Opening Bid

[dustinst22]

First to bid, all white. Teams

[Phil]

Take away a club - poll has 14 cards. Your actual shape was 6=3=0=4.

 

Might need a mod to edit.

[dustinst22]

Take away a club - poll has 14 cards. Your actual shape was 6=3=0=4.

 

Might need a mod to edit.

 

Think thats what I put

[Phil]

Think thats what I put

 

Look again. Your clubs are KQJTx.

[dustinst22]

Look again. Your clubs are KQJTx.

 

Ah sorry, corrected

[dustinst22]

Take away a club - poll has 14 cards. Your actual shape was 6=3=0=4.

 

Might need a mod to edit.

 

Phil, I agree also with your suggested bid and is what I would have bid with most partners.

 

Question, if your partner uses rule of 20 in conjunction with 2 1/2 tricks for openings, what would your call be? The same?

 

I guess my question is, are there hands too strong to preempt, but not quite right to open at the 1 level? I've heard the logic that there is no in between, but not sure if I agree (i.e. scattered values/strength)

[hrothgar]

Nasty one

 

I would probably pass

 

Not quite strong enough for 1S

Don't like to preempt with this much defense and a void

[billw55]

Nine high, six decent spades, poor defense. Sounds like 2♠ to me, although I see I am currently in a minority of one in the poll.

[mike777]

1s no problem yet.

 

 

2c after 1nt

2s after 2/1.

3s if pard bids 2s.

[blackshoe]

If I'm playing with a bean counter, I pass. If I'm playing with a partner who trusts my judgement, I bid 1♠.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

I have the spades, I have time.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[MrAce]

1 ♠

[rmnka447]

2 ♠. Not enough QTs for a 1 level opener, although it is only a 6 loser hand.

[Phil]

On record for 1♠.

[mikeh]

2♠. Uncomfortable even playing a modified form of ogust, as I do with all partners.

 

1♠ is imo far less attractive. Not one Ace. Just 1 King. 9 hcp. Heaven help you if partner has a good hand and can't take a joke or if the opps interfere and partner wants to penalize them. Imagine: an opening bid that has a very real chance of taking zero tricks on defence! Btw, in case you think that heaven will help you: it's fictional :P You're on your own.

 

Of course, 1♠ can be a big winner as well, so I think the choice is more about personality than bridge. I would suspect, however, that if you and your partner agree that hands like these should be opened 1♠, many of you may not be not disclosing this to your opps. If you open 1♠ with this type of hand, and partner is ok with it, then you are gaining a significant and, imo, unethical advantage unless you clearly describe your agreements to the opps, especially non-real expert opps.

[Phil]

I used to think along the same lines as Mike - how I needed a certain amount of defense or quick tricks for an opening bid. And then I started thinking about how often I doubled the opponents, which isn't all that frequent. Once a session? Once a match? In the meantime I'm making my game bidding a lot tougher by passing hand like this or opening with a weak (?) two.

 

Here, we really don't need a lot of spade support with these intermediates, and the clubs are a great side source of tricks. For a "9 count", this hand has a substantial amount of playing strength.

[Phil]

Phil, I agree also with your suggested bid and is what I would have bid with most partners.

 

Question, if your partner uses rule of 20 in conjunction with 2 1/2 tricks for openings, what would your call be? The same?

 

I guess my question is, are there hands too strong to preempt, but not quite right to open at the 1 level? I've heard the logic that there is no in between, but not sure if I agree (i.e. scattered values/strength)

 

Regarding 'rules', all I can say is that I have had pretty good success opening Rule of 19 hands, as long as 1) ALL of my points are in my long suits, and 2) I have a rebid.

 

Here, I have two bonuses - I have spades, and I have a void!

 

26 ZARS!

[mikeh]

I used to think along the same lines as Mike - how I needed a certain amount of defense or quick tricks for an opening bid. And then I started thinking about how often I doubled the opponents, which isn't all that frequent. Once a session? Once a match? In the meantime I'm making my game bidding a lot tougher by passing hand like this or opening with a weak (?) two.

 

Here, we really don't need a lot of spade support with these intermediates, and the clubs are a great side source of tricks. For a "9 count", this hand has a substantial amount of playing strength.

I understand these arguments, tho I don't find them sufficiently convincing that I want to change my style...and my partners are generally even less amenable to changing their style than I am! However, if you are going to treat this hand as a 1-level opening bid, the opponents are surely entitled to know this ahead of time.

 

One of the reasons this style will prove to be effective is that most opps will be taken unawares, while your partner will refrain from close doubles and pull in on misfits even faster than usual, and so on. Thus, my (limited) experience against pairs with this sort of style, when unannounced, has proved extremely frustrating. I buy a contract, and then misplace the high cards, because not only did opener have less than he suggested, but responder had catered to it and had far more than one would usually expect for the auction.

