[FrancesHinden]

Our card says "we open most 11-counts" but I'd still pass this one unless I was love all at matchpoints, and then I'd only open it for a laugh.

Quote

In general: 2/1 with strong NT is not a system that works well with light openers.

This is said over and over again, but it doesn't make it true.
We play strong NT, 2/1 and fairly light openers (i.e. this hand is pretty close to an opener and might well be opened if feeling frisky).
As long as partner knows your opening style (and you have some system to show the strong hands) there's no problem.

[Antrax]

Free, on 2013-February-14, 13:55, said:

Btw, any particular reason why you didn't play 4♠ in the Moysian?

Partner thought his spades were too weak, and we have no way of showing him how good my spades were. The auction was something like 1♥-2♣; 2♥-2♠; 3♣-3♦; 3♠-4♥. We used to be able to get out in 4♣ here but decided to drop this a while back.

[FM75]

Playing 2/1, opening this is like playing with fire. Sometimes fun, sometimes burned. You will often
get game forced after your 1♥ opening, with insufficient combined assets. If you use the
rule of 20, you are still a point light, so partner will always have an overestimate of your playing
strength (and defensive strength).

In a precision system I play, all one level openings are 11-15, except 1N (10-12 nv, 13-15vul)
and 1♣ 16+ any distribution.
In that system, NT is not used with 5 card major suit holdings, though one might stretch
with a higher end holding and xxxxx in a major.


1♥ would be fine with my partner, if you turned the ♦J into a black J. Partner
knows I have 11-15, and can pass with junk.

Make the hand 3=4=3=3 (move ♥6 to ♦s and this would be a 1♦
opener, which tends to be a troublesome opening, because it very vague.

Unless the hand is passed out, you will get a second chance to make a bid - with more
information about the deal than you have in first seat deciding whether to open.

[PhilKing]

FM75, on 2013-February-14, 15:07, said:

[size=2]Playing 2/1, opening this is like playing with fire.

How does saying it again make it true?

2/1 makes it easier to stop low in some cases (available on request). When do you allegedly get higher?

[broze]

Nope. I would never open that hand either. Having said that I just looked back at a hand I failed to open today and surprised myself!

---

Looking at that hand in the light of day with those great intermediates and 4 controls I'm surprised I passed, although it is a pretty crummy 4-3-3-3 12 count.

[CSGibson]

Its a flat quacky 11 count with only one control. I do not see a reason to open this - if we belong in game, partner is opening, and I don't need a heart lead (often a tie-breaker in close decisions for me is whether opening will help us in defense if we do not get the contract. I would be more inclined to open Jxx AKQxx xxx xx).

[aguahombre]

No, we wouldn't open it. But, we still will be too high in NT I fear; so it doesn't seem to matter much.

Wait, that isn't true. Partner will have to play it, instead of me.

[mikeh]

PhilKing, on 2013-February-14, 15:33, said:

How does saying it again make it true?

2/1 makes it easier to stop low in some cases (available on request). When do you allegedly get higher?

I don't think that there is any rational argument against the proposition that if one responds 2/1 gf on all 12 or 13 counts, as many 2/1 players do, then opening horrible 11 counts will often result in the partnership getting overboard.

Such players are not infrequently moderate declarers at best, so even tho defence is more difficult than declarer play and in real life many 'poor' games are made, this combination of bidding styles IS dangerous.

One answer, of course, is that good players using a light initial opening style will refrain from forcing to game on misfitting 12 counts. Given that an indifferent 11 opposite an indifferent 13 will usually make 3N a reasonable contract (tho often borderline) a modicum of restraint by responder will quench any fire that might otherwise break out.

The problem is that many players don't realize that when one adjusts one's opening range, partner has to allow for that in his response structure.

I also note that the wider the range shown by an opening bid, the more difficult it is to have good quantitative sequences thereafter. This problem, which certainly exists if one opens 'light' and does not lower the requirements for 2♣, is undeniable. Of course, there are many other factors to consider, including the fact that in general being the first into the auction makes life more difficult for the opps. This factor, and others, may well offset the range issue.

However, it is naive to assert or assume that there are no theoretical and real life adverse consequences from widening the range for the opening, which include widening the range of responder's forcing or semi-forcing 1N response.

