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.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari