What does "a hand within one trick of game" mean?

[Liversidge]

On Richard Pavlicek’s website he states that an opening bid of 2♣ requires at least 23 points or a hand with a self-sufficient suit that is at least within one trick of game (his italics). He then immediately goes on to give an example hand:

♠2 ♥KQ72 ♦AKJ ♣ AKQ109

I count this as 9 ½ tricks, which is not within one trick of game in clubs, although it looks a good 9 ½. Counting losers I make it three, which equates to 10 playing tricks if you use simple arithmetic.

I know it’s just half a trick, but am I just failing to find that half trick, or can I use either method to evaluate strong hands for opening 2♣, or 2♣/2♦ playing Benji)? Or in the above case does one consider that ‘game’ might be in hearts, so 10 tricks required for game?

Or does 23 points include distribution with an unbalanced hand. If you count 1 extra point for club length then it's 23 points? I have always thought it was 23 HCP and a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

[1eyedjack]

I am a bit surprised by Pavlicek's example. Not that the hand is worth 2C (it is certainly borderline, perhaps contingent on style); just that he attempts to shoehorn it into a pre-requirement for being "within one trick of game", which I would say it is not.

 

To be within one trick of game, you need to see in your own hand a source of 8 tricks for 3N, or 9 tricks for 4M, or 10 tricks for 5m

 

You are supposed to be pessimistic in your expectation of assistance from partner, but if any trick (but just one) provided by partner bolsters your own trick potential then it is fair to assume that your hand is so bolstered. That is why being within one trick is the requirement: Partner provides that one trick.

 

On this hand, if partner provides a misfitting Yarborough, you could well lose a spade, three hearts, a diamond and a club. That falls rather short of being within one trick of any game, and one trick provided by partner is not going to make up for such a deficiency.

 

Personally I would not open it 2C but Pavlicek has pedigree. Also I am a Brit and in my experience the Yanks have eroded the minimum requirements for 2C on their side of the pond.

 

The hand does seem to have the equivalent playing strength of a balanced 23 HCP, which would classically open 2C and rebid NF 2N. The singleton Spade could be worrisome in a NT context, but maybe the 5th Club makes up for it.

 

A better definition of 2C, to my mind is a consideration of the risks of missing game when partner passes a 1-suit opener, weighed against the risk of overreaching by opening 2C. I know that we should not assume that the opponents will come to your rescue if responder passes, and a good fourth seat opponent will be alive to this when balancing, but even so there are respectable chances of finding your game by opening 1-suit (and probably more accurately if so).

[Cyberyeti]

That hand is an easy 2♣ opener, one of the criteria I use is whether there's a balanced ish hand that passes 1♣ that makes a slam good (I do modify this slightly for hands where I have really long suits), and here xxxx, A109x, xx, xxx qualifies.

 

Game is good opposite very little with any sort of fit.

 

Pavlicek's is an odd designation, I tend to evaluate the hand as 8.5-9 tricks, but I would evaluate this hand as easily worth >23, K&R gives it 25.5.

[ahydra]

I tend to say "could we make game opposite a king and a fit", where the "fit" is however many cards you need from partner to make an 8-card fit. This one is borderline, e.g. if partner has Kxxx xxx xxx xxx 3NT is not the worst game ever. (I know wank and probably others use a more stringent xxx xxx xxx xxx + one more x as the imaginary hand for partner.)

 

I think a key point here is: before applying any "must have X tricks" rule stringently you need to consider other aspects of your system. For example, if you need 9 playing tricks to open 2C with a single-suited major hand, do you have a way to show a hand too strong for a rebid of 3 but not good enough for 2C (e.g. AKQJxx AKx Jxx x, approx 8 playing tricks)? Do you have a way to show a non-game-forcing "double negative" e.g. 2C-2H?

 

As you might have guessed, it's much easier to judge "a trick short of game" when the hand is single- or two-suited, as then you can not only look at points and losers but also playing tricks. As 1eyedjack noted, sometimes the best way to treat very strong 5431s is by rebidding notrumps (particularly for certain suit combinations where you're likely to miss a 4-4 fit should partner rebid in your singleton).

 

FWIW I wouldn't criticise either a 1C or a 2C opening on this and would probably open 2C with unknown partners.

 

ahydra

[helene_t]

Maybe the definition is mostly meant for responder? If you think you can contribute with one trick then you make sure you don't stop in a partscore.

