory on any 9-count.

1NT = variable, 9-11 or 12-14 according to vuln. May have 5 card major.

 

If you happen to have some experiences to share about this scheme, I'd be glad to hear them. Don't worry about what I do with 0-8 or 15+ hands. That comes next :)

[hrothgar]

I'm skeptical about a "limited" opening that could be based on either a balanced 9 count or an unbalanced 14

The difference in playing strength in enormous.

 

I think that you'd be better off passing minimum strength (9-10 HCP) balanced hands rather than forcing them into your constructive openings.

Alternatively, if you really want to open 9-10 balanced, look into an assumed fit preemptive structure.

[whereagles]

Well, a 1-level opener can also be anything from a balanced 12 to a 21 hcp monster and that seems to be manageable. I'm just wondering whether in practice the 9-14 range, which is quite more narrow-ranging than 12-21, is also manageable.

 

The reason I really want to stick the 9-10 hcp hands into the opening scheme is to have pass show 0-8. This will allow for some auctions like

 

pass (1H) dbl (pass)

2S

 

to guarantee 5 cards, as advancer cannot have more than 8.

[PrecisionL]

With two partners I play 10-14 hcp openers at the 2-level (shades of Fantunes, but stronger and 1-suited only). No void or singleton so partner can play in his suit if he wants.

 

Good suits, KQxxx or better, if 6-cards Hxxxxx.

Responses are N.F. except for 2NT.

 

8-14 hcp distributional hands are opened at the 1-level (shades of Fantunes, but weaker, usually 2-suited).

 

All this in a Strong Club structure with 1♣ for good 15 or 16+ hands.

 

We give up weak 2-bids, but the intermediate 2-level bids more than compensate.

[akhare]

Do you intend to play this only when NV? As Richard noted, opening balanced 9 counts seems to be courting trouble, especially when red.

 

Pard and I do open shapely 9 counts in the context of a strong ♣ system and we play undiscplined weak 2M..

[Poky]

Hi. I was wondering about an opening structure such as

 

1x = nat, 9-14. Mandatory on any 9-count.

1NT = variable, 9-11 or 12-14 according to vuln. May have 5 card major.

 

If you happen to have some experiences to share about this scheme, I'd be glad to hear them. Don't worry about what I do with 0-8 or 15+ hands. That comes next :)

I play 1♥-1♠-2♣-2♦ as 8-11. 1NT is 8-11 too (or 10-11 vulnerable).

Excellent stuff. Easy developments.

 

The problem comes eventually when you open 1♦.

 

In this context 1♣ is 12-14 balanced or 18+ any.

[Finch]

I wanted to play a system once where you opened all unbalanced 9s, some 8s, and all 5332 9s with a 5-card major, in which

1C = everything else

1D = strong

1H/1S = good 8 - 15, 5+ cards

1NT = depended on vulnerability (mini 1/2 NV, strong otherwise)

 

but as it wasn't legal at the time (and still isn't) in the EBU, we never played it properly. However, I always liked the idea that by playing one strong 1-level bid you could open all those hands that you would happily overcall on, but would otherwise have to pass in first seat.

[hrothgar]

Well, a 1-level opener can also be anything from a balanced 12 to a 21 hcp monster and that seems to be manageable. I'm just wondering whether in practice the 9-14 range, which is quite more narrow-ranging than 12-21, is also manageable.

 

 

Couple quick observations:

 

First: The wide range of one level openings playing standard methods is rarely cited as a strength of the system. Yes, this is "manageable", but I'd hardly want to go through all the problems associated with a strong club opening to end up with a limited opening scheme that is manageable.

 

Second: There is a big difference between 12-20 and 9 - 14. Those 15 to 20 HCP hands that you're removing from the opening are quite.

The 9-11 HCP hands are incredible common (especially the HCP balanced patterns)

[hrothgar]

The reason I really want to stick the 9-10 hcp hands into the opening scheme is to have pass show 0-8. This will allow for some auctions like

 

pass (1H) dbl (pass)

2S

 

to guarantee 5 cards, as advancer cannot have more than 8.

 

Personally, I consider my first and second seat opening structure a lot more important than my passed hand advances over partner's takeout double...

[gwnn]

Couple quick observations:

 

First: The wide range of one level openings playing standard methods is rarely cited as a strength of the system. Yes, this is "manageable", but I'd hardly want to go through all the problems associated with a strong club opening to end up with a limited opening scheme that is manageable.

