Random minor openings

[szgyula]

Dear All,

 

Just a quick question about "random minor openings": A pair plays a standard based system where (lacking a 5 card major) any 3 card minor can be opened. Thus, the minor bid only denies the 5 card majors and promises 3 cards in that suit. Nothing more, nothing less. If both minors have three, there is no definite rule about which one to bid: For 33 or 44, either one can be bid. For 43 it is not obviously defined, either -- in some cases the short may be opened. For 53 it is the longer.

 

I think the general idea behind is to make defense harder when the likely end contract is NT. Or something like that. My understanding is that it is truly (close to) random...

 

Now the questions:

 

1. What is it: green/red/brown?

2. Do you alert?

3. What is the proper explanation of this bid?

 

Thanks,

 

Gyula

[Vampyr]

1. What is it: green/red/brown?

 

I do this myself, and see no reason it wouldn't be green.

 

2. Do you alert?

 

In most 3-card minor openings are not alertable. I don't think it is any different if there might be a 4-card minor on the side; you might have this when opening a 5-card major as well.

 

3. What is the proper explanation of this bid?

 

Natural, at least three cards.

Edited April 25, 2016 by barmar
fix quoting

[lamford]

In most 3-card minor openings are not alertable. I don't think it is any different if there might be a 4-card minor on the side; you might have this when opening a 5-card major as well.

I agree that no alert is required. And it is perfectly permissible to open the 3-card minor when the other minor has four cards, either systemically, or tactically, provided the opponents are told that with 3-3 in the minors we can open whichever we choose and with (4 3) in the minors we may open the three card suit to prevent the lead, or for whatever reason one might. In some systems 1♦ tends to show an unbalanced hand, and that must be disclosed too.

[sanst]

It's cmpletely dependant on the local regulations and I've not the faintest idea what these are in Hungary, let alone those of the setting in which you play. FWIIW, In principle not alertable according to the Dutch regulations, but I would prefer a prealert to warn opponents that in some cases you can open 43 in the minors with the shortest of the two and also that a 44 is not by definition opened with 1♣. In principle, because you have to alert any bid with a meaning that the opps might not expect.

[Cyberyeti]

The problem is that they're not random. Over a period of time, the pair concerned will build up an understanding which hands they open the 3 rather than the 4, or whether they tend to open the better of 3-3/4-4s, and they need to be able to explain this to opps.

[blackshoe]

Over a period of time, the pair concerned will build up an understanding…

That is of course the theory. Yet I have the impression that people think this period is fairly short, and the same for all pairs, and I don't think either of those is necessarily true. This makes it much more difficult for the director to determine if such an understanding has in fact developed.

[barmar]

The problem is that they're not random. Over a period of time, the pair concerned will build up an understanding which hands they open the 3 rather than the 4, or whether they tend to open the better of 3-3/4-4s, and they need to be able to explain this to opps.

As I think I've mentioned before, my regular partner for the past 15 years varies which minor he opens when 4-4, and I still haven't picked up on his logic. At least, not consciously. And I don't think I do anything in my responses to cater to his 1♣ opening possibly being 4-4 minors.

[Zelandakh]

1. What is it: green/red/brown?

2. Do you alert?

3. What is the proper explanation of this bid?

1. Presumably WBF codes? Looks green to me.

2. I think an alert is generally a good idea as it has a potentially unexpected meaning (canapé) but obviously it depends on the jurisdiction. Most WBF events use screens and then it is obvious to alert imho.

3. Exactly what the agreements are, both explicit and implicit. As CY mentions, there are usually some clear patterns amidst the noise and the opps are entitled to know about those.

 

As an aside, if you are playing this method you might need a slightly thick skin in the current bridge atmosphere. This method is particularly sensitive to illicit signals being passed to partner, which might attract the odd "humourous" (barbed) comment from other pairs along the way.

[Vampyr]

That is of course the theory. Yet I have the impression that people think this period is fairly short, and the same for all pairs, and I don't think either of those is necessarily true. This makes it much more difficult for the director to determine if such an understanding has in fact developed.

 

Playing a weak NT the period is probably longer, since many hands with three or four cards In the minors will open 1NT.

 

But I must admit that I have not really paid attention, and have little idea what my regular partner does when he is 3-3, 3-4 or 4-4 in the minors. I can say for myself that it is very rare that I open a 3-card minor when I have a 4-card minor on the side.

 

Perhaps Gordon can advise what is best for disclosure in a jurisdiction in which pre-alerts are very uncommon.. Perhaps just when you give your basic system at the beginning of a round say something like "five-card majors, a minor promises three"?

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps just when you give your basic system at the beginning of a round say something like "five-card majors, a minor promises three"?

This is certainly not enough as it is the canapé that is unexpected and that is not addressed here at all. I would feel quite put out if Opener showed out on the 4th round of clubs after a 1♣ opening and playing them for (43)33 proved a mistake when they really held 3343 or (24)43.

[Vampyr]

This is certainly not enough as it is the canapé that is unexpected and that is not addressed here at all. I would feel quite put out if Opener showed out on the 4th round of clubs after a 1♣ opening and playing them for (43)33 proved a mistake when they really held 3343 or (24)43.

 

It is not really canapé; the second suit is never shown or catered for. And in fact when I open a 3-card suit I tend to have a longer suit somewhere. Should every minor-suit opening (when 3 is allowed) be alerted and explained as "promises 3 cards. If she has only three cards it is not her longest suit".

