Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:27
AM
Hand Evaluation –
Openers ( Light Opening Bids )
PITBULLS:
I loathe the
practice of opening “non opening”
bids. I like light opening bids
though. What is the difference ? A non
opening bid lacks potential for
producing tricks by not holding
enough HCP’s in quick trick combinations or lacks compensating distribution
to open. These horrible opening bids based on HCP’s only
usually just submarines partner
as they lack quick tricks ( transferable values) required for both offense & defense . These openers
( ? ) are not being aggressive
, they are just shooting dice to be destructive . Do not forget that the main objective of Bridge is to win
tricks both on offense & defense. Opening bids
should have this objective in mind. Modernists who worship
HCP’s lose sight of that very basic Bridge
objective. They think that opening bids exist solely as merely another way of competing. Nonsense ! Opening bids are meant to be much more than
that. Saying that opening bids do not have the
obligation to show defense is ignoring how Bridge is scored ( penalties ) & how Bridge has been
played by experts & theoreticians since its inception. ZAR points bring controls & distribution into an
equation to define opening bids. An opening
bid must be based on a standard or anarchy
exists in Bridge & reduces responders task to a mere
guessing game. Solo artists love having no
discipline for opening bids as they think the defensive requirement
is a needless restriction to their destructive
style. The standard for opening bids that has
existed for over 70 years is openers signal defense
& offense measured in quick tricks. Points
, schmoints as Bergen is fond of saying. Getting the 1st shot in at
the Bridge table has a decided tactical
advantage though I open light with at least 2 defensive tricks with the appropriate distribution. What is the
appropriate distribution ? 5-5’s , 6-5’s or 6-4’s are great playing hands. With
two defensive tricks , I do not
hesitate to open with these distributions. I do not even count my HCP’s when I have
controls.
Quick tricks define both the
defensive & offensive “potential”
for a light opening bid. Look at this hand ♠Axxxx ♥Qx ♦Kx ♣Qxxx so is this a light opener ? No , because the hand lacks trick taking
potential. Keep the same hand & move the
HCP’s around to “quick trick combinations” . ♠AQxxx
♥xx ♦xx ♣KQxx so this is now a very good opening bid announcing both defensive
& offensive trick taking potential ( same 11 HCP ) . Tom & I had an
argument with a beginner who contended this was an opening bid ♠Qxxxxxx ♥x ♦Kxx ♣Ax
. We said no because the hand lacks defensive potential with only the 9
HCP’s. Change the cards to “quick tricks” & the 9 HCP
magically becomes an opener ♠KQxxxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣Ax . Both Tom & I would open that particular 9 HCP hand as it has
both offensive & defensive trick taking potential. You can re-arrange modern openers into real openers by
the simple method of re-arranging your HCP’s into quick trick
combinations. Do that simple favour for partner
by passing modern openers ( circa
1990’s ). The losing trick count to evaluate
opening bids is also a good method but usually involves assessing quick tricks also
. By re-arranging HCPS to quick trick combinations you up your trick taking capacity !. Do not lose sight that opening bids
promises trick taking & defensive potential as a standard.
The required distribution is not enough for an opener. ♠AJ10xx ♥A109xx ♦Jx ♣x is an
opener bid , but ♠QJxxx ♥QJxxx ♦KQ ♣x is not
even with more HCP’s . The difference is the quality of the HCP’s ( controls or
quick tricks ) . Modernists who just count their beans to open are incomprehensible to me.
My partner goes a step
further ( I need 10 HCP’s though ) so would even open ♠xx ♥AKxxxx ♦J109xx ♣void with 1♥ ! Nothing wrong with this
flamboyant style but your system of forcing NT’s must provide an escape hatch
for these openers. The tool of choice , a
relay if responder tries to invite to game with a 2NT bid. The scheme below to escape via a relay
has been worked out by Tom Gandolfo
& myself over the years has proved
effective. It is outlined below.
Take the above
hand as an example. Partner opens 1♥ , I respond 1NT. Partner bids 2♦ so I invite with 2NT. OK , Partner wants no more of this probable misfit auction so would like to
escape . He bids 3♣ as a relay , I take the relay to 3♦ or give preference to 3♥. Partner can pass 3♦ or if he feels like treating the hand as a 6-4 bid 3♥. This will always end the auction. Add the spade Ace to his hand
allows him to just bid naturally
which is a game force somewhere.
Here is our
system of relays after a light major suit opener
& a forcing 1NT response. This scheme allows us to escape
to a partial . Light openers with quick tricks are nevertheless light openers
so need systemic escape routes. Accept the fact that light aggressive openers
exist but non openers are bid quite well
as a passed hand. If you do not play the following , have something else
in place that allows partner to escape to partials with shapely
opening bids.
Natural = GF ( except ♣’s after 1♥ opener) , relay = only escape
With a weak 5-5 in spades and clubs , we open 1♣ which takes
these hands out of the mix .
1♠ 1NT
2♣ 2NT
3♣ 5-5 GF
3♠ 6-4 GF
3♦ relay to 3♥
3♠ - weak 6-4
3♥ 5-3-1-4 strong
1♠ 1NT
2♦ 2NT
3♦
GF 5-5 reds
3♣ relay to 3♦ or preference ( escape )
Pass – weak 5-5
3♠ - weak 6-4
3♠ 6-4 GF
3♥
5-3-4-1 GF
1♠
1NT
2♥ 2NT
3♥
GF 5-5
3♣ Relay to 3♦
3♥ 5-5 weak
3♠
6-4 weak
3♠ 6-4 GF
3♦
5-4-3-1 GF
1♥ 1NT
2♣ 2NT
3♣ 5-5 weak ( only exception to the natural as GF rule )
3♥ 6-4 GF
3♦ relay to 3♥
Pass = weak 6-4
3NT = GF 5-5
3♠ 3-5-1-4 GF
1♥ 1NT
2♦ 2NT
3♦
GF 5-5 reds
3♣ relay to 3♦ or preference ( escape )
Pass 5-5 reds
3♥ weak 6-4
3♥
6-4 GF
3♠ 3-5-4-1 GF