Opening on junk

[Phil]

 

I believe that there exist some very strong Precision players who would at least consider Passing in some vulnerability/dealer combinations. I can tell you for sure that, contrary to popular belief, it is far from rare for some of the best Precision players in the USA to Pass hands with 11 (or even 12) HCPs in some circumstances. Yes I know these hands, on paper at least, have more than 11 HCPs.

 

If the vugraph archive is searchable, it would be a good exercise to look for 1st and 2nd seat 1m openers of 11-12 that are being passed. My estimate, at least in late stages, that 12's are passed around .1% of the time and 11's are passed 5% of the time.

[aguahombre]

If the vugraph archive is searchable, it would be a good exercise to look for 1st and 2nd seat 1m openers of 11-12 that are being passed. My estimate, at least in late stages, that 12's are passed around .1% of the time and 11's are passed 5% of the time.

It would be a good exercise if we only included balanced 11-12's.

[rhm]

So, Meck's opinions are relevant to this discussion. Now for the blasphemy: I dare to disagree with Meck. We have found that light openings, although they increase an already wide range for the natural opening bids, are still quite workable as long as we don't fall into the Modern Paradox.

 

The Modern Paradox was coined by a Canadian author reporting on a Canadian championship in the ACBL Bulletin several years ago. As opening bids got lighter, responders have not increased their requirements for game and slam probes proportionately. For instance, Kx AJxx Axxx xxx is a game invite, not a game force opposite a Modern 1m or 1s.

I think is is not so easy to play a system where responder needs significant more than half of the partnership resources before he should consider forcing to game.

The trend in modern constructive bidding system is to force to game early. This makes it easier to find the best strain for game or to judge whether all the ingredients for slam are present or not.

For example in 2/1 you have to decide early whether you have sufficient resources.

The same holds true when you employ XYZ or similar conventions.

Once responder needs significantly more than a minimum opening bid himself he will often not be able to force to game and the above advantage gets lost.

Meanwhile if champions have difficulty to adjust why are you not beating all those if it is so easy for you?

 

There may be many tactical advantages for light and super-light openings but do not tell us it is easy to adjust and there are no costs involved.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

I think is is not so easy to play a system where responder needs significant more than half of the partnership resources before he should consider forcing to game.

Agree :(

The trend in modern constructive bidding system is to force to game early. This makes it easier to find the best strain for game or to judge whether all the ingredients for slam are present or not. For example in 2/1 you have to decide early whether you have sufficient resources

Conventions like Gazzillli can mitigate the problem :)

The same holds true when you employ XYZ or similar conventions.

XYZ is an appropriate kind of convention because you quickly categorise your hand as Sign/Off, INVitational, or Game-Forcing :)

Once responder needs significantly more than a minimum opening bid himself he will often not be able to force to game and the above advantage gets lost.

Agree. :(

Meanwhile if champions have difficulty to adjust why are you not beating all those if it is so easy for you?

Many champions seem to have adjusted :)

There may be many tactical advantages for light and super-light openings

We concede there are disadvantages too :( It's swings :( and roundabouts :)

but do not tell us it is easy to adjust and there are no costs involved.

We don't :)

[aguahombre]

Good job, nige. And to RHM: I didn't say anything was easy. I said it was workable.

 

Further, I didn't say champions have difficulty adjusting; I said many people don't adjust their responses per the Modern Paradox. This causes them problems. And, I believe if Meck were not using a forcing club system he would make the appropriate adjustments and still win an event or two.

 

"Why don't you beat...?" -- not worth taking that bait. I must not have anything worthwhile to contribute -- even while giving credit for the concept to someone else -- unless I first have improved all aspects of my game to world class standards and then play against those folks on a regular basis? (Edit: I guess I did take the bait.)

[Phil]

Rainer you are only focusing on our side but bridge is a 4 handed game. When the opponents (who presumably wait until they have real opening hands) are using their defensive bidding methods more than they prefer.

[Wouterf]

https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/the-most-successful-openings

This is a small article from Larry Cohen which I really like. It describes the habit of opening light.

 

 

Basically as long as you and your p agree on light openings, meaning an opening versus an opening doesnt nessesarily mean game, it simply pays to open the bidding as much as possible. It puts your opponents on defense, disrupts their constructive bidding and makes defending easier.