[Zelandakh]

It is not really canapé; the second suit is never shown or catered for. And in fact when I open a 3-card suit I tend to have a longer suit somewhere. Should every minor-suit opening (when 3 is allowed) be alerted and explained as "promises 3 cards. If she has only three cards it is not her longest suit".

No, just those where the shorter minor is opened. This is not so dissimilar to the practise Mollo joked about: "Weaker minor I presume?"

[blackshoe]

I would think that "if she has 3 cards in the suit opened, she has a longer suit" is an inference drawn from "matters generally known to bridge players". :ph34r: B-)

[Cyberyeti]

I would think that "if she has 3 cards in the suit opened, she has a longer suit" is an inference drawn from "matters generally known to bridge players". :ph34r: B-)

 

Yeah, but it's normally a major rather than Om

[blackshoe]

Yeah, but it's normally a major rather than Om

Then I would suggest "she might be 4333 with four in the other minor".

[hrothgar]

The problem is that they're not random. Over a period of time, the pair concerned will build up an understanding which hands they open the 3 rather than the 4, or whether they tend to open the better of 3-3/4-4s, and they need to be able to explain this to opps.

 

This is an interesting theory, however, it has no bearing on how the game is actually administered.

 

(If it did, the Rosenberg - Zia partnership would have been in big trouble for a very long time)

[nige1]

Dear All,Just a quick question about "random minor openings": A pair plays a standard based system where (lacking a 5 card major) any 3 card minor can be opened. Thus, the minor bid only denies the 5 card majors and promises 3 cards in that suit. Nothing more, nothing less. If both minors have three, there is no definite rule about which one to bid: For 33 or 44, either one can be bid. For 43 it is not obviously defined, either -- in some cases the short may be opened. For 53 it is the longer.I think the general idea behind is to make defense harder when the likely end contract is NT. Or something like that. My understanding is that it is truly (close to) random...Now the questions:

 

1. What is it: green/red/brown?

2. Do you alert?

3. What is the proper explanation of this bid?

 

IMO

1. Green. System regulation is chauvinist and political - tailored to confer an advantage on local professionals and their clients. Hence, some regulators define 3 and even 2-card minor-suit openers as "Natural".
2. A matter of regulation. But IMO, yes, if, for example, you open can open 1♦, holding 3 ♦ s and 4+ ♣s.
3. The truth e.g. szgyula's description above.

[Vampyr]

Then I would suggest "she might be 4333 with four in the other minor".

 

Why only this shape?

[blackshoe]

Why only this shape?

(shrug) Because it sounds to me like an accurate description. If other shapes could be included, then those should be stated in the explanation. Presumably, these would be (42)(34) shapes, unless this pair are going to open 1m in a 3 card suit when holding a 5 card or longer second suit.

[Vampyr]

(shrug) Because it sounds to me like an accurate description. If other shapes could be included, then those should be stated in the explanation. Presumably, these would be (42)(34) shapes, unless this pair are going to open 1m in a 3 card suit when holding a 5 card or longer second suit.

 

Explain all shapes now? I think that "could be three" is enough.

[gwnn]

Once our opponent got upset because we alerted 1C as "2+" because we did not explain specifically that it could have 4 diamonds (some pairs also open 1C on 3352). I wasn't really moved by his argument then but now I think he was basically right. It is all a question of what is and is not unusual in your neck of the woods and in many places opponents would naturally think that "1D could be 3" means "1D could be 3 if I am exactly 4-4-3-2" and "1C could be 3" means "1C could be 3 if I have 4M333 or 4-4-2-3." I am not sure how it is in your case but I don't see how adding a few words like "1m could be 3; the other minor could be 4 or significantly stronger" wastes too much breath while avoiding misunderstandings. I am not sure about the legality of all this but this is how I'd try to alert it at least on a trial basis.

 

On random openings in general, I think it's cleanest if there is a clear key (for example: we open with the weaker minor whenever we have an odd number of 7's in our hand), but again not sure about the legality. I just wanted to bring up the issue of verifiable keys because no one seems to have yet and it's something that has been mentioned on and off here. In practice, however, I assume most opps would just accept "we decide randomly" more happily than "we decide based on the number of 7's in or hand" so maybe all of this is just theoretizing.

[blackshoe]

The sticking point seems to be that some want to be told, if it's three, what distributions are possible. Frankly, I'm not sure why that's a big deal. Maybe they can explain it.

[campboy]

The sticking point seems to be that some want to be told, if it's three, what distributions are possible. Frankly, I'm not sure why that's a big deal. Maybe they can explain it.

I don't think that's the issue. The problem is that 99+% of people who play 1m as "at least three" open the longer minor, and so if no more information is given that is what opponents will assume.

[Zelandakh]

The sticking point seems to be that some want to be told, if it's three, what distributions are possible. Frankly, I'm not sure why that's a big deal. Maybe they can explain it.

No Ed, the point is that you should explain your agreements in full on request without the opposing pair needing to find the correct supplementary question to obtain full disclosure. Would you be satisfied if I described a canapé 1♥ opening as "could be 4" in an area where the majority system is 5 card majors and a few play Acol or Culbertson? I would hope not; the same applies here.

[gwnn]

The sticking point seems to be that some want to be told, if it's three, what distributions are possible. Frankly, I'm not sure why that's a big deal. Maybe they can explain it.

Because they sometimes like to count out hands? Of course nobody expects you to say

"1C can, if balanced, be 5♣332, 4♣333, 4M333, or 4-4-2-3" but if you have reason to believe that "could be 3" will be interpreted in a certain way by opponents, you should try to explain some special exceptions in which 1C has 3 cards but is unexpected to opponents. For example, 3♣4♦ or 3♣5♦.