 

Second: There is a big difference between 12-20 and 9 - 14. Those 15 to 20 HCP hands that you're removing from the opening are quite rare.

The 9-11 HCP hands are incredible common (especially the HCP balanced patterns)

FYP (for once, in an unsarcastic manner) :)

[glen]

Of the systems that had 1X start at 8, this was the most interesting to play against:

 

landen-pratp.pdf

 

Basically it "ate" our system since they would open before we did. The rest of the auction was guesswork for both sides.

 

The TOPS (tops.htm) system was further development from a simple system:

1♣: 16+

1♦: 13-15 bal or 10-15 unbalanced no five card major or six card minor

1♥/♠: 8-15, 5 or longer major

1NT: 10-12 (we would prefer 9-11 bad 12 if ACBL allowed)

2♣/♦: 8-15 6 or longer minor

 

This was sort of fun, but the fun stopped quickly:

- we would open the bidding (yeah!), but there wasn't much to the rest of the bidding (it may be boring to pass, but it is also boring to bid first, then pass lots)

- once the local opponents got used to playing against the methods, when they had the values, they would bid to 3NT and use the information disclosed to make it.

 

We found it was fast since there were very little long drawn-out auctions.

 

A group of local players developed the 10-12 1NT into a modified Polish system, and one pair used it in the 2007 Bermuda Bowl:

 

zaluski-smith.pdf

 

imo, 1NT 10-12 when red was a long term minus. That influenced the 1NT range in BASH:

 

bash.pdf

 

To avoid the variable NT range of TOPS, it went with 14-16 combined with 8-15/8-16 openings.

 

However I think the way to go with the unbalanced hands in the (8)9-12 range is 2X, not 1X (unless both majors), following a modified Fantunes approach. Compare the range of options and risk taken that the opponents have when bidding over 1X 9-14, to bidding over 2X 9-12. This keeps the 1X suit openings for when you have the points, and need the bidding space for a proper investigation. Blending a Fantunes with a big club and NV mini-NT/V strong-NT would produce a clever system.

[32519]

Hi. I was wondering about an opening structure such as

 

1x = nat, 9-14. Mandatory on any 9-count.

1NT = variable, 9-11 or 12-14 according to vuln. May have 5 card major.

 

If you happen to have some experiences to share about this scheme, I'd be glad to hear them.

 

I also want to experiment with an exceptionally weak 1NT. What I want to fool around with is this -

Only in 1st or 2nd seat regardless of vulnerability: Open 1NT with an exact 10 HCP balanced hand (absolutely denying any 5-card suit). Partner now becomes captain of the auction. Any 2-level bid by partner is to play, a so-called "shut up" bid.

When partner has game going values (opposite a 10 dead HCP count) and one or more 4-card majors, partner bids 2NT asking opener for a 4-card major.

Opener's responses become transfer Stayman in order to keep the stronger hand hidden.

3♣ = 4♥ and 4♠ (Responder can pick the trump suit)

3♦ = transfer to ♥. The bid promises a 4-card ♥ suit.

3♥ = transfer to ♠. The bid promises a 4-card ♠ suit.

With an exceptionally bad 10 HCP, opener is allowed to pass 2NT without a 4-card major.

With a reasonable 10 HCP, opener can raise to 3NT without a 4-card major.

[akhare]

 

However I think the way to go with the unbalanced hands in the (8)9-12 range is 2X, not 1X (unless both majors), following a modified Fantunes approach. Compare the range of options and risk taken that the opponents have when bidding over 1X 9-14, to bidding over 2X 9-12. This keeps the 1X suit openings for when you have the points, and need the bidding space for a proper investigation. Blending a Fantunes with a big club and NV mini-NT/V strong-NT would produce a clever system.

Interesting -- pard and I dabbled a little bit with this a while ago. What's your suggestion for opening 1-level bids and response in this structure?

 

Do you think that the 2M openings compensate for the loss of weak 2 in the major?

[straube]

I've always liked 2M as 7-11. Then 1M-1N, 2M is 12-15. Besides, I seldom pick up 5-6 hcp hands that have 6 cd suits that I want to preempt. Often those points are scattered about the rest of the hand.

[PrecisionL]

 

Do you think that the 2M openings compensate for the loss of weak 2 in the major?

Yes they do!!!

 

The total GAIN on Fantunes 2-bids (313/1459 hand sample) was + 783 IMPs [+2.5 IMPs/hand]

 

The total LOSS on weak 2-bids that were passed (43/1459 sample) was - 228 IMPs. [-5.3 IMPs/hand]

 

A net gain of + 555 IMPs for 356/1459 hands (24% of all hands, 1.6 IMPs/hand).