[PhilKing]

mikeh, on 2013-February-14, 18:43, said:

I don't think that there is any rational argument against the proposition that if one responds 2/1 gf on all 12 or 13 counts, as many 2/1 players do, then opening horrible 11 counts will often result in the partnership getting overboard.

However, it is naive to assert or assume that there are no theoretical and real life adverse consequences from widening the range for the opening, which include widening the range of responder's forcing or semi-forcing 1N response.

Sorry to chop out the middle bits, but these paragraphs encapsulate the crux of the erosion issue. The others involve judgments that are independent to the ignored question.

One can get overboard whether one plays 2/1 or not. Partnerships who do not play 2/1 face the same decision over whether to drive game with a 12 count after, say, 1♠-2♣-2♦ or 1♠-2♦-2NT. One could argue that they face worse problems if opener can rebid 2NT on, of all things, a balanced minimum hand.

My reworded question, naive or not, was when does a non GF 2/1 fair better in this regard?

Now, I may be coloured by my own agreements, which allow opener to pass 1NT with a 11 up to a poor 13 if balanced (and 8-11 medium twos solve another issue) so we only 2/1 with a good 12. But my contention is that 2/1 GF makes it no harder to stop.

[lalldonn]

In other words, it's whether you force to game the causes the problem, not how or when you force to game.

[Cyberyeti]

PhilKing, on 2013-February-14, 18:54, said:

Sorry to chop out the middle bits, but these paragraphs encapsulate the crux of the erosion issue. The others involve judgments that are independent to the ignored question.

One can get overboard whether one plays 2/1 or not. Partnerships who do not play 2/1 face the same decision over whether to drive game with a 12 count after, say, 1♠-2♣-2♦ or 1♠-2♦-2NT. One could argue that they face worse problems if opener can rebid 2NT on, of all things, a balanced minimum hand.

My reworded question, naive or not, was when does a non GF 2/1 fair better in this regard?

Now, I may be coloured by my own agreements, which allow opener to pass 1NT with a 11 up to a poor 13 if balanced (and 8-11 medium twos solve another issue) so we only 2/1 with a good 12. But my contention is that 2/1 GF makes it no harder to stop.

Non 2/1 fares better with a weak no trump on these hands that opens 5M332s 1N but with a strong no trump it is awkward.

[rhm]

billw55, on 2013-February-14, 07:48, said:

Pass for me, but I consider it close and wouldn't mind much if partner opened it. After all, if it had just one more jack, who would hesitate to open it?

I would and I do not consider myself having strong opening bid requirements.
But the goal is going plus not minus.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

lalldonn, on 2013-February-14, 19:10, said:

In other words, it's whether you force to game the causes the problem, not how or when you force to game.

Agreed, but if the one, who forces to game needs a better hand than the opening bidder you reduce the frequency for such opportunities.
The 1NT response over 1M will have to cover a lot more hands of various strengths.
It also requires a completely different mind set to stop below game when holding a good opening in response.
World class player may be up to that.
My experience is different.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2013-February-14, 18:54, said:

Sorry to chop out the middle bits, but these paragraphs encapsulate the crux of the erosion issue. The others involve judgments that are independent to the ignored question.

One can get overboard whether one plays 2/1 or not. Partnerships who do not play 2/1 face the same decision over whether to drive game with a 12 count after, say, 1♠-2♣-2♦ or 1♠-2♦-2NT. One could argue that they face worse problems if opener can rebid 2NT on, of all things, a balanced minimum hand.

My reworded question, naive or not, was when does a non GF 2/1 fair better in this regard?

Now, I may be coloured by my own agreements, which allow opener to pass 1NT with a 11 up to a poor 13 if balanced (and 8-11 medium twos solve another issue) so we only 2/1 with a good 12. But my contention is that 2/1 GF makes it no harder to stop.

The point is probably that 2/1 has to make an immediate decision, whether to force to game or not.
Not playing 2/1 as game forcing you eventually have to make a decision, probably on the second round.
But I agree, it does help rarely.
Sometimes you might find a close game that way, when you uncover a side suit fit and even less frequent, you might give opener leeway when you don't.

Another argument I never understood, is why strong club players should be able to open lighter with a 5 card major.
True they have a lower upper limit, but 2/1 is just as popular with Precision as with anybody else.
It is the lower limit, which matters.
Where do they gain?
(The only way I can see this working, is if you open 1♦ (or 1NT) with a 5 card major, when holding a mini notrump, which the above hand is).

