[mikl_plkcc]

In the original natural bidding system, all opening bids, except preemptive bids, require some sort of defensive strength. But today's players seem to open whenever the point count and the shape are correct, and disregard the defensive requirements. Personally, I think that some of the rules, e.g. a 2NT opening requires all suits stopped, are useful. However, I sometimes see players opening 1NT with two unstopped suits, opening 2NT with a singleton K, opening 1-level bids with quacky 12 HCPs, opening 2-level preemptive bids at the 1st seat with 6 small cards and a void, etc.

Do you still make bids according to the strict traditional criteria?

[gnasher]

BBF's software seems to require me to vote for at least one of the options. Maybe you should add a "none of these" option?

[Codo]

A "none of these" will be easily winning the poll...

[Zelandakh]

Clearly a failed attempt to create the first ever unanimous poll with no responses.

[billw55]

I don't like to use rigid rules at all. I prefer flexible use of judgment. Admittedly, in some cases I might find it hard to construct a hand that does not have certain criteria, but that is not quite the same thing.

[sfi]

The fifth option is not a bad guideline, but I think I broke the first four criteria just in one session tonight.

[PhilKing]

♠AQ2
♥AKJ
♦AJ54
♣AKT

That's 26 Miltons but five losers and only six tricks. Oh what the hell! I risk 2♣.

♠AQJT32
♥AQJ65
♦AQ
♣-

You got me again!

[EricK]

I thought the traditional test for a 2♣ opening was "more quick tricks than losers" i.e if you only have 4 quick tricks then you would need fewer than 4 losers, but a hand with more than 4 losers might still be a 2♣ opening if it had even more quick tricks.

[mycroft]

The strong 2♣ rule (assuming we're playing standard) is the only one I have any agreement with. Even then, I can't check it, because I will also do it with whatever balanced hand 2♣, then 2NT shows. My rule is that if I open 2♣ and partner doubles game with 13 cards, it's going down (barring crossed voids, et al).

I've played 1) playing K-S, but only in the minor and even then there's a "get out of jail free" 14 Work Point must-open (and a 12-14 NT that takes a lot of the other hands out of pass). I've never played 2) or 3) (heh, 12-14 NT with 3 suits stopped? That's like one of my partners who agreed to play 10-12 NT, but passed because "I don't open 10-loser hands"), and I've been playing for 30 years.

4) I've played everything from totally disciplined, Schenken 2s to EHAA 2s to 1-7HCP mini-Multi. I believe in convertible 3m openings in 1st and 2nd, and know that I'm giving away tempo when I have to pass a bunch of them (but I'm so much happier when I'm writing down either +400 when it's right or -110 (or +100, shh) against -150/-200 and more when partner didn't get a chance to guess wrong about 3NT). I've opened 3M on T-seventh regularly, and once, at favourable, a ten-6th=1=3=3 3♠.

I "promise" defensive strength with my constructive bids. I don't have to actually have it!

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-28, 11:06, said:

♠AQ2
♥AKJ
♦AJ54
♣AKT

That's 26 Miltons but five losers and only six tricks. Oh what the hell! I risk 2♣.

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.
For me that is a three loser hand:

♠AQ2 =1 loser
♥AKJ =0.5 losers
♦AJ54=1.5 losers
♣AKT =0.5 losers

----------------------
=3.5 losers corrected for the two useful red jacks and the ♣T by another half loser

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

rhm, on 2013-May-29, 03:06, said:

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.
For me that is a three loser hand:

♠AQ2 =1 loser
♥AKJ =0.5 losers
♦AJ54=1.5 losers
♣AKT =0.5 losers

----------------------
=3.5 losers corrected for the two useful red jacks and the ♣T by another half loser

Rainer Herrmann

Well I don't use it myself.

I do remember from reading my Country Life Book of Bridge that you deduct a loser for having two more aces than queens, so I guess that comes to slightly under four with adjustments, since we have three more.

[32519]

Regarding pre-emptive openings: I forbid P to pre-empt in a long major when holding 4-cards in the other major as well. I have just seen it too often that game is missed in the short major if you do. If the hand meets the Rule-of-20, open 1 in the long major. Even with an (8)9 count, open 1 of the long major if the suits look decent i.e. the high cards backed up by 10s and 9s.

[mikl_plkcc]

32519, on 2013-May-29, 03:41, said:

Regarding pre-emptive openings: I forbid P to pre-empt in a long major when holding 4-cards in the other major as well. I have just seen it too often that game is missed in the short major if you do. If the hand meets the Rule-of-20, open 1 in the long major. Even with an (8)9 count, open 1 of the long major if the suits look decent i.e. the high cards backed up by 10s and 9s.

That means you open this 1♠?!
♠AQJ9753
♥Q9765
♦7
♣-

I would rather not open this, hoping an opponent opens a minor than use a Michaels cuebid.

[mycroft]

I would think about opening that 1♠, and probably would. Pass-then-Michaels, even if it works (what about p-p-p-1NT?), will just not give partner what she needs to know to determine game. In fact, I had this hand just last night (I will admit, the primes are nicer, but not that much; and it's not 7=5...)

---

[Siegmund]

I am much more a believer in having 2 defensive tricks to open at the 1-level than most players I know.... but never even heard of requiring 2 1/2 unless we are going all the way back to Culbertson.

[ArtK78]

I ignored strong balanced hands in checking the box for the strong 2♣ opening. In fact, my criteria for a 2♣ opening is 3 losers and 21+ HCP (ignoring the strong balanced hands).

[32519]

The hand you posted meets the Rule-of-20 with flying colours; 9 in HCP and 12 in my two longest suits = 21. That gets opened 1♠ without a thaught.

[billw55]

mikl_plkcc, on 2013-May-29, 07:58, said:

That means you open this 1♠?!
♠AQJ9753
♥Q9765
♦7
♣-

I would rather not open this, hoping an opponent opens a minor than use a Michaels cuebid.

I also open that 1♠, and I think a heavy majority here will do so.

[cherdano]

rhm, on 2013-May-29, 03:06, said:

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.

[proceeds to use a count that treats AQx identical to AKx]

[helene_t]

rhm, on 2013-May-29, 03:06, said:

If you think that to be five losers, I suggest you give up on loser count. This is what gives loser count a bad name.
For me that is a three loser hand:

♠AQ2 =1 loser
♥AKJ =0.5 losers
♦AJ54=1.5 losers
♣AKT =0.5 losers

Maybe I have it wrong but when someone says that a 2♣ opening shows a maximum of N losers I don't interpret it in accordance with whichever version of M-LTC I personally prefer, but as a hand that expects to lose at most N tricks opposite a balanced yarb, or opposite a misfitting yarb, or something like that.