[mycroft]

Yes, a lot of people are considering 11s "not even minimum" any more, at the top level, but:

• a lot of them are playing in a strong club context, so their maximum is also limited
  
• these people play bad contracts (even against the best opposition) better than most of us do.

Now, I'm sure they get better at playing bad contracts at least partly the same way I claim to (by bidding lots of them); and frankly, low-level partscore defence is the hardest part of the game (it is just too easy to make the slight mistake that turns the horrible result they're booked for into A+), but still, agreeing to open more and more average hands requires a change to one's responding structure, leading structure, et al. And doing it without agreement - well, that's got its own set of failure modes as well.

As far as the OP goes, in my area at least, that's an auto-open. "11s with an Ace" is "tell me why I'm *not* opening it"; and the ace in my bid suit, which is a 5-card Major, trump any reasons you might come up with to not open it in my book. If partner's expecting 13, well, we'll get to a lot of bad games (played by me; and a lot of +170s played by partner) until we sort this out; but as I said, in my area, anybody I'd play with won't expect 13!

[Phil]

mycroft, on 2016-August-23, 11:58, said:

Yes, a lot of people are considering 11s "not even minimum" any more, at the top level, but:

• a lot of them are playing in a strong club context, so their maximum is also limited
  
• these people play bad contracts (even against the best opposition) better than most of us do.
  
• their partners make allowances for opening lighter and don't automatically invite with 11 or force to game with 12

FYP

[miamijd]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-August-22, 19:25, said:

I wonder how many people who call AQ10xx, KQx, xxx, xx an 11 count 5332 would also call all of these weaker hands an 11 count 5332?

AQxxx, KQx, xxx, xx
Qxxxx, Kxx, Qxx, Ax
xxxxx, Qxx, Axx, KQ

People open the actual hand because it's a better hand than some of the 13 point "mandatory openings" that people routinely open, such as QJxx, Kxxx, Jxx, AQ. If I was forced to open only one of the two hands AQ10xx, KQx, xxx, xx or QJxx, Kxxx, Jxx, AQ, the first one would get the nod.

Of course you are right, but my point is that I'd have a hard time constructing an 11-cout 5332 that I'd open in 1-2 seat at IMPs playing 2/1. Maybe

AK98x Axx xxx xx

That's about it.

Cheers,
Mike

[miamijd]

mike777, on 2016-August-22, 20:47, said:

Yes, Kaitlyn you make a fair, very fair criticism of opening lite style.

And yes that is a clear one spade opener....


Thus we have a discussion/dbate..one that in the current WC book just out World Class players open on less.

Playing strong club systems of one sort or another, of course they do. Totally different.

[mycroft]

Phil, on 2016-August-23, 12:13, said:

FYP

mycroft said:

but still, agreeing to open more and more average hands requires a change to one's responding structure, leading structure, et al.

Although I agree with you (I did, after all, mention it), I really don't see them cutting back on GF bids too hard - they've come onboard with the Meckwellian theory of "push 'em on every board, more often than not they'll break down and let enough through to pay back for the hopeless ones". Not a bad theory - if you can play sufficiently close to Meckwell standards to still be on the +EV side of that coin. But I repeat myself.

But I really meant the bad contracts you get into when you're not in game. The bad contracts you get into when unwinding the now even-more-overloaded 1NT Forcing is more than your tools can handle. Sometimes (remember I play a weak NT in a strong NT world) you're booked for a bad contract just by opening the bidding, and you have to deal with that.

Another thing is that while frequently getting in on more hands means that your partner's leads are better than not blind, frequently you get partner off to the wrong lead by opening (that ♠xxxxx 11-count for example). Again, that's a situation playing any anti-field style (like my weak NT in the ACBL) will do, and it also can be +EV, but increases the variance. Remember that you'll be on defence more often after your side opens than "standard" players.

There are lots of pluses for opening lighter, of course - or people would still be bidding Goren openers.

[zillahandp]

Cme n folks the question was what d you bid nw havng oened, there is n choic 's bid is forcng for ne round so you MUST bid 2s

[rmnka447]

mike777, on 2016-August-22, 20:11, said:

Great question, I was taught playing a lite opening system all of your examples are an easy one bid. fwiw I was also taught that 2/1 gf meant 14+ in this style. This style throws many hands into 1nt response.

Great comment! Therein lies the rub. The lighter you open, the stronger your 2/1 GF response needs to be to ensure game is a reasonable place to be. This then means you have to use a forcing NT response for a greater range of hands. This puts a strain on the forcing NT sequences to distinguish between all these hands. So the issue is at what point does your inability to definitively describe these hands after the forcing NT result in worse outcomes than any advantage opening light might gain you.

The other issue is the one this thread started to address. As you expand the range of your openers, how does opener define what kind of opener he has to responder.

Neither of these issues is trivial. Every pair has to choose some minimum values for openers that yields the best results for them.

[jillybean]

I open this chunky 11 count, and rebid 2♠

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

2S or 2NT or 3D, this is wtp, because this is a system bid, I
choose 2S, but whatever.

I would not have opened if, but if I had, I would know, what the
system bid is, in case partner comes with a 2/1.

With kind regards
Marlowe