Rainer Herrmann

[rmnka447]

broze, on 2013-February-14, 17:47, said:

Nope. I would never open that hand either. Having said that I just looked back at a hand I failed to open today and surprised myself!

---

Looking at that hand in the light of day with those great intermediates and 4 controls I'm surprised I passed, although it is a pretty crummy 4-3-3-3 12 count.

That hand is a solid minimum range opening hand.

12 HCP, 2 QTs/4 controls so the values and high cards are right. The Js are coupled with higher honors. The hand is rich in intermediates which are working with the other honors. There are good honors and intermediates in the 4 card suit. These are all positives. Despite the 4-3-3-3 distribution, I would expect most good players to consider this a "very good 12".

Compare with, say, ♠ A43 ♥ K53 ♦ K32 ♣ Q652. Again, same 12 HCP, 2 QTs/4 controls, but none of the positives of your original hand. All the honors are isolated, especially the "dangling" Q. There are no intermediates supporting or helping the honors. The 4 card suit is about as bad as you can get other than xxxx. So, there are absolutely no positives. I would expect most good players to consider this a "bad 12" and wouldn't be surprised if some didn't open it.

As for missing opening your original hand, we all have "a cow flew by" moments now and then.

[Codo]

rhm, on 2013-February-15, 04:37, said:

Another argument I never understood, is why strong club players should be able to open lighter with a 5 card major.
True they have a lower upper limit, but 2/1 is just as popular with Precision as with anybody else.
It is the lower limit, which matters.
Where do they gain?
Rainer Herrmann

AS you seem to be serious, a serious answer:

if you open light, opps have no chance to open. So besides the construcitve effect, each opening has a destructive effect too. So it has benefits to open weak hands and to get your suit in at once.
But if you play standard bidding systems however, a 1♦♥♠ opening already shows from 12 to 22 HCPS. You may overload the response structure if you have to take care for bad 11 counts too.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on 2013-February-14, 11:55, said:

I doubt that there are any players who, when evaluating a hand using some mix of these or other factors, would reduce the analysis to any formula or come up with a 'number'.

I'd bet Gib and Jack do something like that, probably not the players you were referring to

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-February-14, 13:55, said:

We play strong NT, 2/1 and fairly light openers (i.e. this hand is pretty close to an opener and might well be opened if feeling frisky).
As long as partner knows your opening style (and you have some system to show the strong hands) there's no problem.

But isn't it a bit awkward to have (virtually) all non-GF hands in the 1NT response if you need 14 points to force to game opposite an opening hand?
Partner opens 1♠ and I hold a 5-card heart suit with 10 or 12 or whatever number of HCPs. If my system allows me to bid 2♥ I am happy. If not, I will have to bid 1NT followed by 2NT and we might not find a 5-3 hearts fit.

I suppose you play some convetional follow ups over the 1NT response but won't it allways be so that the omnibus 1NT response is the weakness of the 2/1 system? And that the more hands you put into it, the bigger weakness it is?

[lowerline]

Being a non-expert player, I use the (new/adjusted) LTC to help me decide whether to open.

The new-LTC works like this:

• missing ace in a 1+ suit = 3 half-losers
• missing king in a 2+ suit = 2 half-losers
• missing queen in a 3+ suit = 1 half-loser

# of losers = # of half-losers divided by 2

Open any 11+hcp hand with 7.5 losers or less
Open any 10hcp hand with 6.5 losers or less
I will only consider passing a 12hcp hand with 8.5 losers or more

Steven

[rmnka447]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-14, 07:35, said:

I want to see those american experts passing with KJ KJ KJ QJ

There wouldn't be many as they'd make a judgement 15 HCP and 1 1/2 QTs is enough to open. But I'm not sure many would decide to open KJ KJ Q J.

Setting a standard for QTs or controls for opening bids really addresses the issue of how many high cards are held in your point count. High cards are important in being able to prevent the opponents from cashing enough tricks to defeat your contract or preventing the opponents setting up the tricks to defeat your contract. Since most hands are a race between declarer and the defenders to set up enough tricks to make or defeat a contract, it's important that enough high cards are held between declarer's and dummy's hands to tilt that race in their favor. So using these measures as part of the judgement process involved in deciding to open is appropriate.