Opening on junk

[bravejason]

I hope you realize Marty would open these hands in a flash....not close.

 

I've read several of his books and his books do not advocate opening these kinds of hands. Maybe he would open them, but his books teach that these hands should not be opened.

[xbrit66]

Maybe re-word the question? I vote none in 1st or 2nd seat but all in 3rd seat and probably 4th seat.

[calabres]

They are all clear opening hands. All of them have an easy rebid to any answer of my partner.

[VJ]

Yes indeed!Kaplan and Reuben's hand evaluators are obsolete as they are too conservative.Forgotten for good as some would say!

 

I only can agree, all is a matter of style, but it is difficult to communicate with your partner if you open on any of these hands and want to convey along a message that you have a constructive hand ready to go for a plus score. Statistically, you are off to a bad score. None of those hands should be opened, whether constructively or destructively. Bridge tuition should lead even average players to better standards. The question does not even deserve to be raised, in my opinion. The poll result only shows how low the average level of the teachers and players is. I feel sorry for them.

[alok c]

I only can agree, all is a matter of style, but it is difficult to communicate with your partner if you open on any of these hands and want to convey along a message that you have a constructive hand ready to go for a plus score. Statistically, you are off to a bad score. None of those hands should be opened, whether constructively or destructively. Bridge tuition should lead even average players to better standards. The question does not even deserve to be raised, in my opinion. The poll result only shows how low the average level of the teachers and players is. I feel sorry for them.

REALLY ?!! :o

[RedSpawn]

I must first qualify my answer as saying that I am using SAYC with 15-17 HCP as 1NT.

 

The answer is an equivocal NO to all 3 choices, regardless of seat or vulnerability.

 

The purpose of the opening bid is to to describe the trick-taking potential of your hand, so that the partnership neither overreaches itself (and thus incurs a penalty by promising to take more tricks than is possible) nor misses a golden opportunity to obtain a lucrative reward by failing to set the commitment high enough when ample strength is held.

 

The opening bid serves as a foundation for the partnership to explore the viability of a contract so the Milton Point system (4-3-2-1) ALONE is insufficient to accomplish that. Why? Because Milton's systems overvalues queens and jacks and undervalues aces and 10's. Points matter, but having the "right collection of points" to secure tricks matters even more, as well as having decent suit controls and favorable distribution.

 

The Quick Trick method addresses suit controls. However, it undervalues queens and jacks and overvalues aces (hmm...which is the opposite of the Milton System). But when you use both Milton's system and the Quick Trick evaluation method, they serve as a sound basis for opening a bid because the over/under valuation of honors in BOTH systems cancel each other out.

 

So 13 honor card points (from Milton) AND 2 minimum quick tricks (from Quick Trick method) should be the starting point for determining whether or not you want to "strike first" in the auction. If you want the partnership to successfully take 7 tricks by opening a 1 level contract, a requirement that you possess at LEAST TWO tricks QUICKLY on your own is a fair obligation--especially when you have no idea about the distribution of the remaining 39 cards.

 

Your opening bid is a PROMISE to the partnership about the trick taking capabilities and strength of your hand. It is a representation to your partner that you believe you hold a better-than-average 10 HCP hand. You should be able to deliver on that promise with the available information from your hand.

 

Let's look at Hand A:

 

S-QJx H-QJx D-KJx C-QJxx

 

This hand has 13 points RAW, but its Milton Points are only PART of the whole picture.

 

Here are the deductions from the 13 points:

 

• The hand is ace-less which means that it lacks POWER. There are 39 cards remaining in the deck and the opponents have 26 cards and your partner has 13. The opponents are twice as likely to get the remaining 4 POWER aces than your partner. This does NOT bode well for the partnership should you actually win the auction. You technically should deduct one HCP for ace-less hands as they are weaker from a suit control standpoint.
  
• The hand clearly is not even close to the minimum of 2.0 quick tricks. It has 0.5 quick tricks so no primary strength for offensive or defensive purposes. Aces and Kings must clear the board in three (3) suits before the Queens and Jacks can go to work for the partnership!
  
