Light Initial Action

[luis]

There's only one adjustment you need: You need to play better :-)

If this response was directed toward me, then, well, you stated the obvious. (I believe that I have a reasonably good sense of my personal bridge-related strengths and weaknesses.) If it was intended to imply that card play, and partnership-related issues are more important in general than what bidding system or style one adopts, well I strongly agree with you up to a point. However, this post was not intended to address any of the many personal bridge-related strengths or weaknesses that I have or that any other forum member might or might not have. It purpose is an attempt to try and clarify several issues to the degree that they might be clarified, and to survey what styles people have adopted, why they have adopted them, the degree to which these have or have not led to success, and why or why not.

 

I recall a brief discussion in the original Kaplan-Sheinwold book ("How to Play Winning Bridge") about the distinction between two approaches to the game: 1) trying to stay with or slightly above the field in terms of bidding and winning via superior play, decision-making, and defense, and 2) trying to win in terms of staying with or a little above the field in terms of play and defense, and trying to win via superior bidding (and, consequentially, competitive decision-making). So, there are different views on that topic, and I feel that I am reading a variety of views on this forum about issues of style, approach, evaluation, and systems to name a few.

 

Another currently-running thread has resulted in a number of opinions in terms of whether or not either of two hands should be opened, and various opinions on the merits of lighter initial action than the style that I am used to. I am looking for the reasoning behind adopting or not adopting a lighter initial action style, the ramifications that such an approach might have on the structure of any system that one utilizes, on how this impacts on what inferences one might take based upon action that partner has or hasn't taken (negative inferences), and the level of success that people have experienced using their' preferred styles and approaches. I or anyone else reading this thread might or might not adopt lighter initial action styles; those are individual and partnership decisions to be made. Pressure bidding seems to be in vogue these days. However, we all will likely have to play against them at some point, and understanding will be helpful in many areas, especially in competitive auctions.

 

DHL

It wasn't directed as you it was general including all the light openers, and yes that includes you and me and many others.

I really don't think you have to "adjust" your bidding for light openings, you will be playing more games than the field and that is good, you will be playing more hands than the field and competing in most auctions and those are also good.

This is assuming your light openings are light openings within a natural context.

 

Most of the times in a natural context you open light when you have a major suit, my experience tells me that light openers tend not to open really light 1 of a minor. So what you probably need is some way to determine when pd opened a normal hand and when not.

If you play 1M-2c as a INV+ relay then you can use 2♦ by opener or 2♠ by opener as "A normal person would have passed this hand" then responder can either signoff or continue if his hand is good enough facing a very light opening. I used this with one pd with a good degree of success, it was quite confortable.

 

What The_hog said about 8-12 range being optimal is true, this is based in a simple statistical study and you can find information about this fact in the Polish book that Romansky wrote or in the Magic Diamond book. If you don't trust books just run a simulation and you will see if for yourself.

8-12 openings can be combined with either a baby-strong 13+ 1 club opening or can be also used in a EHAA context where 1NT is 9-12 and 2 level openings 8-12 with the 1 level openings showing 13+ any similarities with Fantunes are not just a coincidence.

 

Hope this helps better than my "play better" initial tip :-)

[MarceldB]

Optimum opening range is 8-12, as these rae the most common hand types. This meshes well into a strong pass system, or a system such as Moscito.

This seems believable, but can you prove this? It is clear that these hands are most common, but why does that make it the optimal opening range?

Prove it? Well Hannie, from my experience of playing Weak opening systems, yes. I mean any sort of proof to a large extent is anecdotal or based on one's own experiences. What i can say is that it pays to get into the auction early; 8-10 openings allo0w you to get in very quickly, and also give you a measure of security in that at least you have some sort of hand. I can produce blanket comments like "bridge is a bidder's game", but of course that is just a throw away line. From my experience it is definitely true however. It is really hard to bid over 1D - 8-12 4+S, (P), 2S 4-10, at least 3+S.

 

Whether it is worth paying the price of a strong C or a strong pass is something you have to decide.

 

The Poles did a lot of work on this area about 20 years ago or so and developed a whole host of wos based on this point range. Have a look if you can find it, at the original regres book. There is also a pamphlet by Lukasz Slawinski on weak opening sstems that goes into this in detail. Marcel Broeder, who at times posts here also has good thoughts on this.

I will try to give in the context of a historical point of view an answer why they came to the position that the 8-12 is the best range, supposing that most of you will not have that old literature.

