traditional opening criteria

[mikl_plkcc]

In the original natural bidding system, all opening bids, except preemptive bids, require some sort of defensive strength. But today's players seem to open whenever the point count and the shape are correct, and disregard the defensive requirements. Personally, I think that some of the rules, e.g. a 2NT opening requires all suits stopped, are useful. However, I sometimes see players opening 1NT with two unstopped suits, opening 2NT with a singleton K, opening 1-level bids with quacky 12 HCPs, opening 2-level preemptive bids at the 1st seat with 6 small cards and a void, etc.

 

Do you still make bids according to the strict traditional criteria?

[gnasher]

BBF's software seems to require me to vote for at least one of the options. Maybe you should add a "none of these" option?

[Codo]

A "none of these" will be easily winning the poll...

[Zelandakh]

Clearly a failed attempt to create the first ever unanimous poll with no responses.

[billw55]

I don't like to use rigid rules at all. I prefer flexible use of judgment. Admittedly, in some cases I might find it hard to construct a hand that does not have certain criteria, but that is not quite the same thing.

[sfi]

The fifth option is not a bad guideline, but I think I broke the first four criteria just in one session tonight.

[PhilKing]

♠AQ2

♥AKJ

♦AJ54

♣AKT

 

That's 26 Miltons but five losers and only six tricks. Oh what the hell! I risk 2♣.

 

♠AQJT32

♥AQJ65

♦AQ

♣-

 

You got me again!

[EricK]

I thought the traditional test for a 2♣ opening was "more quick tricks than losers" i.e if you only have 4 quick tricks then you would need fewer than 4 losers, but a hand with more than 4 losers might still be a 2♣ opening if it had even more quick tricks.

[mycroft]

The strong 2♣ rule (assuming we're playing standard) is the only one I have any agreement with. Even then, I can't check it, because I will also do it with whatever balanced hand 2♣, then 2NT shows. My rule is that if I open 2♣ and partner doubles game with 13 cards, it's going down (barring crossed voids, et al).

 

I've played 1) playing K-S, but only in the minor and even then there's a "get out of jail free" 14 Work Point must-open (and a 12-14 NT that takes a lot of the other hands out of pass). I've never played 2) or 3) (heh, 12-14 NT with 3 suits stopped? That's like one of my partners who agreed to play 10-12 NT, but passed because "I don't open 10-loser hands"), and I've been playing for 30 years.

 

4) I've played everything from totally disciplined, Schenken 2s to EHAA 2s to 1-7HCP mini-Multi. I believe in convertible 3m openings in 1st and 2nd, and know that I'm giving away tempo when I have to pass a bunch of them (but I'm so much happier when I'm writing down either +400 when it's right or -110 (or +100, shh) against -150/-200 and more when partner didn't get a chance to guess wrong about 3NT). I've opened 3M on T-seventh regularly, and once, at favourable, a ten-6th=1=3=3 3♠.

 

I "promise" defensive strength with my constructive bids. I don't have to actually have it!

[rhm]

♠AQ2

♥AKJ

♦AJ54

♣AKT

 

That's 26 Miltons but five losers and only six tricks. Oh what the hell! I risk 2♣.

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.

For me that is a three loser hand:

 

♠AQ2 =1 loser

♥AKJ =0.5 losers

♦AJ54=1.5 losers

♣AKT =0.5 losers

 

----------------------

=3.5 losers corrected for the two useful red jacks and the ♣T by another half loser

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.

For me that is a three loser hand:

 

♠AQ2 =1 loser

♥AKJ =0.5 losers

♦AJ54=1.5 losers

♣AKT =0.5 losers

 

----------------------

=3.5 losers corrected for the two useful red jacks and the ♣T by another half loser

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Well I don't use it myself.

 

I do remember from reading my Country Life Book of Bridge that you deduct a loser for having two more aces than queens, so I guess that comes to slightly under four with adjustments, since we have three more.

[32519]

Regarding pre-emptive openings: I forbid P to pre-empt in a long major when holding 4-cards in the other major as well. I have just seen it too often that game is missed in the short major if you do. If the hand meets the Rule-of-20, open 1 in the long major. Even with an (8)9 count, open 1 of the long major if the suits look decent i.e. the high cards backed up by 10s and 9s.

[mikl_plkcc]

Regarding pre-emptive openings: I forbid P to pre-empt in a long major when holding 4-cards in the other major as well. I have just seen it too often that game is missed in the short major if you do. If the hand meets the Rule-of-20, open 1 in the long major. Even with an (8)9 count, open 1 of the long major if the suits look decent i.e. the high cards backed up by 10s and 9s.

 

That means you open this 1♠?!

♠AQJ9753

♥Q9765

♦7

♣-

 

I would rather not open this, hoping an opponent opens a minor than use a Michaels cuebid.

[mycroft]

I would think about opening that 1♠, and probably would. Pass-then-Michaels, even if it works (what about p-p-p-1NT?), will just not give partner what she needs to know to determine game. In fact, I had this hand just last night (I will admit, the primes are nicer, but not that much; and it's not 7=5...)

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq942hat98532dac5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hd2hp4hppp]133|200[/hv]

[Siegmund]

I am much more a believer in having 2 defensive tricks to open at the 1-level than most players I know.... but never even heard of requiring 2 1/2 unless we are going all the way back to Culbertson.

