Is this an opening hand?

[Zelandakh]

The 1-3-6 evaluation for shortness, based on a 40 HCP deal, may or may not be overvaluing shortness for pure constructive reasons, but it is certainly an excellent measure for competitive and tactical reasons.

I agree with you and in situations where I count points for shortages then it is always with a 5-3-1 rather than a 3-2-1 count. Naturally, that is only a guide but I find it a decent starting point. The difference between that and 6-3-1 is minimal. But MLTC is not using 6-3-1 in a 40 point deck; it is using 6-3-1 in a 24 point deck. That is a completely different thing. The best equivalent in Milton would be using 9 - 4.5 - 1.5 for shortages. I am sure you would agree that these figures are too high.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt3hqjt86dj4ckq9&n=sk542ha4dq7ca8754]133|200|

Antrax writes "First seat all vul. at matchpoints, I chose to open the above and it led to a bad result. I'm wondering if I should've passed, and why [sNIP].

 

Partner forced to game (2/1) [sNIP] We had an intelligent auction that established that we have no 8 card fit and no ♦stopper, so we played 4♥-1. Not the worst result (3NT is down more and there were several) but I was wondering after the hand if we were unlucky or if I should just pass - I tried applying that principle of upgrading early and then showing a minimum throughout, but I guess this time the shoe doesn't fit "[/hv]

Even MOSCITO (a very light opening system) doesn't open this garbage. Btw, any particular reason why you didn't play 4♠ in the Moysian?

We play strong NT, 2/1 and fairly light openers (i.e. this hand is pretty close to an opener and might well be opened if feeling frisky).

As long as partner knows your opening style (and you have some system to show the strong hands) there's no problem.

In 2001 Rodwell gave an interview to Bridgematters, where he said: "I don't think opening a hand like Jx Axxxx Kxxx Qx with 1H is winning bridge." (Something I see recommended here sometimes by strong club players) ..."I think opening light, though not too light, has advantages at all forms of the game, in the sense you are announcing certain minimal values and something about your shape. You're just positioning yourself well, primarily for a competitive auction. If you knew your opponents were never going to bid, you would probably be better off playing sounder opening bids The hand still has to have something that you think is worth 11 points to open. I don't want to go lighter than that." I think that summarizes it for me and I may be ten years behind. I do not know whether Meckwell have changed their mind in the meantime.

I wonder if Rodwell has changed his opinion? IMO, using a strong club system, this is an opening bid. Also, using some natural systems, this hand is a possible opener;. I disagree with Frances: IMO, using SAYC or 2/1, as Antrax demonstrates, opening light is more dangerous. The ♦ duplication means game is lousy although, as Free says, 4♠ is slightly better than 4♥ . We've all played worse games. OK. OK. :) Serves us right for opening light :)

[nige1]

This is just too simplistic and the conclusions are wrong. Early research into this matter was flawed. It concentrated far too much on constructive bidding alone. A good bidding partnership in my view is not one, who bids pair of hands correctly, but ones, which take their opponents potential into account as well. It takes all four hands being dealt into account. Even if you know nothing about the other hands a 3/2/1 scale is certainly very conservative for singletons and clearly undervalues voids. It is nice to opponents! I much rather use a 6-3-1 scale instead. But even for constructive purposes the 3/2/1 scale is flawed severely. A singleton is clearly worth more than 2 doubletons.

For example all else being equal a 5431 distribution is significantly more promising than a 5422 distribution, particularly for high level trump contracts, which are disproportionally more important than low ones. Similarly a void is worth more in relation to singletons or doubletons.

All else being equal do you prefer a 7330 or a 7222 distribution? The question in itself is a joke and a 3 point difference between 7330 and 7222 looks to me about right. The same applies if you compare 6430 to 6421 distribution.

What shortness is worth depends on duplication and trump-fit, but the more distribution you have the more likely a good trump fit will exist. There is good statistical reason to be optimistic! But one thing is true:

The variance in value for shortness is higher than with HCP. If you end in notrump it may have dropped to zero.

 

HCP evaluation is different to shortness evaluation. An honor you have been dealt has not been dealt to an opponent. There are 40 HCP in every deal. It is a zero sum game. Therefore if you have been dealt a lot the opponents will have nothing and (usually) can do nothing. Distribution is tactical and not a zero sum game. There is good reason to be aggressive with distribution. It is very good tactic to start describing and competing as early as possible. The 1-3-6 evaluation for shortness, based on a 40 HCP deal, may or may not be overvaluing shortness for pure constructive reasons, but it is certainly an excellent measure for competitive and tactical reasons. Sometimes your evaluation will be too optimistic, but in the long run you will come out ahead! That MLTC is conservative with balanced hands and optimistic with distributional hands is excellent for deciding whether to open the bidding or not in close cases.

I am opening ♠-♥KJ32♦KJ32♣Q5432 with 1♦, but consider it borderline, and certainly with a void in clubs. Of course this could turn out badly, but I like my chances.

More than half a century ago, Charles Guthrie (my father) devised his winning trick count. A = 2, K = 1, Q = 1/2. Void = 3, singleton = 2, doubleton = 1. Trump-control = 1.

A simple method for the arithmetically challenged like me :) It works OK :)

Now, Rainer has convinced me that voids and singletons are worth less, and doubletons a lot less.

[Cascade]

Our card says "we open most 11-counts" but I'd still pass this one unless I was love all at matchpoints, and then I'd only open it for a laugh.

 

Love all but not favourable? What is the reason for this distinction?

[straube]

knr 9.6

DK 10

[WellSpyder]

Love all but not favourable? What is the reason for this distinction?

You score when oppo go down if you are at favourable vulnerability than at love all.