 

 

1958 : spiral bound (privat)publication by Frederick J. Ebeling

Reproduced in 1984 (Ron Klinger/George Havas)

 

Openings (and even as overcalls!):

Pass= 13-17

1x = 8-12 , best suit

1NT= 0-7 OR 18-21

2x = 22+, best suit

 

Re: the 8-12 pointrange. I quote the original 1958 publication:

 

"with this count it is evident that the hands are probably more or less evenly divided, However, experience indicates that the use of this bid to which the partner is not obliged to respond, results in:

1) a part score

2) a good sacrifice

3) at worst, a small negative score rather than a passed hand.

 

Under any circumstances, the partner is given immediate and accurate knowledge as to the strength and character of the hand."

 

From point of completeness I mention the answers over an 1x= 8-12 bid:

a) with 0-10 count Pass

b: with 11-15 count, your best suit should be bid.

opener passes with an 8-10 count.

c) with 16+ jump into your best suit

opener indicates if he has a min. or max.

 

For the sake of good order as Mr.Klinger mentioned in his editor's note:

" .... you may wish to develop the bidding in more detail than is revealed in this manuscript, but this is no way diminishes the importance of this contribution to bridge theory...."

 

(-trusting to have not violated coyrights- MarceldB)

 

=========

 

In 1963 similar ideas crossed the mind of Lukasz Slawinski - not knowing at all Ebeling's private publication (see his article " the moons of mars") -, during 1963-65 elaborated the theory; met Ruminski; resulting in a first publication in 1967. Further theoretical development resulting end '60 beg. '70 in a couple of workable WOS.

 

I will sum up some lines of him.

 

Are there contradictions and paradoxes hidden in the foundations of systems regarding

- 12-18 as the basic opening zone

- passing with weaker hands (if no preempt)

- the way of signalling the distribution ?

 

•The paradox of the 12-18 opening zone

- with 12 points as a minimum it is believed that such a strenght gives enough chance to make the contract

- and you are secured normally from disastrous defeat.

 

Why then overcalling with less and the opponents have already exchanged information? Whilst to open is less dangerous because the opponent is unconscious of their reciprocal strength

 

•The paradox of an opening Pass

- large range of strenght and distribution diversity

- high frequency (every second deal and low agressiveness of bidding)

 

•The paradox of signalling the distribiution based on long suits

-it tells a lot about the opening suit, saying almost nothing about the side suits

-the simplicity of such an opening does not create any difficulties for the opponents.

 

Bridge is a two pairs game and preventing the opponents from finding their proper contract is almost as important as finding one's own.

 

------

Above contradictions lead to the following conclusion:

 

The present bidding axioms should be radically revised. Left unchanged, they will prevent any real progress and lead to overcomplicated systems

------

Introduction of new axioms:

 

- the Leadership principle

- the bidding should be led by the stronger hand

- one should open as frequently as possible to obstruct the opponent's bidding

and to forestall them in the exchange of information

- the most frequent hands should be treated with utmost care by the system

 

and finally coming all together to the point:

Why should the majority of opening bids be reserved for the 8-12 hands?

Well, because

-8-12 more frequent than the 12-16 ones

-This postulates creates the best ground to realize above principles:

- leadership

- maximal activity

- maximal frequency

 

To say it simply : more or less a combination/collaboration of "most common" (45% of the hands) ànd your goal (read principles, axioms,purpose)

 

=============

 

So far some historical background.

In my opinion not be "dusted" but still valid. See also Paul Marston's remarks in the Moscito2005 document that preferably in "a free world" he would like to return to his "old" 8-12 HCP for the limited openings.

 

The main problem is the fact that playing an 8-12 range, the Pass=13+ works finally the best (in spite of the disadvantages) in case that you are looking for consistence and symmetry and other postulates.

And just that Pass/Fert bid is prohibited in most events. Besides the fact that all your efforts will be in a total unbalance with the times you really can play it.

 

Mr. Slawinski wrote me:

"I think it is not possible to make a good (and easy!) WOS under present

WBF's restrictions ! especially a la Regres, Delta or Lambda.

I cannot construct a good 8+ system against present restrictions !

I tried..."

 

I must agree the same unfortunately taking into account the other axioms.

 

=============

 

Hoping to have given you herewith a little history

 

Best regards,

 

Marcel den Broeder

[MarceldB]

Optimum opening range is 8-12, as these rae the most common hand types. This meshes well into a strong pass system, or a system such as Moscito.

I am wondering... I've heard that the problem with this range is it is too easylly well defined when opponents dedclare in the end, helping them too much.

 

This can happen but most of the times you will gain more than you will loose.