[ArtK78]

I ignored strong balanced hands in checking the box for the strong 2♣ opening. In fact, my criteria for a 2♣ opening is 3 losers and 21+ HCP (ignoring the strong balanced hands).

[32519]

The hand you posted meets the Rule-of-20 with flying colours; 9 in HCP and 12 in my two longest suits = 21. That gets opened 1♠ without a thaught.

[billw55]

That means you open this 1♠?!

♠AQJ9753

♥Q9765

♦7

♣-

 

I would rather not open this, hoping an opponent opens a minor than use a Michaels cuebid.

I also open that 1♠, and I think a heavy majority here will do so.

[cherdano]

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.

[proceeds to use a count that treats AQx identical to AKx]

[helene_t]

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.

For me that is a three loser hand:

 

♠AQ2 =1 loser

♥AKJ =0.5 losers

♦AJ54=1.5 losers

♣AKT =0.5 losers

Maybe I have it wrong but when someone says that a 2♣ opening shows a maximum of N losers I don't interpret it in accordance with whichever version of M-LTC I personally prefer, but as a hand that expects to lose at most N tricks opposite a balanced yarb, or opposite a misfitting yarb, or something like that.

[ArtK78]

Maybe I have it wrong but when someone says that a 2♣ opening shows a maximum of N losers I don't interpret it in accordance with whichever version of M-LTC I personally prefer, but as a hand that expects to lose at most N tricks opposite a balanced yarb, or opposite a misfitting yarb, or something like that.

In that case, I should clarify what I mean by 3 losers. I mean three losers by modified losing trick count, which is a maximum of 3 losers in each suit, limited by the number of cards held in the suit, reduced by one for each of the top three honors held in the suit (top two honors in a doubleton, and K singleton is a loser).

 

So, for example, this hand is a 2♣ opening:

 

AKQxxx

AQJx

Kx

A

 

Two losers by modified losing trick count (one in hearts, one in diamonds).

 

But this hand is not a 2♣ opening:

 

AQJTxx

AKJT

AQ

K

 

Four losers by modified losing trick count (one in each suit).

 

Ideally, responder will be evaluating his hand by cover cards - provisionally, every A, K and Q in the hand, adjusted during the bidding as opener's distribution becomes known. Short suits can also count as cover cards with adequate trump holdings and knowledge that the shortness is working. So, opposite a 2♣ opening known to have no more than 3 losers, 2 working cover cards puts you in the slam range.

 

In Rosenkranz's original presentation of Romex, all opening bids and responses were based primarily on modified losing trick count and cover cards, with HCP as a secondary consideration. I don't know how that has been revised over the years, as the most recent Romex book that I have is about 30 years old and I haven't played Romex in about that long.

[Siegmund]

I don't interpret it in accordance with whichever version of M-LTC I personally prefer, but as a hand that expects to lose at most N tricks opposite a balanced yarb, or opposite a misfitting yarb, or something like that.

 

You may reasonably define (basic) LTC as expecting to lose at least N tricks opposite a balanced yarb. The posted 26-count WILL lose at least five tricks opposite xxxx xxx xxx xxx, if the opps always push back the same suit you exit in. You might lose six if you had to make the opening lead yourself or you get a bad diamond break. It's a 3 1/2 loser hand opposite a balanced yarb with three entries.... but balanced yarbs don't have very many entries.

[Zelandakh]

but never even heard of requiring 2 1/2 unless we are going all the way back to Culbertson.

Even Culbertson did not require 2.5 defensive tricks. The standard for an opening bid was 2.5 Honour Tricks (similar but not the same thing) but distributional hands had that reduced to 2+ HTs.

[rhm]

Maybe I have it wrong but when someone says that a 2♣ opening shows a maximum of N losers I don't interpret it in accordance with whichever version of M-LTC I personally prefer, but as a hand that expects to lose at most N tricks opposite a balanced yarb, or opposite a misfitting yarb, or something like that.

The term losers is of course not well defined.

I consider loser count as a hand evaluation method, which has evolved over the last 80 years.

But many are still in the stone age.

It tends to show the potential of a hand if a suitable fit for a suit contract can be found and if there are entries to dummy.

 

In that sense loser count is not derived by taking your likely playing tricks and subtracting that from 13.

Also the notion of a balanced yarb is dubious. Yarbs are very rare even when you yourself hold a very strong hand.

And if you are in such a pessimistic mood, why balanced yarb, why not a misfitting yarb instead?

 

Assuming no entry in dummy treats KJx, QJx, Qxx, xxx all alike, that is as 3 losers.

Well for my money I want to make a distinction between holding KJx and xxx. It does affect my decision whether to open 2♣.

 

Rainer Herrmnn

[li xiao p]

In the original natural bidding system, all opening bids, except preemptive bids, require some sort of defensive strength. But today's players seem to open whenever the point count and the shape are correct, and disregard the defensive requirements. Personally, I think that some of the rules, e.g. a 2NT opening requires all suits stopped, are useful. However, I sometimes see players opening 1NT with two unstopped suits, opening 2NT with a singleton K, opening 1-level bids with quacky 12 HCPs, opening 2-level preemptive bids at the 1st seat with 6 small cards and a void, etc.

 

Do you still make bids according to the strict traditional criteria?

yes i still use the Goren kiss now.