• The hand has horrible 4-3-3-3 distribution. Why is 4-3-3-3 horrible, you ask? With 4-3-3-3 shape, this hand is "flat" and has no chance for a reasonable ruff in a suit contract; for a NT contract, there is no suit long enough or strong enough to establish skaters or additional tricks to help you to successfully fulfill the contract.
  
• From a Losing Trick Count perspective, this hand has 7.5 losers which is more than the average opening hand which has 7.0 losers.
  
• The hand is lop-sided unfavorably in its honor strength. It has SEVEN (7) queens and jacks which are overvalued in the Milton Point system, so you must deduct TWO points from the total HCP count to offset this.
   
  

 

So: Take the 13 points raw MINUS 1 point for the 4-3-3-3 distribution MINUS 2 points for the super-excessive amount of queens and jacks MINUS 1 point for no ace in the hand = 13-1-2-1 = 9 HCP. This is an ALL-IN evaluation of just hand 1 and reconciles with K&R statistics of 8.95 HCP. B-)

(A) is your average hand of 9-10 points and is clearly not an opener. Did you recognize this or were you wooed by the "red dress" (13 HCP) the hand was wearing? If you value your partner, the partnership, and successful outcomes, you do NOT open (A). You PASS & await further developments.

 

As bridge players, we are charged with the responsibility of doing a full hand evaluation and not becoming slaves to mindless point counts.

 

If you open the bidding solely on point count without LOOKING at suit controls (quick tricks) and your hand flaws, you are inadvertently setting the partnership up to fail.

 

Factors such as quick tricks, shape, paucity of aces, losing trick counts, dubious honors trapped in doubletons or singletons, excessive lower order honors (queens and jacks) all can adversely impact your partnership's ability to successfully fulfill your contract OR defeat the opposition's.

 

You have to account for these factors in your hand evaluation process. Also, partners make decisions on whether to double the opposition's contract or overcall based, in part, on their partner's opening bids, so it will behoove you to make sound opening bids and avoid opening garbage hands unless you have a death wish.

 

Modern bridge developments do not require us to forgo sound opening bid requirements to compete more effectively in auctions; there are other tools for that. Be sensible and realistic about what you are promising your partner in your opening bids and embrace the PASS button when you have nothing noteworthy to report. Remember, the pass button can create an opportunity for the opposition to overbid, so it too, has POWER. :)

[RedSpawn]

.

[RedSpawn]

Apparently the Kaplan-Rubens hand evaluator is obsolete.

 

I saw mention that these aren't even minimum. Does that mean that both of these would be opened as well? (Assume a strong notrump.)

 

(D) QJx QJx QJx QJxx

(E) QJx QJxx QJxx QJ

 

(At the time of this post, there were 12 votes to open them all and nothing for anything else.)

 

The person I was discussing this heard Phil's post (not even minimums) and interpreted it to mean "These hands aren't even minimum opening hands!" Judging from the votes, I am inferring that Phil meant "I would open with less."

ANSWERS:

 

(D) QJx QJx QJx QJxx-- DO NOT Open and PASS and await further developments. This hand:

 

• 
   
  
• is ace-less and lacks proper suit control which is a one HCP deduction;
  
• lacks 2.0 quick tricks (it has ZERO (0) quick tricks);
  
• has only 12 HCP which is less than the standard requirement of 13;
  
• has 8.0 losers from a Losing Trick Perspective and is thus worse than the average opening hand which has 7.0;
  
• has ugly 4-3-3-3 distribution which is a one HCP deduction; and
  
• contains 8 overvalued queens and jacks which require a 2 HCP deduction.
   
