[jallerton]

 rhm, on 2016-May-22, 01:42, said:

Some trivial observations:

Assume a deal is competitive:

In one room North opens the bidding.
In the other North passes and East opens the bidding.

Which side do you believe is on average better positioned to beat absolute par (my definition of stealing).
North in the first room or in the latter?
It does not really matter to which side the absolute par contract belongs.

I think this can easily be shown in the way Richard Pavlicek has done such statistical analysis and published on his website, though I won't undertake it.
This is one reason why requirements for opening the bidding have gone down over the last decades.
The true Roth Stone approach to opening the bidding is all but extinct at top level play.
Opening the bidding has certainly tactical advantages, passing a 4441 12 count is problematic - not just fine.

Rainer Herrmann

It is often an advantage to make the first bid in the auction, but not always.

For example, say I hold ♠x ♥AQ98 ♦Jxxx ♣KQJx and RHO is the dealer. I don't want particularly want RHO to pass as if I probably won't be able to get the 3-suited nature of my hand across to partner if I open the bidding. Instead I am hoping that RHO will open 1♠. Now I can use the special call I have available to show decent values and support for the other three suits.

[mike777]

 jallerton, on 2016-June-14, 16:29, said:

It is often an advantage to make the first bid in the auction, but not always.

For example, say I hold ♠x ♥AQ98 ♦Jxxx ♣KQJx and RHO is the dealer. I don't want particularly want RHO to pass as if I probably won't be able to get the 3-suited nature of my hand across to partner if I open the bidding. Instead I am hoping that RHO will open 1♠. Now I can use the special call I have available to show decent values and support for the other three suits.

Yes, to be fair so many posters over the years have pointed out how important it is to open the bidding for many reasons, I wondered if this point has gone too far, far enough where it has started to be a hindrance to constructive bidding in favor of stealing the hand from the opp.

[rhm]

 jallerton, on 2016-June-14, 16:29, said:

It is often an advantage to make the first bid in the auction, but not always.

For example, say I hold ♠x ♥AQ98 ♦Jxxx ♣KQJx and RHO is the dealer. I don't want particularly want RHO to pass as if I probably won't be able to get the 3-suited nature of my hand across to partner if I open the bidding. Instead I am hoping that RHO will open 1♠. Now I can use the special call I have available to show decent values and support for the other three suits.

 mike777, on 2016-June-14, 19:59, said:

Yes, to be fair so many posters over the years have pointed out how important it is to open the bidding for many reasons, I wondered if this point has gone too far, far enough where it has started to be a hindrance to constructive bidding in favor of stealing the hand from the opp.

I am not arguing against that if you pass some distributional hands the bidding could not develop in a favorable manner for you and you might be able to describe your distribution later.
But even if when opponents have not opened the bidding yet and you pass first and come in later you show a hand not strong enough to open in the first place. It might show your distribution well but it does not show your HCP strength.
Of course you might not only deceive partner but also opponents, but deceiving partner has a tendency to cost much more often than it does gain.

This also assumes that the bidding will develop favorably and that you can come in with a takeout double later. What if it does not? What if the bidding is at a high level when it comes to you next time? LHO opens 1♠, RHO preempts with 3♠ (preemptive) or LHO opens 2♠ and RHO raises to 4♠. Then you tend to be in an even more awkward position.
Such tactics are vulnerable to stealing by opponents.

Note I am not arguing what the strength requirements for an opening bid should be. I am only arguing once these strength requirements are present there is an advantage to open and a cost not to.

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

 rhm, on 2016-June-15, 02:27, said:

I am not arguing against that if you pass some distributional hands the bidding could not develop in a favorable manner for you and you might be able to describe your distribution later.
But even if when opponents have not opened the bidding yet and you pass first and come in later you show a hand not strong enough to open in the first place. It might show your distribution well but it does not show your HCP strength.
Of course you might not only deceive partner but also opponents, but deceiving partner has a tendency to cost much more often than it does gain.

This also assumes that the bidding will develop favorably and that you can come in with a takeout double later. What if it does not? What if the bidding is at a high level when it comes to you next time? LHO opens 1♠, RHO preempts with 3♠ (preemptive) or LHO opens 2♠ and RHO raises to 4♠. Then you tend to be in an even more awkward position.
Such tactics are vulnerable to stealing by opponents.

Note I am not arguing what the strength requirements for an opening bid should be. I am only arguing once these strength requirements are present there is an advantage to open and a cost not to.

Rainer Herrmann

Fair enough, I argue that those include hands with short spades but many argue open with 12/11/10 and short spades.

IN fact I thought that was this thread