BBO Discussion Forums: Opening on junk - BBO Discussion Forums

RedSpawn, on 2017-March-29, 11:11, said:

That makes sense. In the future I will underbid by 3 tricks.

Thomas Andrews' brilliant articles on Hand Evaluation (Binky points) based on double-dummy simulation
For no-trump contracts A = 4, K = 2.8, Q = 1.8, J = 1, T = 0.4
Kings and queens are overvalued but notice the importance of knaves and tens and be aware of Thomas's caveats.

My father, Charles Guthrie, devised Winners as an alternative crude but simple evaluation method (now modified by Thomas Andrews' ideas),
A = 1.5, K = 1, Q = 0.5, J = 0.2 T = 0.1. (We used to ignore knaves and tens).
Doubleton = 0.5, Singleton = 1.5, void = 2.5 (revised from 1, 2, 3, respectively).
Trump control = 1.
Results are similar to the LTC (although arrived at by addition rather than subtraction).

Alroy, on 2017-March-25, 16:40, said:

Don't Meckwell play Precision? Of course, this is a sound opening for Precision players who wouldn't dream of passing an 11-count protected by their system's low upper limit. I was asking in the context of using standard methods (and strong notrump.) Of course, I should have made this clear.

Kaitlyn S, on 2017-March-29, 22:40, said:

Now we are back to tautologies and truisms:

If you play unmodified SAYC or any system that, by definition, cannot normally cope with light openers then, by and large, you should restrict such openings to contexts, in which the system makes specific provision. e.g. 3rd in hand with 2-way Drury. Also partner should be aware of such possibilities.

Alternatively, if you agree to open light, then you can try to cope by modifying your traditional methods e.g.

• Change your opening bid structure, 1N = 15-17 BAL. 1♣ = ♣s or 18-19 BAL. 1♦ = ♦s or 11-14 BAL.
• Change your response structure e,g, after partner opens 1♠, 2♣ = ART F1. 2♦ = TRF 5+ ♥s. 2♥ = TRF good 3 card raise. 2♠ = NAT PRE.
• Gazzilli and XYZ (or transfers) everywhere.

Using modified Acol, the Hacket twins have opened light, successfully, for decades.

nige1, on 2017-March-29, 23:17, said:

How light is light.
Even if you open "light" most will agree you need a floor, below which you will only go in exceptional circumstances (e.g psyche etc).

Quote:
How light is too light for a 1-bid in (a) Precision (b) Standard?
Answer
Openings need to be sounder in Standard because it just gets too wide range. Opening the bidding a built in advantage, all your bidding tools now working for you. In Precision, nothing special 10 counts is too light. You need Shape or nice cards to open the 10's.

This answer was given yesterday by Meckstroth

see http://bridgewinners...eff-meckstroth/

Further down the same link:

Quote
What do minimum strength Meckwell Precision 1D openers look like third seat white on red?
Answer
I have to say whatever we feel like doing at the time. Not going to go far down this path. I will say we pass a lot more now when we have crap.

Rainer Herrmann

johnu, on 2017-March-27, 12:01, said:

This is a common fallacy.
It is of course true but trivial that the quacks you have can not be held by any other hand.
What matters is whether you have preponderance of lower honors and a lack of aces of first round controls or vice versa in both hands combined.
When do you think these scenarios, say a preponderance of quacks will happen in both hands?
When you are staring yourself in a preponderance of quacks or when you are staring at a preponderance of aces?
Nothing balances out unless you hold all 40 HCP in both hands together.

The only way to get this right is if both sides value their hand properly.

Rainer Herrmann

I can't see any of the example hand being passed in an expert event.

.

rhm, on 2017-March-30, 07:26, said:

You are flailing and I would toss you a Lifesaver but I only have Altoids.

Meckstroth is talking about frequently (or not) opening random/bad 10 counts. The hands being discussed in this thread are 13 HCP hands. Even if you think the point count system overvalues them, there is a huge difference between a bad 10 count and these bad 13 counts.

As far as the 1♦ comment, since 1♦ is artificial in Meckwell, you are supposed to have a minimum 10 HCP in the ACBL. Many would rule that < 10 HCP makes it an illegal bid. I won't rehash the Spain-USA controversy about psyching artificial 1♦ openers in 3rd seat. This does not support your position in any way.

rhm, on 2017-March-30, 07:37, said:

How can it be a fallacy if it is true? The point is, if partner bids game, they've got an opening hand filled with aces and kings. If they ask whether you are minimum or maximum for you bid, you answer minimum.

There are definitely many very strong players who play natural systems who would Pass some or all of these hands in at least some vulnerability/dealer combinations (including some who play weak notrump).

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.

Some things to learn from this:

- as others have suggested, following point count religiously is very much not a recipe for success.
- vulnerability and position are extremely important as far as such issues are concerned. The form of scoring and state of the match can also be relevant.
- do not listen to anyone who claims with authority that they *know* it is right to open (or not to open). Nobody knows and IMO simulations regarding such things should not be taken seriously.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

johnu, on 2017-April-02, 14:03, said:

Are you reading or skim-reading the postings?

Meckstroth says,

"Openings need to be sounder in Standard because it just gets too wide a range. Opening the bidding has a built in advantage, all your bidding tools are now working for you."

Kaitlyn S' questions about junk hands were geared for players who bid SAYC 15-17 = 1NT.

So....why do you think that a hand with 0.0 to 0.5 quick trick qualifies as a 1-level "sounder opening in Standard"?

Walk me through this BBO voodoo logic -- especially when the hand in question, (QJX, QJX, QJX, QJXX), is the functional equivalent of a 8-9 HCP hand.

http://www.jeff-gold...JX+QJX+QJX+QJXX

fred, on 2017-April-02, 14:32, said:

IMO

• We should be wary of light openers unless partner expects them and our system has been designed of modified to cope.
• HCP is a crude measure of high card strength. Augmented by considerations of honour placement, shape, texture and fit, it's still a crude measure of trick-taking potential. But until we develop sophisticated judgement, if ever, it has the advantage of simplicity and some limited effectiveness.
• Expert judgement of the influence of vulnerability, position, form of scoring, state of match, and so on are similarly important. But beyond current abilities of most players.
• When deciding whether to open the bidding on marginal values, we must come to a decision, even if no authority "knows" the right answer.
• We should probably give less weight to an individual opinion, than to real-life high-level statistics, computer simulations (not necessarily double-dummy), and the actual practice of most top players.

rhm, on 2017-March-30, 07:26, said:

The Hackett twins did not play modified Acol. They played a variant of the Science.

RedSpawn, on 2017-April-02, 14:38, said:

Kaitlyn (downthread) said her questions were geared for standard methods, not SAYC. SAYC, a restricted system, indeed does not have the tools referred to by Meck in RedSpawn's reference; but 'standard methods' as a whole can easily have tools to cope with lighter openings.

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.

fred, on 2017-April-02, 14:32, said:

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.

Phil, on 2017-April-08, 11:04, said:

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

aguahombre, on 2017-April-07, 09:06, said:

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

rhm, on 2017-April-09, 03:36, said:

Agree

rhm, on 2017-April-09, 03:36, said:

Conventions like Gazzillli can mitigate the problem

rhm, on 2017-April-09, 03:36, said:

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

rhm, on 2017-April-09, 03:36, said:

Agree.

rhm, on 2017-April-09, 03:36, said:

Many champions seem to have adjusted

rhm, on 2017-April-09, 03:36, said:

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

rhm, on 2017-April-09, 03:36, said:

We don't

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.)