 

Reference: See page 7 of this URL: http://www.vba.asn.au/VBADocuments/Bulletins/vbabulletin1112.pdf

[glen]

... The total LOSS on weak 2-bids that were passed (43/1459 sample) was - 228 IMPs. [-5.3 IMPs/hand] ...

To offset this I suggest moving from (9)10-13 to (8)9-12 which further reduces the number of hands that would pass instead of open a weak two if it was available. Like the latest Fantunes, in 3rd seat the range becomes (6)7-12.

 

As to system, an example would be:

1♣: NV any 16+, V 16+ unbal no 5 card major, 17+ unbal five card major, 18+ bal.

1♦: NV 13-15 no 5 card major, V 12-14 bal or 13-15 unbal no five card major

1♥/♠: five or longer major, NV 12-15, V 12-16, 12s only balanced/semi-balanced, or 10-12 with both majors

1NT: NV 10-12, can have five card major, even 5-4-2-2 with 4 card minor, if 10-11. V (14)15-17.

[dake50]

1st, 9 as your bottom is too high for 1S, near 7.

It is low for 1H, near 10.

it is wa-a-y too low for 1D, near 13.

Bizarre too low for 1C, near 16. I assume 1m are NT relays.

2nd, did you look for Forcing pass systems results

when they opened their 8-12? That should apply.

3rd, 1NT on balanced 9-10 need to remove 4-4M looking

to have some preempt 1-level gain not sold back in a

losing M-explore.

4th, what 2-level scheme caps 1-bids?

2-suiters? 1-suiters? not spade hands?

You are close to what I like. Develop this. Detail this.

[awm]

Yes they do!!!

 

The total GAIN on Fantunes 2-bids (313/1459 hand sample) was + 783 IMPs [+2.5 IMPs/hand]

 

The total LOSS on weak 2-bids that were passed (43/1459 sample) was - 228 IMPs. [-5.3 IMPs/hand]

 

A net gain of + 555 IMPs for 356/1459 hands (24% of all hands, 1.6 IMPs/hand).

 

Reference: See page 7 of this URL: http://www.vba.asn.au/VBADocuments/Bulletins/vbabulletin1112.pdf

 

I don't think you can read the table in this way.

 

First, the frequencies are off. Their sample includes more than seven times as many F-N two bids as it does weak twos. In terms of shape, if 2♠ shows six spades you will have that pattern roughly 4% of the time. If 2♠ shows either 6♠ or 5♠/4+m (as a F-N two bid does) you will have that pattern roughly 12% of the time. The range of strength for an F-N two bid is a little more common, but you're still going to be around 3:1 or 4:1, not 7:1. So what happened? The table is just counting what came up, and he is playing four F-N two bids and comparing against seemingly weak twos in the majors only. This roughly doubles the frequencies! If you want to compare just "weak two in spades" versus "F-N two in spades" then you will get closer results (i.e. at 3:1 it would be more like +0.5 or +0.6 IMPs/hand not +1.6). It's also likely that people playing weak twos open 2M on at least some hands with five card majors (perhaps it should be more?) which will skew the probabilities further in favor of the weak two.

 

Still, it seems like F-N is winning. But there is another fact to take into consideration, which is the play/defense of the pair in question compared to the field. It's quite possible that this pair would be (say) +1 IMP/board even if they just played regional standard (Acol most likely, seems to be an Aussie publication). In that case their F-N preemptive style would actually be costing them, but they are still ahead of the field because of better play/defense. It's hard to evaluate this just from the table given; they seem to be plus on average but you can't tell if that's because of the system or the play. Still, the fact that this person is a sufficiently known name in the region to be publishing a series of articles suggests he is a good player and good players are usually plus on average (and not just due to system). To really know you'd need statistics on the same partnership exclusively when they are playing/defending the same contract as the opponents (preferably on the same auction too) or statistics on the same partnership playing a different system.

[awm]

To add to the thread more generally, I have played a system where we opened almost all 8s. Our opening structure was basically:

 

1♣ = 15+ any

1♦ = 10-14 no 5M no 6♣

1M = 5+ in suit, 8-14

1N = 8-10

2♣ = 5+♣ 8-14

2X else = natural weak two, often five-card suit if diamonds or less than 8 hcp

 

The only hands with 8-9 points we had to pass were 4441 types, mostly due to the combination of ACBL rules and not wanting to play 4-card majors.

