An Opening Hand?

[Dumoti]

I went to a sectional yesterday, and there was a lecture. I don't normally pay attention to such things, but this one was about 2-way NMF, something I know little about.

 

I was unconvinced by the lecture, partially because the first example showed both opener and responder with the ♥A and partially because one of the example hands was:

 

♠JT

♥987

♦KQ64

♣AQ52

 

and the discussion centered around all the problems that would ensue with this hand. However, I didn't feel that the hand merited an opening bid. Yes, it is 12 HCPs, but one of those points is the jack in a doubleton. I asked others what they thought and was surprised to hear that about half of the people thought it was an opening bid.

 

One person responded that he simply opened all 12-point hands. Presumably QJ QJ QJxxx QJxx is an opening bid for him.

Another responded that it had 7-losers and so it qualified as an opener.

A third responded that he opened a fair number of 11-point hands.

 

So my question is: Is this an opening hand? Why or why not?

 

Please do not hijack this thread into the pluses and minuses of 2-way NMF. Should you wish to do so, we can easily start another thread entirely devoted to Checkback Stayman vs. 2-way NMF.

[sfi]

If I'm playing a system with a normal range of openings, I will pass maybe one 12-count a year. This isn't it.

 

There is a big advantage to opening the bidding. You have good system for it, it stops the opponents using their system, you get a chance to start describing your hands at a low level and you don't feel the need to make up for your borderline values later in the auction when it is riskier. So balanced 12 counts are well within the range of most tournament player's one-level opening bids.

 

This hand also has some good features. Your points are concentrated in your long suits, you have 2.5 quick tricks and you have good intermediates in your short suits which might be useful fillers for partner's hand.

 

In short, I think not opening this hand is unduly conservative.

[apollo1201]

I really see no reason to downgrade the hands. There are some much worse balanced 12-counts, while here, you have 2 suits, headed by AQ and KQ. If you pass, you will probably not be able to catch up later.

My grandma counting 2.5 Honor Tricks with 2 biddable suits would even open without the SJ 🤣🤣🤣

[HardVector]

Make the spade J the diamond J and I'd open. You have it right to downgrade this, although it's close. 3rd hand I'd open easily, 4th I'd pass it out.

[rmnka447]

I would open this hand as I use not only HCP, but also use Quick Tricks (Defensive tricks) in evaluating a hand. My normal standard is 12 HCP and 2 QT to open hands. As the number of QTs goes up, the HCP can reduced. This hand has 2 1/2 QTs, so even discounting ♠ J, I'd open it. If it had 13 HCP and 1 1/2 QTs, I'd consider opening it. But hands with 1 QT or less, I'd never open unless it was possibly a preemptive bid.

 

Quick tricks are evaluated in each suit separately and totaled for the hand. They are a means of evaluating the underlying strength/foundation of the hand. The honor combinations that yield QTs are:

 

AK = 2 QTs

AQ = 1 1/2 QTs

Ax = 1 QT

KQ = 1 QT

Kx = 1/2 QT

 

But even these measures should not be used alone or blindly applied. For example, ♠ AQ ♥ KQx ♦ Jxxx ♣ xxxx is not as strong as your original hand and I might consider passing it.

[Tramticket]

Easy 1NT (12-14) opening for us.

[pescetom]

It's an ugly hand but I would still open it in any seat, 12hcp and two and a half quick tricks.

 

If you don't want discussion about the

convention that got you thinking about this hand, just don't mention it :)

[spotlight7]

I really see no reason to downgrade the hands. There are some much worse balanced 12-counts, while here, you have 2 suits, headed by AQ and KQ. If you pass, you will probably not be able to catch up later.

My grandma counting 2.5 Honor Tricks with 2 biddable suits would even open without the SJ 🤣🤣🤣

 

Your grandma would open Axx xxx xxx AQxx since it is an opening bid with 2.5 quick tricks.

 

4-3-2-1 point count arrived and many 2.5 quick trick hands became passes.

[The_Badger]

Easy 1NT (12-14) opening for us.