 

N/All

-----------xxx

-----------x

-----------Axxxx

-----------Kxxx

 

Qxx-----------------AKJxx

KJxx----------------QT9

QJx------------------xx

Jxx------------------AQx

 

-----------xx

-----------Axxxx

-----------Kxx

-----------xxx

 

 

normally: 4S in East uncontested

Do you start Ace of hearts?

 

N----E-----S-----W

1C--1S----P-----

and reaching again 4S

 

1C=8-12 ( Ace + any King is an 8 pointer, too strong namely)

and any singleton/void.

 

To conclude a most likely s/v hearts in north is not a hugh problem for south. Even if 3NT in East you will not start Hearts but a minor.

 

All depends on the meanings of that 8-12 bid. If well defined it can help you more than the opponent regarding the lead and or continuation.

 

And sometimes the declarer thanks you very much. Or thanking not to be landed in a poor contract by themselves because of your weak opening :o

 

As long as the balance goes the right direction, I'm happy with it.

[pigpenz]

in general the weaker you are the more problems that are created for partner with good hands. I sort of compare it to people who open weak two bids on any honor and five other cards, it seems partner is at more of a disadvantage than the opps.

[pbleighton]

"in general the weaker you are the more problems that are created for partner with good hands. I sort of compare it to people who open weak two bids on any honor and five other cards, it seems partner is at more of a disadvantage than the opps."

 

Ah, but how about any five cards?

 

Peter

[glen]

What The_hog said about 8-12 range being optimal is true, this is based in a simple statistical study and you can find information about this fact in the Polish book that Romansky wrote or in the Magic Diamond book. If you don't trust books just run a simulation and you will see if for yourself.

I can certainly run a simulation to see for myself that 8-12 is the most frequent, but how would you have me run a simulation to prove that the range is optimal? Keep in mind I don't believe that 8-12 is the optimal opening range, so please help me out with the simulation.

[luke warm]

i'd guess it depends on what you mean by 'optimal'... taking marcel's list, is optimal that which opens the bidding more often? that which prevents the opps from reaching their best contract, more often? or do you define 'optimal' as that which has the largest range (ie, 11-21/22)?

 

it all depends, but one thing is sure - even if 8-12 is the most optimal system (regardless of the subjective nature of the definition), it will never be tested in wbf and acbl land

[the hog]

What The_hog said about 8-12 range being optimal is true, this is based in a simple statistical study and you can find information about this fact in the Polish book that Romansky wrote or in the Magic Diamond book. If you don't trust books just run a simulation and you will see if for yourself.

I can certainly run a simulation to see for myself that 8-12 is the most frequent, but how would you have me run a simulation to prove that the range is optimal? Keep in mind I don't believe that 8-12 is the optimal opening range, so please help me out with the simulation.

Well thats easy. Bridge is a 4 handed, not a 2 handed game. The more you can get in first and stake a claim, the more you will make life difficult for the opponents.

[glen]

So skip the simulations, are you are saying, and since bridge is four handed, you think 8-12 must be optimal, instead of, say 9-13, 7-11, 10-14 etc.?

[hrothgar]

I can certainly run a simulation to see for myself that 8-12 is the most frequent, but how would you have me run a simulation to prove that the range is optimal? Keep in mind I don't believe that 8-12 is the optimal opening range, so please help me out with the simulation.

I've never seen anything approaching a "sub-game perfect" equalbirium solution for bridge. Equally significant I doubt that there will ever be one.

 

1. The problem is enormously complex, especially given the interactions between bidding and play

 

2. Most of the people who were doing the most interesting work with respect to bidding system design were forced to abandon their efforts when the WBF started instituting draconian systems regulations

 

With this said and done, there is clear evidence that players are progressively migrating towards weak openings. Sometimes this occurs in evolutionary jumps like the Polish/Aussie/Kiwi attempts at using forcing pass. More often this occurs gradually as players keep lighting up opening requirements playing standard methods.

 

I will throw in the following little annecdote. I've seen LOTS of players give up the WOS because their local zones passed regulations crippling their ability to play the system in order to "protect" players using standard methods. I've never seen a decent pair abandon their weak opening system becuase it wasn't effective.

[glen]

I fully agree with light initial action when major or majors are involved. With only a minor or minors its more a two-edged sword. When a flat hand is involved, its better when not vulnerable than when vulnerable.

 

As to the ideal ranges for the openings nobody can prove any specific range is optimal. Also in deciding on ranges, there are decisions as to what two-level bids will show and what one level bids will mean, and collateral impacts of these decisions on the overall opening framework. Just stamping 8-12 across a range of openings bids doesn't make it optimal, and neither does stamping 8-12 across a set of posts.