 

My experience with this type of style in general is that I don't find opening weak balanced hands to be particularly good bridge. It helps opponents a lot in the play, exposes us to some penalties, and doesn't help all that much in competitive sequences. Opening weak shapely hands is a huge win however, especially if the opening gives a lot of shape information (i.e. something like a 5-card major opening, rather than something like a precision diamond).

[PrecisionL]

Adam, you put forth some valid arguments, but obtaining better data than that presented is very, very difficult.

 

I have a file with 100 2-bids of Fantunes from 2004 - 2005 which includes undisciplined 2 bids and even 2 bids on 4441 distribution and two bids on 5332 distribution. I understand that the 2-bids are a little more disciplined now and do not include 5-4 in the majors. There were not ANY 5422 hands in the sample.

 

I posted to generate discussion and thinking outside the box that weak 2-bids are not necessarily the best strategy these days. Ask Greco-Hampson for they don't use them. However, in another thread (that I cannot find) Fred posts about how he feared losing IMPs when the opponent's opened a weak two at his table when Greco-Hampson were his teammates.

[awm]

I posted to generate discussion and thinking outside the box that weak 2-bids are not necessarily the best strategy these days. Ask Greco-Hampson for they don't use them. However, in another thread (that I cannot find) Fred posts about how he feared losing IMPs when the opponent's opened a weak two at his table when Greco-Hampson were his teammates.

 

I think you mean Ekeblad-Rubin, who play a very weird system. Greco-Hampson methods are similar to meckwell and surely include weak twos (or multi, perhaps, depending).

 

It does seem that the vast majority of upper-echelon pairs either play weak twos or some form of multi (which allows them to open on the two-level with weak twos). There are a few exceptions, but it seems like most think weak 2-bids (of some form) are a good strategy.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes they do!!!

 

The total GAIN on Fantunes 2-bids (313/1459 hand sample) was + 783 IMPs [+2.5 IMPs/hand]

 

The total LOSS on weak 2-bids that were passed (43/1459 sample) was - 228 IMPs. [-5.3 IMPs/hand]

 

A net gain of + 555 IMPs for 356/1459 hands (24% of all hands, 1.6 IMPs/hand).

 

Reference: See page 7 of this URL: http://www.vba.asn.au/VBADocuments/Bulletins/vbabulletin1112.pdf

Weak 2s that are passed (as somebody who plays very wide ranging and 4-6 card weak 2s which are a lot more frequent than most people's) are not where we get our gains so this comparison is meaningless. We get most of our gains where the auction goes say 2♦-3♣-P-P-P and opps should be in 3N or 2♥.

[PrecisionL]

I think you mean Ekeblad-Rubin, who play a very weird system. Greco-Hampson methods are similar to meckwell and surely include weak twos (or multi, perhaps, depending).

 

It does seem that the vast majority of upper-echelon pairs either play weak twos or some form of multi (which allows them to open on the two-level with weak twos). There are a few exceptions, but it seems like most think weak 2-bids (of some form) are a good strategy.

 

I am getting old and my eyes are going dim and my memory, what ...

 

Here is the thread where Fred discusses playing with Ekeblad-Rubin and others pontificate on weak twos:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/27630-weak-two-bids/

 

Ekeblad-Rubin's constructive twos were 2-suited for 2♦ or 2♥ while 2♣ was 6♣ or 4♣ + 5♠.

 

However no data was presented and I have played constructive twos (10-14 hcp & single suited) in several partnerships for over 10 years and feel the opposite of Fred. However, comparing our version of constructive twos with Fantunes or Ekeblad-Rubin is an apples and oranges thing.

 

2012: Note to self - get that spreadsheet going and spend more time analyzing - hmmm, I wonder if there is time for all that and a life too???

[wank]

I wanted to play a system once where you opened all unbalanced 9s, some 8s, and all 5332 9s with a 5-card major, in which

1C = everything else

1D = strong

1H/1S = good 8 - 15, 5+ cards

1NT = depended on vulnerability (mini 1/2 NV, strong otherwise)

 

but as it wasn't legal at the time (and still isn't) in the EBU, we never played it properly. However, I always liked the idea that by playing one strong 1-level bid you could open all those hands that you would happily overcall on, but would otherwise have to pass in first seat.

 

why do our strong clubs have to be 16+ in most tournaments? even the acbl isn't so olde worlde as that. i even made a half-arsed submission to the l+e.