 

As Tramticket rightly says, it's an easy weak 1NT opening for us this side of the Atlantic, even with two suits open and without stoppers. So, it's an easy 1♦ opening and a rebid of 1NT if partner bids a major in 2/1.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

simple answer: Open the hand.

Peoble try to find excueses to open, not not to open.

If you want arguments: Both minors are real, if you end up defending

and partner on lead, you want partner to lead a minor (which ..., depends

on your system), you have kings / you have Aces, the Aces compensates

for you JT, and even the Jack is acompanies by a Ten, you are 4432 not 4333.

Most of the peoble you play against will open this hand, are you convinced,

that it is a 75% EV++ decision not to open? If yes, pass, otherwise go with

the field.

But in the end, this is a partnership decision, if YOUR partner agrees with you,

than do whatever you want.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Dumoti]

So assuming that your partner has a mirror-image hand:

 

♠AQ52

♥KQ64

♦987

♣JT

 

♠JT

♥987

♦KQ64

♣AQ52

 

 

What are your chances of making 3NT?

[Tramticket]

So assuming that your partner has a mirror-image hand:

 

♠AQ52

♥KQ64

♦987

♣JT

 

♠JT

♥987

♦KQ64

♣AQ52

 

 

What are your chances of making 3NT?

We wouldn't be in 3NT (except maybe vulnerable at teams). Our auction would be: 1NT (12-14), 2C; 2D, 2NT; Pass.

[rmnka447]

As Tramticket rightly says, it's an easy weak 1NT opening for us this side of the Atlantic, even with two suits open and without stoppers. So, it's an easy 1♦ opening and a rebid of 1NT if partner bids a major in 2/1.

 

It would be an easy 1 NT opening for me when playing weak NTs on this side of the Atlantic.

[apollo1201]

Your grandma would open Axx xxx xxx AQxx since it is an opening bid with 2.5 quick tricks.

There was a concept of biddable and repeatable suits too. And even non-biddable suits also, that became biddable if the hand had another suit. Anyway I think with only 1 biddable suit she would need a small extra vs. 2 1/2 QT so she would likely pass this one haha.

[mikeh]

It may be useful to think in terms of notrump range when discussing how to open balanced hands.

 

Assume for now that one plays 15-17 1N. A 3 point range is a very good idea for a number of very solid reasons, which would be beyond the scope of the thread, but I will assume that this is generally accepted for 1N, with 2N openings, and jump rebids (and notrump rebids after 2C) being 2 point ranges. Again, there are good theoretical reasons for having 2 point ranges at 2N or higher, yet 3 point for 1N.

 

So, if we use 15-17 for 1N opening, we can logically use 12-14 for 1m then 1N.

 

Using a 3 point range allows for finely adjusted invitational/forcing/signoff decisions by responder.

 

So if one is playing 12-14 1m then 1N, this is a perfectly fine minimum.

 

I wouldn't advise using losing trick count for hands intending to rebid 1N: while I do use it as a final metric when the decision is extremely close, it is a better tool to value shapely hands than flat ones, imo.

 

I can tell readers that in my current serious partnership, we open almost all flat 11 counts, but we play 14-16 1N (partly because 14-16 arises far more often than does 15-17 and we play good methods after 1N and partly to allow us to open 11 counts and not end up too high opposite a 12 point responding hand).

 

I would devalue short honours, but any devaluation of the spade Jack would be offset by the fact that it is accompanied by the 10. J10 tight is not to be sneezed at in the absence of any reason to expect that partner has short spades.

 

Meanwhile, passing this hand poses huge dangers.

 

We may get frozen out if LHO opens, and parther is stuck. We have huge problems if partner opens in 3rd chair....what do we bid if he opens 1 of a suit?

 

Over a possibly light 1S, maybe we can bid 2N, but that risks getting too high, and in any event a lot of experienced pairs use 2N artificially in that sequence, precisely because it is so unlikely to be the correct natural bid. What do we do if she opens 1m? We have horrible shape for a limit raise, and no major cards.

 

In other words, opening 1D here makes life very easy while passing can lead to a range of bad outcomes. Now, are 1m definitely always leading to a great outcome and passing a bad one? No, of course not but the percentages are definitely in favour of opening.

 

I know the OP doesn't want a thread-jack into 2 way new minor, but either the OP didn't fully understand what was being said or, and this is to me the most likely (given the apparent carelessness of the presentation) it wasn't well explained. I have taught 2 way new minor to a number of players who were initially reluctant and, without exception, all of them now play 2 way in all of their regular partnerships. Since this group includes 4 different players with, each, multiple national titles, I suggest that maybe the OP should keep an open mind.

[ggwhiz]

So assuming that your partner has a mirror-image hand:

 

♠AQ52

♥KQ64

♦987

♣JT

 

♠JT

♥987

♦KQ64

♣AQ52

 

 

What are your chances of making 3NT?

 

Your glass is 1/2 empty. My partnership routinely passes AK A 11 counts and 4x3 12 counts and even we would open this.

 

When it's not our hand we often gain from setting the defence and have an easy rebid. 3nt is far from hopeless in your example and if you change the usefull 10's into x's we can stop in 2nt often enough to show a long term profit.

[helene_t]

So assuming that your partner has a mirror-image hand:

 

♠AQ52

♥KQ64

♦987

♣JT

 

♠JT

♥987

♦KQ64

♣AQ52

 

 

What are your chances of making 3NT?

Partner has an absolute minimum for a GF and opener has an absolute minimum for an opening, the hands don't fit particularly well. So this is one of the thinnest games we should be in with balanced hands (when both partners have 5-5 and it is a misfit we sometimes end up in completely hopeless games).

 

Even so, 3NT has chances.

[akwoo]

It's duplicate. Getting +150 when other people are getting +400 is just as bad as getting -100 when others are getting +120.

 

Yes, opening this hand will get you too high sometimes. It will also disrupt the opponents bidding or get you into thin making games at other times.

 

Novices frequently play as if you got 1 point for making your contract, lost 10 points for going down, and got 0 points any time you defended. This is very far from the actual method of scoring.

[HardVector]

IMO, if you feel the need to open these kinds of hands, then utilize a weak NT. Either the 12-14 acol kind, or my favorite, the 10-12 balanced (I like to do that vulnerable, btw). If you're not ready to do that, then you need to utilize some judgement. Most of the people I play with grew up with the idea that an opening hand opposite an opening hand = game. If you're opening bad 12 counts and your partner is putting you into game with bad 12 counts, you're going to go down on those. I'm continually amazed by the number of good boards I get when I pass this kind of hand and either we stay out of a bad game, or the opponents bid away and have no idea that I have this much in defense. Just because you pass once, doesn't mean you are out of the auction, either. If it sounds right, you can come in later.

[mikeh]

IMO, if you feel the need to open these kinds of hands, then utilize a weak NT. Either the 12-14 acol kind, or my favorite, the 10-12 balanced (I like to do that vulnerable, btw). If you're not ready to do that, then you need to utilize some judgement. Most of the people I play with grew up with the idea that an opening hand opposite an opening hand = game. If you're opening bad 12 counts and your partner is putting you into game with bad 12 counts, you're going to go down on those. I'm continually amazed by the number of good boards I get when I pass this kind of hand and either we stay out of a bad game, or the opponents bid away and have no idea that I have this much in defense. Just because you pass once, doesn't mean you are out of the auction, either. If it sounds right, you can come in later.

There is little difference in whether one opens these hands because one plays 1N as 12-14 or 15-17. In one case one opens 1m intending to show 12-14 by one’s rebid, in the other one sows it by opening 1N. Now, there are a host of implications depending on which way one goes, but overall there is not much to choose between the two approaches. It is, IMO, very wrong to pass these hand types.

 

I suspect I’ve played some higher level bridge than have you, and I can’t recall seeing an opponent ever pass this sort of hand in 1st seat. Maybe Grannovetter might, but he’s known for his ultra-conservatism. I’ve played 10-12 a great deal, but eventually abandoned it as have, I believe, most top-ranked players, to the limited time stent that they played it. It’s fine in and of itself, but there are subtle costs when one does not open 1N. But that’s for another day.

 

Btw, if one plays a light opening style, and I don’t consider 1D to be aggressive in the least (in my serious partnership we’d open without the spade Jack), one needn’t reach silly games. Lower the expectancy for opener, and logically one raises the requirement for responder to gf.

 

In my current partnership, we will play 2N with a soft balanced 13 opposite a balanced 11 and a bad balanced 12. Now, we have science on our side, since we use a 2H response as a balanced invitation. But you can get the same result, more or less, via using 2N as a good 11-12, allowing opener to pass with this sort of opening bid.

[JanisW]

The given hand is a perfectly reasonable 12count. Yes the ♠J might not be great but 11 of your 12 HCP are well placed. I'd much rather open this, than Qx QJx Qxxx AJxx

If you would not open 1m and rebid 1NT, there was no reason to claim that a 1NT-rebid showed 12-14 whatsoever.

The only question is whether you'd open without the ♠J or KJ♦ instead of KQ.

 

Arguably you will reach some thin games and will fail to bring them home on some occasions, but in my opinion, the blame lies not with opening these 12counts. More often your P will have been overly ambitious with a flat 12count or the suits just did not break your way.

[Dumoti]

It's duplicate. Getting +150 when other people are getting +400 is just as bad as getting -100 when others are getting +120.

 

Yes, opening this hand will get you too high sometimes. It will also disrupt the opponents bidding or get you into thin making games at other times.

 

Novices frequently play as if you got 1 point for making your contract, lost 10 points for going down, and got 0 points any time you defended. This is very far from the actual method of scoring.

Personally, I found your argument unconvincing. My back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that there is a 52.4% chance of making the game. So, yes, the game is not hopeless. However, it's far more of an argument to make this call at IMPs than at matchpoints. If you play it better than everyone else then it doesn't matter whether you are +150 vs -50 or +150 vs +120. At IMPs, on the other hand, it definitely does matter.

 

Additionally, I don't find the reasoning of some players here persuasive. Some have advocated opening 11-13 under the theory that if partner has a strong NT, he can put them in game. To my way of thinking, this is rather silly. I'd much rather let the strong NT open the hand and use all the bells and whistles available to get to the ideal contract.

 

There is something to be said for the idea that JT is better than Jx. However, I think that many here would still open it if you remove the ♠T. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Assuming you subscribe to the rule of 15, you wouldn't open this in third seat. Obviously, not everyone subscribes to said rule. But if you wouldn't open it in 3rd seat, why would you open it in 1st and 2nd?

 

Nor do I see the problem after P-P-1♠-P-??

You should be able to bid 1NT assuming you play 2/1, a bid that is semi-forcing. If partner has a minimum, he can pass and you're almost certainly in a playable spot even if partner opened a four-card major with sub-minimum values. If he bids on, you have no problems with easy rebids that accurately describe your hand.

[mikeh]

 

 

Assuming you subscribe to the rule of 15, you wouldn't open this in third seat. Obviously, not everyone subscribes to said rule. But if you wouldn't open it in 3rd seat, why would you open it in 1st and 2nd?

 

 

Because I am a bridge player.

 

More seriously, it is impossible to argue from any specific hand that any particular non-silly strategy will be better than any other non-silly strategy, and few players, especially non-expert players have the experience (or the memory and analysis) to be able to offer persuasive and sufficient data.

 

There is, however, an alternative source of information.

 

High-level bridge is very much a classic Darwinian environment, in which failure operates to remove unsuccessful ideas, while allowing for the success, refinement and spreading of those ideas that prove successful in contests between very intelligent, expert players.

 

I am a bit of a student of the game, with texts dating back to the 1890s (not contract, obviously, but the forerunner games) all the way up to the Rodwell Files. I have virtually every Bridge World ever published, until I ended my subscription in about 2009.

 

May top players use artificial methods, especially strong club systems, which employ limited opening bids, which mean that they can systemically cater to 1M openings having 10-15, or in some cases as light as 8-15. Such usually employ 10 or 11+ for the 1D method as well, assisted by the upper range being 15.

 

Those methods don't provide much guidance as to whether a hand such a J10 xxx KQxx KQJx is or is not a viable opening bid in a natural based method. For that we need to look at how such hands are commonly treated by successful natural-based pairs.