[the hog]

So skip the simulations, are you are saying, and since bridge is four handed, you think 8-12 must be optimal, instead of, say 9-13, 7-11, 10-14 etc.?

No Glen, what I am arguing is that because this is the most common range it is also the optimal range. You get in and out of the auction very quickly.

 

Some anecdotal evidence:

(1D) P (2S) ?

 

xx

AKJxx

Axx

KJx

 

1D = 8-12 with 4+S, 2S = 5-12 with 4+S

The opponents hold between 13 and 24 HCP with 8+S. How safe is it for you to enter this auction?

[glen]

Reasonably safe actually. Opener cannot double for blood, and actually needs the double to show a desire to compete further. Responder cannot double for blood unless upper range. A fit has been established so this hand will often find a fit as well. How did the simulations do on this particular hand?

[han]

Ron,

 

Your arguments make some sense, but it is far from a proof. I readily agree with you that 8-12 hands are the most frequent, and if you play a system that allows you to open with that range in a reasonable way then you will generally do well on these hands.

 

However, you'll have to make sacrifices with the stronger hands. The expected number of IMPs that is at stake for these hands is larger than the number of IMPs per 8-12 hand. You are much more likely to have slam chances when you have a shapely 16-count then when you have a shapely 10-count.

 

If you have to open all hands with 13+ points with an ambiguous call that shows nothing about your distribution then this is a clear disadvantage, especially when red against white.

 

A top Polish player recently advised me to play 4 different systems, depending on seat and vulnerability. Makes sense to me. When white against red, play extremely aggressive openings (8-12?) and a strong pass or 1C opening. At this vulnerability the risk of being preempted out of game or slam is much less. When vulnerable against not, play fairly sound openings.

[glen]

A top Polish player recently advised me to play 4 different systems, depending on seat and vulnerability. Makes sense to me. When white against red, play extremely aggressive openings (8-12?) and a strong pass or 1C opening. At this vulnerability the risk of being preempted out of game or slam is much less. When vulnerable against not, play fairly sound openings.

My studies show that white vs red you should open everything. For example, if playing standard, this is better if white vs red:

 

Pass: what a 1D opener shows

1D: 0-11, i.e. what a passes shows.

 

Even better of course is to combine this with light openings of various types, including an 8-10 or so notrump.

[the hog]

Well we used to play

1C/D = 8-12 H/S respectively

1H 0-8

1S = 8-12 both ms

1N = 9-12,

[helene_t]

However, you'll have to make sacrifices with the stronger hands. The expected number of IMPs that is at stake for these hands is larger than the number of IMPs per 8-12 hand.

This makes sense. But my feeling is that is is above all relevant when you play IMPs.

 

Another issue is if the balance between strength-related information and shape-related information is optimal. Todd/Foobar play 1♣ as 4+ hearts, 8-13. It's not obvious to me that this is better than, say, 5+ hearts, 7-17. Of course, the designers of the WO systems have put a lot of thought into this, so who am I to suggest they are wrong. It would take more elaborate arguments than "8-12 is the most frequent range" to convince me, though. After all, 0-37 is the most frequent range.

 

Also, if the opps play standard, 8-12 is less frequent in 2nd seat than in 1st seat.

 

With all this said, I find it plausible that WO systems are better than standard systems. First, I like playing light openings myself and I find it easier to bid against opps playing sound openings. Second, it is easy to explain why they are not allowed, assuming that they are technically superior. It is possible that the reason is that opps need specific defense against them but I doubt it. It is not difficult to construct diabolic methods that are allowed under BSC restrictions (Apstro-preempts, 3-card major openigs etc), and if diabolicness alone was a significant advantage many pairs would play such methods. Yet few do.

[EricK]

So skip the simulations, are you are saying, and since bridge is four handed, you think 8-12 must be optimal, instead of, say 9-13, 7-11, 10-14 etc.?

No Glen, what I am arguing is that because this is the most common range it is also the optimal range. You get in and out of the auction very quickly.

 

Some anecdotal evidence:

(1D) P (2S) ?

 

xx

AKJxx

Axx

KJx

 

1D = 8-12 with 4+S, 2S = 5-12 with 4+S

The opponents hold between 13 and 24 HCP with 8+S. How safe is it for you to enter this auction?

But why 8-12 and not 7-12 or 8-13 or 7-13 etc etc. These are more common than 8-12!

 

Eric

[MarceldB]

But why 8-12 and not 7-12 or 8-13 or 7-13 etc etc. These are more common than 8-12!