 

That was a long time ago, and nowadays I wouldn't be caught out like that since I have learned to ask questions if I don't know the opps.

 

I'm not suggesting that Phil relies upon this aspect of the style: I suspect that he is diligent in ensuring that this sort of agreements, which is often tacit rather than explicit, is disclosed but my experience suggests that most proponents of this sort of approach have a disdainful view of their obligations, thinking that this is merely a question of judgement, not style or agreement. And that, imo, is just wrong.

 

My view is that against me, do anything that is legal but don't conceal agreements that I cannot be expected to know about.

[Codo]

I would open 1 ♠ and see no "disclosing" problem with this. If I would tell my opps before the game, that I may open some nine counts, they will get a horrible wrong impression of my opening style. But if I judge this hand as strong as many 11 or even 12 HCPS hands - this is "just bridge". We may disagree whether this is good or bad, but it is nothing which I need to disclose.

 

In reality: How many opps do you have, which explain to you beofre the game that their opening style is agressive, conservativ or whatever. Nobody does.

[mike777]

there are 2 places at the very top of the convention card you can tellthe opponents and I do tell.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/howtofilloutcc2.htm

 

 

VERY LIGHT:

 

 

Check any boxes that apply to your partnership.

 

Openings: If you routinely open hands with fewer than 11 high-card points (HCP) that are not especially shapely, check this box

[Codo]

there are 2 places at the very top of the convention card you can tellthe opponents and I do tell.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/howtofilloutcc2.htm

 

 

VERY LIGHT:

 

 

Check any boxes that apply to your partnership.

 

Openings: If you routinely open hands with fewer than 11 high-card points (HCP) that are not especially shapely, check this box

 

So a 6304 hand is not especially shapely in your world?

And ACBL ccs are not that much in use here...

[rhm]

Openings: If you routinely open hands with fewer than 11 high-card points (HCP) that are not especially shapely, check this box

First of all I consider this very shapely and I also consider this borderline between 1♠ and 2♠.

What I would never do is pass this hand.

 

But with regard to all this ethical hogwash, well I consider that exactly that, hogwash.

 

This question is essentially a matter of judgement and opening this hand by today's standard as 1♠ is certainly not out of this world.

 

I am all for "full disclosure". What I do believe, however, is what can be accomplished in practice is limited and we have to live with that.

Live with the fact that other people have different views what constitutes successful bidding.

 

Do you tell your opponents all the time for example

 

Whether you are very conservative with your sacrifice bidding or

You tend to be optimistic with your sacrifice bidding

You jump to 3NT prematurely

You are an overbidder /underbidder (check box) and in which circumstances

You are at times subject to cross misjudgment?

 

I have never seen a pair alerting me to this fact.

 

or any other tendency they might have.

It may all be very important for the decisions your opponents have to take in the bidding as well as in the play.

 

Relegate all this ethical nonsense to the law department.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

have never seen a pair alerting me to this fact.

 

or any other tendency they might have.

It may all be very important for the decisions your opponents have to take in the bidding as well as in the play.

--

 

 

guys the issue is not whether this is shapely or not. You miss the point.

 

The issue I posted on is do you tell your opp if you open light, often or not.

 

Frankly I am shocked if you have this tendency that you think people never tell.

 

As I mentioned there are at least 2 places to tell right at the top of the cc. and you are expected to tell.

[Zelandakh]

As I mentioned there are at least 2 places to tell right at the top of the cc. and you are expected to tell.

I do take your point. I also understand the point that a pair might choose to open all balanced 10 counts and pass/preempt all shapely 9 counts. The majority of players are simply not really consistent about what the minimum level of offensive and/or defensive strength for an opening bid is, that is if you can even get them to agree with you about which of two hands is better for opening (see Rainer's comment in a recent thread for one of many examples of this).

 

Edit: another point to consider is that "Light Openings" means different things to different people unless the RA specifically defines it. For example, Acol espouses light openings and yet the definitions of those that I learned would not be considered light openings by (almost) anyone reagularly reading BBF. I think alerting opponents that you were playing light openings using that style would not be useful. On the other hand, I would consider that I do open light when playing my strong club system and think it is appropriate that opps know that. But that only refers to unbalanced hands - I am actually pretty conservative with balanced hands so it is necessary to be careful not to give a blanket disclaimer. Having said I open light, it is nothing compared to a system like Moscito. Again, just saying "light openings" covers a large range and alone is not particularly helpful, even when it comes as a checkbox on the CC, which for most players out there it does not.

[mike777]

I do take your point. I also understand the point that a pair might choose to open all balanced 10 counts and pass/preempt all shapely 9 counts. The majority of players are simply not really consistent about what the minimum level of offensive and/or defensive strength for an opening bid is, that is if you can even get them to agree with you about which of two hands is better for opening (see Rainer's comment in a recent thread for one of many examples of this).

 

 

good points