 

I don't think that one can say that 'everyone opens' this or that 'nobody opens' this. What one can say is that the trend over the past 50 years has been very consistently towards lighter and lighter 1st round actions.

 

We can see this from the 1N ranges in play. Again, we have to leave out Acol type approaches, which always used (roughly) 12-14 1N, as did Kaplan-Sheinwold.

 

For the strong notrumpers, the range used to be 16-18, and if one looks at how the game was taught back then (to the extent that point count was used, which wasn't universal until well into the 1950s), the normal opening bid required 13 points....this was taught, for example, by Goren, by far the most successful teacher after Culbertson, and possibly the most successful ever.

 

13-15 for 1suit then 1N worked well, in terms of having a good definition.

 

Tournament players learned that the 1N opening bid was powerful. Decent methods for responding were developed, starting with Rapee (but called after Sam Stayman) and then Oswald introduced Jacoby Transfers, and eventually we got walsh relays, 4 way transfers, fragments, etc.

 

The better the methods became, the more helpful it was to open 1N, and so people began playing 15-17....15 point hands arise far more frequently than do 18 point hands, so changing the range greatly increased the opportunity to use these powerful new tools.

 

Once one lowered the 1N to 15-17, one could lower the opening 1suit to 12, preserving that very useful 3 point range for the rebid.

 

Thus it became increasingly common to open 1suit with 12 hcp.

 

Nowadays, if one watches top-level bridge one sees, increasingly, 14-16 1N. Why? Because one gets a 14 count far more often than one gets a 17 count, and all good pairs have very powerful, accurate methods over their own 1N opening bids.

 

In turn this allows opening 1suit to be 11, preserving that 3 point range for the rebid of 1N.

 

While I do think that the foregoing logic is valid, I suspect that for some pairs the motivation may have worked at least in part in reverse: players found that opening the bidding carries with it more advantages than disadvantages, provided that the opening bid wasn't so wide as to cause issues later.

 

It is fundamental to bidding theory that the methods employed (leaving aside relay methods) permit the partners to describe shape while defining strength, and the earlier this can be done, and the lower the bidding when it is done, the better. One of the reasons why big club methods are as successful as they have been is not the ability to show a big hand via 1C, but the ability to limit and define the strength of the non-1C opening bids. One of the difficulties natural bidders face is the very wide range between minimum and maximum opening bids. If one lowers the requirements for 1suit to 11 hcp, one widens the range, unless one also lowers the requirements for the strong openings (which may well be counter-productive for a variety of reasons). One way of dealing with this is to lower the notrump range, thus allowing most minimum opening hands to define their strength very well via a 1N rebid that has an upper limit of 13 (playing 14-16) or 14 (playing 15-17)

 

All of this is by way of saying that high-end bridge reflects a trend towards lower range 'strong' notrump openings and a corresponding trend towards lower requirements for opening 1suit with a balanced hand, intending, usually, to rebid 1N (of course, not with 4 card support for partner's major).

 

Opening is not merely about bidding games. If it were, then we'd be discussing entirely different ideas.

 

Assume, for the sake of argument, that one needs 25 hcp combined to bid game. Then one should pass all 12 counts because we won't miss game if partner passes his 12 count...so long as we open all 13 counts, and so long as we have a way to force as a passed hand, we can pass our 12 count.

 

That's obviously silly since some 12 v 12 offer a good play for game. It's also silly because partscores count as well, and we want to maximize our ability to compete for partscores.

 

One way to compete is to open with modest values. This may offer some preemptive value and may also allow partner to compete with minimal values but a fit.

 

It may pave the way to beating the opps, by getting partner off to a good lead, or avoiding a bad one.

 

It may allow a very strong responding hand to better reach the correct slam or grand.

 

In short, which I am almost never capable of being, the trend in high-level bridge is towards more and more aggressive hand evaluation, and while some good players may reject the notion of opening a flat 12 count in 1st seat, I am pretty sure that most would do so happily.

 

As it happens, I am a 14-16 1N bidder and open virtually all 11 counts and, while I am a rung (or two) short of the highest levels of the game, I have significant experience with and against some of those who compete there. It's what wins.