[smerriman]

---

I know a 1♣ opener can have rebid issues, and some people open 1♦, but I was surprised to see GIB pass. Future bid descriptions all promised <= 11 HCP.

[FelicityR]

No. Two and half quick tricks. I'd open even vulnerable. As for rebid problems, if partner bids 1♠ I would raise to 2♠.

As for opening 1♦, that is not something I would ever do. If partner ends up on lead you want him to lead a ♣ instead of a ♦.

[ahydra]

Obvious opener. 1C then 2C over 1H.

ahydra

[NickRW]

Obvious opener any seat any colours. What to open is a matter of agreement, but if the agreement is "this is not an opener", then find another partner.

[johnu]

It's surprising to see GIB pass considering some of the crappy hands that I have seen GIB open. Is GIB programmed to anticipate rebid problems?

[iandayre]

No problem here. 2C over 1H and 2S over 1S. Tougher: Axx, x, AQxx. Qxxxx. Still raise 1S to 2, but 1H creates a problem. I would open 1D here, just can't stomach rebidding 1NT with a small singleton.

[pilowsky]

The question of what should I open with has been puzzling me for a while.

"Do not open the bidding if you have fewer than 13 points. Including a minimum of two top tricks." William S. Root. 1970

"The truth is that in any one club system 1♦ is something of a moveable feast It takes care of not only of hands in the 12-15 range which contain…". Terence Reese. 1975
Reese gives 5 examples. HCP(13,14,14,13,13). Interestingly None of his examples contains 12!

More recently the number has sunk to 11 or 12 depending on system seat, vulnerability, time of day etc.

BBO was developed in 1990. The 2/1 system from OKbridge uses an opening strength of 12.

Over the last few days, I have been trying to learn shapes and probabilities better.
It turns out that you will get the following:
HCP percentage of the time cumulative probability
10. ccccccc 9.4 ccccccccccccc ccccccccccccc 56.2
11 ccccccc 8.9 ccccccccccccc ccccccccccccc 65.2
12 ccccccc 8.0 ccccccccccccc ccccccccccccc 73.2
13 ccccccc 6.9 ccccccccccccc ccccccccccccc 80.1

These data suggest that 65% of the time you will get a hand with less than 11 HCP. If we were to follow the pre-1975 Standards 85% of hands might be passed out. Was Bridge a different game then? Computers did not exist in 1975.

Does this mean that it might be reasonable to lower the bar to as little as 10HCP?
Currently, with the bar at a solid 12, nearly 3/4 of the time you will not have an opening hand.

If you add in strictures such as I must have exactly15-17 HCP and no 5CM to open 1NT (definitely not me) you would very rarely open 1NT.
At one point I wondered about a system of opening 2♣ to indicate fewer than 5 HCP if I was in First seat. At least then everyone else would know that they did not have to worry about me. Kindness personified.

[gordontd]

pilowsky, on 2020-August-07, 06:12, said:

"The truth is that in any one club system 1♦ is something of a moveable feast It takes care of not only of hands in the 12-15 range which contain…". Terence Reese. 1975

Wasn't this from his book on Precision?

[pilowsky]

That's right. It's right here next to me

[mycroft]

Playing K/S, 2.5 QTs and all, I might pass this one. If not, 1♣ then 2♣ over 1♥. But partner is going to expect a very different hand. (Note: due to lack of single-width ten (why is this not a thing, anywhere? Doesn't poker and all else have the same problem?), my first thought was that this was auto-1NT. But, you know, rules (and with a major, I'm tempted to follow them)).

Playing anything else, yeah, I open this, no question. I hate it, but I open it. I actually would be happy to be playing my precision partnership here, where 1♦ then 2♣ "discourages a preference". But for that partnership, swap the minors, and I have the same problem...

[zhasbeen]

Automatic opening at any form of bridge, and if you make a habit of passing hands like this in the robot games you have no chance of consistently scoring well.