[sasioc]

rhm, on 2011-October-22, 14:26, said:

I would pass unless I have a weak two in ♦ available or a mini notrump and yes, I do not consider it close.
I am not a Roth Stone fan and open other hands which many would pass.
I am well aware that most Bridge players overvalue this type of hand constantly and refuse to learn from their results.
The distribution is not good, neither is the honor structure.

To prove my point I ran a simulation (1000 deals) giving partner exactly 12 HCP and balanced distribution.

3NT made on 207 deals and was down on 793 deals. Average number of tricks was 7.3
Now single dummy you will make 3NT a little bit more often, but nowhere often enough.

Rainer Herrmann

I can't speak for the other posters but in my regular partnership a balanced 12 count is not a game-force facing a 1 level opening, especially one made 1st in at white. I would not expect to play the deal you describe in 3NT and feel that 1D gains in a lot of partscore deals. I'm also not really sure what else I'm meant to open this - I'm far too good for a weak 2 under these conditions and not really suitable for 3D. I don't think that it makes theoretical sense to have hands that are considered too good for a weak 2 and not good enough for a 1 level opening so pass is certainly not an option for me.

[sasioc]

Duplication, sry

[MrAce]

rhm, on 2011-October-22, 14:26, said:

I would pass unless I have a weak two in ♦ available or a mini notrump and yes, I do not consider it close.
I am not a Roth Stone fan and open other hands which many would pass.
I am well aware that most Bridge players overvalue this type of hand constantly and refuse to learn from their results.
The distribution is not good, neither is the honor structure.

To prove my point I ran a simulation (1000 deals) giving partner exactly 12 HCP and balanced distribution.

3NT made on 207 deals and was down on 793 deals. Average number of tricks was 7.3
Now single dummy you will make 3NT a little bit more often, but nowhere often enough.

Rainer Herrmann

Rainer balanced 12 hcp, if your pdship is opening light, is not a gf but invitation. You told us the simulation results vs a 12 hcp balanced hands but i am more interested in the results showing what would happen if we opened weak 2♦ with this and pd holding 13-14-15 hcp with xx ♦ because without a help in the suit most of the time it will be played there. Although the argument i am trying to make, i admit, makes more sense at IMPS.

[rhm]

han, on 2011-October-22, 14:41, said:

Of course I agree that this is not a good hand. But all white at matchpoints, it's not all about games. If partner forces to game, we may be too high, and we may not. But if partner does not force to game, I'm happy to have taken the first call.

Unless I preempt opening hands is for me a question of strength.
When our side has the opponents out-gunned I do not like to reach hopeless contracts on our own steam and baring a complete misfit I want my partners to be able to force to game if he faces an opening bid opposite mine.
Passing does not mean you give up the part-score battle though I agree the side, which opens the bidding is better positioned when the bidding gets competitive. But a big part of this advantage stems from the fact that responder can rely on some strength when his partner has opened the bidding.

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

The modern paradox, ignored by many modern players, is that a hand which we would open is no longer game facing another hand we would open.

Most responders, however, have adjusted the range upward a bit for invites to game or to slam.

[Phil]

Onedown, on 2011-October-21, 21:18, said:

Ridiculous post....I can understand those, well sort of who think this soft hand is worth 1 ♦BUT If you are playing weak 2s and your range is 6-11, then why not 2 ♦?? Did I miscount?..My calculator says 11, if I count on my fingees I have 11....what is the 11 for anyways if you won't bid 2 ♦with 11..is there 11 counts you will open 2 ♦ with?

You might want to attempt to understand why a good player will occasionally open a weak 2 with 11 and the same individual might open a one bid with 10.

There isn't a contradiction here.

[gszes]

I admit I prefer other uses for 2d than weak however,
if using them, I have no problem opening 2d. Look at
this almost defenseless dreck many are considering
opening 1d:)) if bidding goes 1d (1h/s 2c) p p are you
ever going to reopen with an x (I hope not)

The 2d bid accomplishes a lot and makes it just a tad
more dangerous for opps to intervene. Save your 1d
openings for hands with some defense at least
like xx Axx AQxxxx xx where you are not totally
embarassed by your actions in competitive situations.