 

For opener, it is about weighing pros and cons, and a single criterion like "one trick short of game" is not enough. With the given hand, opening 1♣ stands out. Whether I can make game with a single useful honour in partner's hand is not clear, but in any case I have a very easy rebid after a 1♣ opening while it is more difficult if I open 2♣. I suppose I could treat the hand as balanced and upgrade to 2NT but if that is the strategy then the hand isn't very interesting. And if I plan to rebid 3♣ then I am forcing to (at least?) 4♣ opposite a yarb which I don't want to. It is also not clear if we can find the heart fit at all.

[NickRW]

I'm not sure I really agree with Pavlicek's statement in the first place.

 

Playing traditional Acol (strong twos) or some variant thereof where strong twos have an outlet (e.g. Benji or Multi) then one expects a response on a 6 count. As opener you have to ask are there reasonably likely 4 and 5 counts that I expect responder to pass which will nevertheless produce reasonable play for game. If so, then you need to consider one of your strong options.

 

Playing 3 weak twos (or some opening style where your only strong openers are 2C and 2NT), then you tend to expect a response on 5 counts or any ace. Again, are there likely (i.e. not super fit) hands that fall just short of that that will give game reasonable play. If so, you need to bring a strong opening into the picture.

[mycroft]

I wouldn't put Pavlicek and Acol in the same conversation (not sure he has ever done that). I also don't like 2♣ on that hand for two reasons (although I might do it anyway, because it's just *so* strong):

• two-suiters with longer minor are killers - we're at 4♥ before we know our fit;
• 2♣-2♠-p (positive)-4♠.

[lamford]

That hand is an easy 2♣ opener, one of the criteria I use is whether there's a balanced ish hand that passes 1♣ that makes a slam good (I do modify this slightly for hands where I have really long suits), and here xxxx, A109x, xx, xxx qualifies.

Very sensible. But I thought you always ensured that you had 8 clear-cut tricks or met the extended rule of 25 ...

[Zelandakh]

If anyone else is old enough to remember Culbertson, he went into some detail in his books on how PTs should be calculated. In addition to the usual HT valuations - AK = 2, AQ = 1.5, KQ = 1, QJ = 0.5 - you count length in the longest suit for every card above 3 (and for 8+ card suits, every card above 2), ie...as 4 = 1PT, 5 = 2PT, 6 = 3PT, 7 = 4PT, 8 = 6PT, and for side suits it is 1 trick for every card above 4 and half a trick for a 4 card suit - 4 = 0.5PT, 5 = 1PT, 6 = 2PT. On this hand, that means 5 tricks in clubs and 1.5 in hearts. I would count the AKJ as 2.5PT in diamonds for a total of 9.

 

Counting in this traditional way, 8-8.5PT for an Acol 2 and 9+PT for a 2♣ opening on strong (not preemptive) hands seems to work well enough most of the time. I have noticed that some modern PT evaluations count side suit tricks the same way as trump tricks, which tends to increase the numbers somewhat. It is this that creates the gap between an Acol 2 and a 2♣ opener, something that is further exacerbated at (Acol) club level by players keen to use their favourite toys and reducing the minimum requirements even more.

 

In any case, might I suggest a visit to your local public library and to find Culbertson's white book in the bridge section there. Almost every library has a copy if it has not fallen apart or been stolen in the meantime. His guide to PTs is still the best I have read and I think if you follow that approach with the appropriate ranges you will find everything else falls into place.

[Cyberyeti]

Very sensible. But I thought you always ensured that you had 8 clear-cut tricks or met the extended rule of 25 ...

 

Yes, I was talking in the context of this type of hand rather than the ones that are being argued in other threads. I think the lowest point count partner or I have ever opened 2♣ on was AKQ10xxxx, KQJx, void, x which comfortably meets both criteria. This also happens to be the only hand where I've held 3 aces and a K opposite a 2♣ opener, and the only one where I might have had to discard an ace to make a contract, my hand x, A, AKxxxx, Axxxx, auction 2♣-3♦-4♠-7N but they didn't lead the spade which would have forced me to discard A♥.

[eagles123]

That hand is an easy 2♣ opener, one of the criteria I use is whether there's a balanced ish hand that passes 1♣ that makes a slam good (I do modify this slightly for hands where I have really long suits), and here xxxx, A109x, xx, xxx qualifies.

 

Game is good opposite very little with any sort of fit.