  

This hand all in is : 12 - 1- 1- 2 = 8.0 HCP = WORSE THAN YOUR AVERAGE HAND OF 10.0 HCP

 

(E) QJx QJxx QJxx QJ -- Do NOT Open and PASS and await further developments. This hand:

 

• is aceless and lacks proper suit control which is a one HCP deduction;
  
• lacks 2.0 quick tricks (it has ZERO (0) quick tricks);
  
• has better shape-4-4-3-2;
  
• has 8.0 losers from a Losing Trick Perspective and is thus worse than the average opening hand which has 7.0;
  
• is lopsided unfavorably in its honor strength. It has 8 overvalued queens and jacks which requires a 2 HCP deduction;
  
• contains dubious honors trapped in a doubleton with the QJ suit. We should deduct one HCP as QJ doubleton is defective and has less trick taking potential than KX or QJX or QXX.
  

 

This hand should be valued as a: 12 - 1 - 2 - 1 = 8.0 HCP hand. All things considered, this hand, once again, has less strength and trick tacking potential THAN YOUR AVERAGE 10 HCP HAND.

[msjennifer]

I only can agree, all is a matter of style, but it is difficult to communicate with your partner if you open on any of these hands and want to convey along a message that you have a constructive hand ready to go for a plus score. Statistically, you are off to a bad score. None of those hands should be opened, whether constructively or destructively. Bridge tuition should lead even average players to better standards. The question does not even deserve to be raised, in my opinion. The poll result only shows how low the average level of the teachers and players is. I feel sorry for them.

If this means that the team which played Precision system and won for three consecutive years coming out of retirement after using the Blue Team Club system was a very low level team,,I strongly disagree with the statement.Perhaps ,Culbertson alone might have agreed with the statement.Those OLD days are gone and better be forgotten.But oh yes,these hands are totally unfit for opening if one plays a Forcing Pass system!!!

[Phil]

If you read the forums and (fortunately not everyone does) one of the leaps I had in results a few years ago was a commitment to open nearly all 11 point hands, especially NV.

 

In Denver a few years ago I played Korbel and Huub in a KO and Dan said he passed one 11 count the ENTIRE tournament and this was on the last Saturday.

 

When I started designing my system with Gumperz a year ago he asked what I wanted to play. I didn't particularly care as long as we opened in this style.

 

You HAVE to adjust your responding style, but it's easier than you might think.

[johnu]

If you don't open these hands, you need to think about how you handle them if you pass and partner opens or competes. Once you do that, you should conclude that opening is the least worst option.

[aguahombre]

If you read the forums and (fortunately not everyone does) one of the leaps I had in results a few years ago was a commitment to open nearly all 11 point hands, especially NV.

 

In Denver a few years ago I played Korbel and Huub in a KO and Dan said he passed one 11 count the ENTIRE tournament and this was on the last Saturday.

 

When I started designing my system with Gumperz a year ago he asked what I wanted to play. I didn't particularly care as long as we opened in this style.

 

You HAVE to adjust your responding style, but it's easier than you might think.

After doing pretty much as you say for quite a while, we have adjusted it slightly (due to results). Major suit openings on trash 11's work fine, but we lost overall opening 1 of a minor on balanced 11's and (3-1) 4-5 11's. I think I met a 12 I wouldn't open once upon a time, but quickly forgot what it looked like.

[Alroy]

Open them all. Only wimps and people over 70 would pass any or all of these hands!! I doubt very much mechwell or welland/auken would pass any of these hands.

[RD350LC]

Maybe re-word the question? I vote none in 1st or 2nd seat but all in 3rd seat and probably 4th seat.

I agree-I would pass 1st or 2nd seat, but likely would open any of them in 3rd seat. 4th seat-pass it out.

[neilkaz]

There is no 13 hcp hand that I would fail to open.

[Vampyr]

After doing pretty much as you say for quite a while, we have adjusted it slightly (due to results). Major suit openings on trash 11's work fine, but we lost overall opening 1 of a minor on balanced 11's and (3-1) 4-5 11's. I think I met a 12 I wouldn't open once upon a time, but quickly forgot what it looked like.