Don't look to the total percentage of a pointrange only. F.e. the difference between 7-11 and 8-12 is 0,0012%... but a world of difference.

 

Recalculate in each pointrange the percentages per Pointcount. Next step is to divide the points left equally and see then how this works in a total-pointrange.

 

I will give you the results:

 

6-10 pointrange with 6,11 % below average

7-11 pointrange with 3,16 % below average

8-12 pointrange with 0,16 % below average

9-13 pointrange with 2,83 % above average

10-14 pointrange with 5,86 % above average

 

6-11 pointrange with 4,47 % below average

7-12 pointrange with 1,67 % below average

8-13 pointrange with 1,20 % above average

9-14 pointrange with 4,08 % above average

10-15 pointrange with 6,95 % above average

 

Now you can choose according your style.

Kamikaze? More safe? Afraid ;-)

 

Above figures definite the 8-12 pointrange as the most average one.

Completely fitting to the axiom of a 20/20 diviation.

 

And the rest why to open I have already mentioned in my previous posting.

 

Marcel

[glen]

Still baffled. Say one is playing a strong ♣ system. One could choose between:

 

a ) 1♣ 13+, 1♥/♠ 8-12, 2♥/♠ whatever; or

b ) 1♣ 16+, 1♥/♠ 10-15, 2♥/♠ 4-9 with 5 or longer.

 

Now b has these advantages:

- Bidding is escalated on 4-9 hands;

- The stronger 1♣ (compared to A) allows the partnership to handle interference better;

- The 1♥/♠ 10-15 opener contains maximums that can double for blood once responder shows some values.

 

So why is 8-12 considered optimal by some, when one can open 4 to anything in other frameworks?

[glen]

...Some anecdotal evidence:

(1D) P (2S) ?

 

xx

AKJxx

Axx

KJx

 

1D = 8-12 with 4+S, 2S = 5-12 with 4+S

btw what system wants to risk playing a 4-4+ major fit on the two level with 24 HCP?

[the hog]

This is standard in weak opening systems. The chances of you having 24 are remote, and furthermore nothing is to stop opener making a gt with a suitable hand. You gain far more in the long term by opponents coming in on hands such as the previous one I posted and going for a number.

 

I have played, and played against these systems and believe me, it is not so easy as you seem to think it is. Why do you think people like Wolff and Damaniani campaigned so hard against them?

[glen]

...it is not so easy as you seem to think it is...

where did I say it was "so easy"?

 

Note that with ETM Tops, I played 8-16 1♦/♥/♠ openers and 10-12 1NT in IMP play for a number of years. With that system 1M-2M is to play.

[awm]

Some of this depends on exactly how bad your openings are. My belief is that opening bad balanced hands is, for the most part, losing bridge. You are too likely to be doubled at a low level with no playable contract, or to locate many high cards for opponents when they end up playing the hand (in an auction where, for most, your side is not bidding). With this in mind, my suggestion would be to open aggressively with shapely hands and fairly conservatively with balanced ones. So opening hands will usually have seven or fewer losers (even KJxxx KJxxx xx x has seven losers).

 

I'd recommend:

 

(1) If you're not playing a strong club or diamond, use something like Gazilli to distinguish good major suit openings from bad on the second turn.

 

(2) Don't play 2/1s game forcing, it would require too many points to force game opposite a shapely 8-count if you have no fit. Instead, adopt a standard-like style where 2/1s are forcing but not always to game. Nonetheless, 2/1 continues to show 12+ (like in 2/1) and 1NT can be up to 11.

 

(3) There are effectively two invitational ranges. One is the "old-style" invitation with something like 10-11 points. With these hands, start with 1NT. If partner bids 2C (gazilli variant) to show 15+ you go to game. If not, you can get out at the two level. The other is the hand that would force game opposite a sound opening style. These start with 2/1 calls and then make some kind of invitational noise (since 2/1s not game forcing).

 

(4) It's very helpful to have further asking bids below game opposite limit raises. Having at least one bid available as a "counter-try" can help since the limit raise range is a bit wider opposite the potentially light opening.

[the hog]

...it is not so easy as you seem to think it is...

where did I say it was "so easy"?

 

Note that with ETM Tops, I played 8-16 1♦/♥/♠ openers and 10-12 1NT in IMP play for a number of years. With that system 1M-2M is to play.

8-16 seems like far too wide a range, Glen. That is one reason why I like 8-12. Incidentally I think any wos like this is unplayable unless you have invit relays and maybe an invit and a gf relay.

 

Marston-Burgess had a great deal of success with this until Damiani got on his high horse and got onto their case.

 

I assume you are Glen Ashton btw?