 

Pavlicek's is an odd designation, I tend to evaluate the hand as 8.5-9 tricks, but I would evaluate this hand as easily worth >23, K&R gives it 25.5.

 

would you really pass 1c with an Ace and both majors?

[Cyberyeti]

would you really pass 1c with an Ace and both majors?

 

Only because my club actually promises clubs, and if balanced is limited to a bad 19.

[johnu]

Also I am a Brit and in my experience the Yanks have eroded the minimum requirements for 2C on their side of the pond.

 

In the February Bridge World Master Solvers Club,

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sakq8hkj9dtcakq87]133|100[/hv]

 

13 votes for 1♣, 11 votes for 2♣

 

I guess not all Yanks play substandard 2♣ openers.

[Cyberyeti]

In the February Bridge World Master Solvers Club,

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sakq8hkj9dtcakq87]133|100[/hv]

 

13 votes for 1♣, 11 votes for 2♣

 

I guess not all Yanks play substandard 2♣ openers.

 

I'd evaluate that hand worse than this one, K&R agrees by 3/4 of a point.

[mycroft]

I also think that a lot of USanians have the same issues I have about opening "two-suiters with longer minor" (never mind that 5431s in general aren't exactly "two-suiters") 2♣, even if they might be scoring up +170 shortly.

[johnu]

I'd evaluate that hand worse than this one, K&R agrees by 3/4 of a point.

 

I always take out my iPhone to calculate K&R when at tournaments before I make an opening bid. :P

[Liversidge]

What is K&R?

[Liversidge]

Counting in this traditional way, 8-8.5PT for an Acol 2 and 9+PT for a 2♣ opening on strong (not preemptive) hands seems to work well enough most of the time.

Do you make any adjustments for a single suiter depending on whether it is a major or a minor?

[Zelandakh]

Do you make any adjustments for a single suiter depending on whether it is a major or a minor?

Not when playing Benji (or Reverse Benji) Acol or [the equivalent auction in] Strong Club. If I played a natural 5 card major system regularly then I probably would in that context.

 

K&R is a method of evaluation (Kaplan-Rubens). You can find calculators for it online. It is regarded by many as giving a more accurate indication for the strength of unbalanced hands than the simpler hcp methods. Whether that is really true or not is a open question though - the last time I saw analysis on this, admittedly some years ago now, both Zar Points and 4.5/3/1.5/1+5-3-1 points came out better.

[Liversidge]

Counting in this traditional way, 8-8.5PT for an Acol 2 and 9+PT for a 2♣ opening on strong (not preemptive) hands seems to work well enough most of the time.

I play with two partners, Benji with one and 3 weak 2s with the other. Just so I am clear on required playing tricks using your methods:

 

Benji

Opening 2♦ with a single suited minor?

Opening 2♦ with a single suited major?

 

3 weak 2's

Opening 2♣ with a single suited minor?

Opening 2♣ with a single suited major?

[Zelandakh]

For strong one-suiters, I guess an approximate summary would be:

 

Reverse Benji:-

2♦ with 8-8.5 PTs in any suit

2♣ with stronger hands

--

Benji:-

2♣ with 8-8.5 PTs in any suit

2♦ with stronger hands

--

3 Weak 2s and Paradox responses:-

2♣ with 8+ PTs in a major; 9+ PTs in a minor

--

3 Weak 2s and negative 2♦ response:-

2♣ with 9+ PTs in any suit

--

 

As with any such listing, I reserve the right to choose differently for a specific hand! ;) B-)

[Cyberyeti]

I always take out my iPhone to calculate K&R when at tournaments before I make an opening bid. :P

 

I tend to do my own evaluation based on experience, I then use K&R afterwards to confirm my analysis or not, and usually we think roughly the same way, whether this is a good thing or not is a valid question.

[Liversidge]

For strong one-suiters, I guess an approximate summary would be:

 

Reverse Benji:-

2♦ with 8-8.5 PTs in any suit

2♣ with stronger hands

--

Benji:-

2♣ with 8-8.5 PTs in any suit

2♦ with stronger hands

--

3 Weak 2s and Paradox responses:-

2♣ with 8+ PTs in a major; 9+ PTs in a minor

--

3 Weak 2s and negative 2♦ response:-

2♣ with 9+ PTs in any suit

 

 

As with any such listing, I reserve the right to choose differently for a specific hand! ;) B-)

 

 

So playing 3 weak 2's with 9 PTs and a single suited long minor I would bid 2♣ even though I need two tricks from partner to make 5♣.