 

I would definitely do this if I used a strong NT. Playing weak NT it is trickier; you may get in trouble if you don't have a good suit, since you might have to treat the hand as unbalanced. Even if it is unbalanced you may not get to show you second suit if partner bids 2/1 in a higher suit.

[johnu]

I strongly disagree with the statement.Perhaps ,Culbertson alone might have agreed with the statement.Those OLD days are gone and better be forgotten.

 

You are forgetting Roth-Stone which is a little more recent, but maybe not that much more recent. There may be still some old players still playing Roth-Stone style on the east coast, but not many.

[rhm]

Apparently the Kaplan-Rubens hand evaluator is obsolete.

 

Hand A came up at 8.95 points.

Hand A

 

Hand B came up at 9.35 points

Hand B

 

Hand C came up at 9.05 points.

Hand C

 

I didn't bring this up to argue with anybody, I was just curious. Bridge has come a long way since the days of Culbertson and two quick tricks.

 

I saw mention that these aren't even minimum. Does that mean that both of these would be opened as well? (Assume a strong notrump.)

 

(D) QJx QJx QJx QJxx

(E) QJx QJxx QJxx QJ

 

(At the time of this post, there were 12 votes to open them all and nothing for anything else.)

 

The person I was discussing this heard Phil's post (not even minimums) and interpreted it to mean "These hands aren't even minimum opening hands!" Judging from the votes, I am inferring that Phil meant "I would open with less."

Yes indeed!Kaplan and Reuben's hand evaluators are obsolete as they are too conservative.Forgotten for good as some would say!

You should have a little bit more respect for the hand evaluation skills of Rubens and Kaplan.

I am pretty sure their hand evaluation was and is much superior to yours and you are very unlikely ever coming close to theirs.

Having said this the Kaplan and Ruben's hand evaluator is quite precise with respect to suit contracts and that is what these hands will be worth on average at a suit contract.

Notrump evaluation, particularly at low level notrump contracts, is a bit different. Here the hands are worth a bit more, around 11 points.

For opening the bidding I would certainly prefer Axxx, Axxx, Kxx xx to any of the hands suggested here.

Those, who call the above hands 13 counts, should look for another game. Apparently they are unlikely to ever progress beyond the beginner stage.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

If you don't open these hands, you need to think about how you handle them if you pass and partner opens or competes. Once you do that, you should conclude that opening is the least worst option.

This is because you overvalue these hands.

Playing strong notrumps if partner opens in third or fourth position I would simply bid 1NT because I believe 3NT will often be a very poor contract opposite a 12-14 balanced hand and often partner will have less in 3rd of 4th position.

Likewise I will simply bid notrump if partner overcalls. You are unlikely to have game when RHO opens the bidding anyway and a 2NT response to a two level overcall invites 3NT and shows a amximm pass.

If partner opens 1♥ Drury is ideal with B and C to stop low if partner has a minimum.

 

If you are playing weak notrumps and partner does not open 1NT I would risk 2NT to show a maximum pass.

I am still likely ahead of those who open these hands, who will often reach 3NT with little play where I will stop at least in 2NT. .

 

Rainer Herrmann

[maartenxq]

Ugly for sure. But not making the first move, now THAT's REALLY UGLY.

Agree, if in C had 12 hcp I would pass. this is btw why an identical shaped 10-11 hcp responder should prceed with care, especially in mps.

Maarten

[johnu]

This is because you overvalue these hands.

 

I don't have any problem responding with these hands because I would have opened them.

[rhm]

If you don't open these hands, you need to think about how you handle them if you pass and partner opens or competes. Once you do that, you should conclude that opening is the least worst option.

 

...

 

I don't have any problem responding with these hands because I would have opened them.

But you claimed there would be if one would pass.

 

The opposite is true.

Opening on junk risks getting too high. Not you will have a problem, your partner will when he responds to your "opening bids".

Not on paper or in forums of course, but at the table.

I know everyone claims "my partner will not expect more".