[the hog]

rhm, on 2011-October-22, 14:26, said:

I would pass unless I have a weak two in ♦ available or a mini notrump and yes, I do not consider it close.
I am not a Roth Stone fan and open other hands which many would pass.
I am well aware that most Bridge players overvalue this type of hand constantly and refuse to learn from their results.
The distribution is not good, neither is the honor structure.

To prove my point I ran a simulation (1000 deals) giving partner exactly 12 HCP and balanced distribution.

3NT made on 207 deals and was down on 793 deals. Average number of tricks was 7.3
Now single dummy you will make 3NT a little bit more often, but nowhere often enough.

Rainer Herrmann

How does this prove your "point"?. Just because you have a 12 count opposite an opener does not mean you have to be in game.

[dake50]

1NT is easy playing 1NT:10-13 and 1D artificial, 2D special.
The only alternate is 3D which is NOT a weak preempt, close.

[SimonFa]

rhm, on 2011-October-22, 14:26, said:

I would pass unless I have a weak two in ♦ available or a mini notrump and yes, I do not consider it close.
I am not a Roth Stone fan and open other hands which many would pass.
I am well aware that most Bridge players overvalue this type of hand constantly and refuse to learn from their results.
The distribution is not good, neither is the honor structure.

To prove my point I ran a simulation (1000 deals) giving partner exactly 12 HCP and balanced distribution.

3NT made on 207 deals and was down on 793 deals. Average number of tricks was 7.3
Now single dummy you will make 3NT a little bit more often, but nowhere often enough.

Rainer Herrmann

Why do you assume 3NT is the place to end up? If partner invites at some point showing 12 points you could pass, unless your name is Lall and your partner is named Grue, or vice versa

Also, from what I've been reading the aim is to get your bidding going first and with this hand I have a rebid.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2011-October-22, 16:25, said:

Rainer balanced 12 hcp, if your pdship is opening light, is not a gf but invitation. You told us the simulation results vs a 12 hcp balanced hands but i am more interested in the results showing what would happen if we opened weak 2♦ with this and pd holding 13-14-15 hcp with xx ♦ because without a help in the suit most of the time it will be played there. Although the argument i am trying to make, i admit, makes more sense at IMPS.

I checked on your conditions:

partner having 2 ♦ without the ace but possible the ten, balanced (5 card major possible), 13-14 HCP (1000 deals)

Result:
From partner's side 3NT made on 430 deals and was down on 570 deals. Average number of tricks in notrumps was 8.26
2♦ made on 971 deals and 3♦ on 823 deals. Average number of tricks in ♦ was 9.33

It's at least no big deal giving up on game. With 15 HCP I guess you would check whether partner has a minimum or maximum weak two. (3♦ looks safe opposite 15 HCP)

Rainer Herrmann

[pooltuna]

rhm, on 2011-October-24, 07:50, said:

I checked on your conditions:

partner having 2 ♦ without the ace but possible the ten, balanced (5 card major possible), 13-14 HCP (1000 deals)

Result:
From partner's side 3NT made on 430 deals and was down on 570 deals. Average number of tricks in notrumps was 8.26
2♦ made on 971 deals and 3♦ on 823 deals. Average number of tricks in ♦ was 9.33

It's at least no big deal giving up on game. With 15 HCP I guess you would check whether partner has a minimum or maximum weak two. (3♦ looks safe opposite 15 HCP)

Rainer Herrmann

So based on your simul it appears this hand is an opener for V IMPs but a pass for MPs(or a weak 2♦)?

[MrAce]

rhm, on 2011-October-24, 07:50, said:

I checked on your conditions:

partner having 2 ♦ without the ace but possible the ten, balanced (5 card major possible), 13-14 HCP (1000 deals)

Result:
From partner's side 3NT made on 430 deals and was down on 570 deals. Average number of tricks in notrumps was 8.26
2♦ made on 971 deals and 3♦ on 823 deals. Average number of tricks in ♦ was 9.33

It's at least no big deal giving up on game. With 15 HCP I guess you would check whether partner has a minimum or maximum weak two. (3♦ looks safe opposite 15 HCP)

Rainer Herrmann

Okay ty for the simulation.

[whereagles]

1D canonical.

2D if feeling swingy.