With two tricks wouldn't partner be unlikely to pass 1♣ - which gives more bidding space?

2♣-2♦-3♣with 9 PTs could be a two suiter with 5 clubs and and I would have to go to the 4 level to describe it.

[helene_t]

So playing 3 weak 2's with 9 PTs and a single suited long minor I would bid 2♣ even though I need two tricks from partner to make 5♣.

With two tricks wouldn't partner be unlikely to pass 1♣ - which gives more bidding space?

Yes I agree.

 

Only open 2♣ if your hand is too strong for

1♣-1M

3♣

 

This means that you open 2♣ is you want to be in game opposite some random misfitting 6-7 count which would pass the latter rebid.

 

Personally, I prefer only to open 2♣ with a long minor if I have a GF hand. The thing is, if

2♣-2♦

3♣

is nonforcing, what does partner do with say ♠QTxxx and out? Opener might have nine tricks outside spades and just need a spade stopper. Or he might have calculated two tricks for ♠AKx. Then again, opposite A-AKx-x-KQJxxxx your hand may be useless. So the upside of being allowed to pass in a partscore after a 2♣ opening is dubious.

[Zelandakh]

So playing 3 weak 2's with 9 PTs and a single suited long minor I would bid 2♣ even though I need two tricks from partner to make 5♣.

With two tricks wouldn't partner be unlikely to pass 1♣ - which gives more bidding space?

2♣-2♦-3♣with 9 PTs could be a two suiter with 5 clubs and and I would have to go to the 4 level to describe it.

2 tricks is a funny thing. xxx support and a side shortage can be 2 tricks; similarly xxxx or xxxxx can be a stopper for 3NT when the suit does not break unfavourably. As a general rule, if we are not off off the top, when Responder's hand provides 1 trick it usually will also provide some opportunity for a second. So I have no qualms about GFing with hands that are stronger than an Acol 2.

 

Whether we have more bidding space after 1m depends a little bit on system and agreements. It should be clear that there is usually no direct way of showing a 1-suiter too strong for 3m below 3NT after a 1 level response. Some use a little conventionality here, bundling this one-suiter into a reversing sequence or, like CY, using a gadget rebid for GF hands. If we have that then great - but it is unlikely for N/B pairs!

 

It is certainly true that 2♣ - 2♦; 3♣ can be a number of hand types. My recommendation here is to play Responder's 3♦ rebid as a Stayman-like enquiry to at least eliminate the hands with a 4 card major on the side. With diamond-based hands, a common modern refinement is to play 2♣ - 2♦; 3M as showing 4M and longer diamonds. This means that 2♣ - 2♦; 3♦ denies a 4 card major and is usually a one-suiter. Naturally both of these are more advanced ideas though.

 

In the end, you of course have to decide each hand on its merits. If it is clear that there will be a better auction opening 1m and we are not scared of a passout, which is usually the case when we are distributional, then opening 1m is clear. What we are talking about here is the grey area where either approach will have its advantages and disadvantages. I come from an Acol background, in particular having played rather a lot with Reverse Benji methods. That colours my logic one way and that logic in turn got built into my strong club system to some extent. Those that have only played 5cM, strong NT, 3 weaks will likely have the completely opposite mentality and logic. And yet my experience from threads of this nature over the years is that the difference at the end of the day is extremely small. The real difference comes from those posters that I see quoting rules like this one "a trick short of game in hand" or one of the other such rules around such as "more QTs than losers", or "5 QTs".

 

Let's have a small thought experiment. Construct a 9PT diamond 1-suiter that you would be unhappy opening 2♣ and post how you see the auction going for various responding hands. We can compare it at the end of the day with the 2♣->3♦ auction above. My guess would be that 1♦ will come out ahead when game is not on (2♣ openers cannot stop) and 2♣ will make for easier auctions when game is there (1♦ openers either rebid 3m, risking a pass or 3NT+ giving less bidding space) - but game will be available the vast majority of the time. Thus the 9PT guideline is more of a practical concept for where a GF hand starts than suggesting that 2♣ should be opened with non-GF minor one-suiters. It is possible to include some weaker minor suit hands here but it requires a lot of compromises to do and is impractical for most I/A pairs, let alone N/B! Hopefully I have not misled you in this respect!