But even if true simple logic tells anybody, who has an open mind, that increasing the range of your opening bids can not be cost free, whatever your partner does.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

You should have a little bit more respect for the hand evaluation skills of Rubens and Kaplan. I am pretty sure their hand evaluation was and is much superior to yours and you are very unlikely ever coming close to theirs. Having said this the Kaplan and Ruben's hand evaluator is quite precise with respect to suit contracts and that is what these hands will be worth on average at a suit contract. Notrump evaluation, particularly at low level notrump contracts, is a bit different. Here the hands are worth a bit more, around 11 points. For opening the bidding I would certainly prefer Axxx, Axxx, Kxx xx to any of the hands suggested here. Those, who call the above hands 13 counts, should look for another game. Apparently they are unlikely to ever progress beyond the beginner stage.

As in the water-cooler, it might reduce misunderstanding, if we could agree some basic concepts e.g.

We beginners start with HCP, High Card Points, commonly, Milton Work Points, A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1. Players apply adjustments to this basic evaluation. For instance:

• Context. e.g. quacks pull more weight in no-trump contracts.
• Honour placement. e.g. in short suits or long suits. Honours in the same suit re-enforce each other.
• Texture. i.e. intermediates e.g. AJ9 is worth more than AJ2
• Shape. e.g. xxxxxxxxx xxxx - - is worth more than xxx xxx xxx xxxx.
• Fit. e.g. In a suit contract, we regard KQxx opposite a singleton as duplication.
• To avoid confusion, we could call these adjusted values, Rubens points or whatever but IMO we shouldn't call them HCP.

You should be wary of opening poor hands, unless

• Partner expects it, and
• Your system can cope.

On those assumptions, IMO, the more hands you can open, the better.

[johnu]

But you claimed there would be if one would pass.

 

The opposite is true.

Opening on junk risks getting too high. Not you will have a problem, your partner will when he responds to your "opening bids".

Not on paper or in forums of course, but at the table.

I know everyone claims "my partner will not expect more".

But even if true simple logic tells anybody, who has an open mind, that increasing the range of your opening bids can not be cost free, whatever your partner does.

 

While deciding to open this hand is done without knowing the other hands, the fact that you have all or most of the queens and jacks in your pile of quacks allows you to make some assumptions about what points responder will have, namely that they will have (most) all their points in kings and aces. This tends to balance out the overvaluing of the opening hand.

 

As far as increasing the range of opening bids, opening nondescript 11 pointers seems very common among good tournament players these days, and they have made the decision that the advantages of opening trump the disadvantages of overstating strength. Nothing scientific of course, but just an observation.

[RedSpawn]

But you claimed there would be if one would pass.

 

The opposite is true.

Opening on junk risks getting too high. Not you will have a problem, your partner will when he responds to your "opening bids".

Not on paper or in forums of course, but at the table.

I know everyone claims "my partner will not expect more".

But even if true simple logic tells anybody, who has an open mind, that increasing the range of your opening bids can not be cost free, whatever your partner does.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Here are the costs of increasing the range of opening bids:

 

• 
   
  
• Your team will frequently bully and commandeer the auction with woefully inadequate HCP values. This will subject the partnership to a higher risk of overbids, which your team will routinely blame on "card placement".
   
  
• You will create additional frustration and work for your partner who must now differentiate if your 1 level open is sound or junk. Your partner will have to figure out the new meaning of a 2NT response to a partner's 1 of a suit opening bid because "the opener" reserves the right to open junk material in 1st or 2nd seat.
   
  
• Your team will frequently & incorrectly make 3NT gambits with inadequate values because Quick Tricks are not even on your team's radar for opening bid requirements.
   
  
• Your team will began to heavily and unjustifiably rely on poor, novice level defense to make contracts since being 1st to open trumps common sense bidding.
   
  
• You will eventually create derision and mistrust within your own partnership when you encounter teams that see through the "jedi mind tricks" and successfully employ the penalty double to knock your team out of competition.