WARNING: This article contains my opinions on bidding style, rather than a description of generally-accepted bridge wisdom. Some of what follows is contrary to normal expert opinion. Use at your own risk!
Recently a friend commented that she was getting a lot of bad results opening 12-point hands, and asked for my thoughts on one hand in particular. I've tried to stay away from judgment and style issues on the blog, but I'll wander in here... You are vulnerable:
Recently a friend commented that she was getting a lot of bad results opening 12-point hands, and asked for my thoughts on one hand in particular. I've tried to stay away from judgment and style issues on the blog, but I'll wander in here... You are vulnerable:
♠ A J 10 4 ♥ J 4 ♦ A 8 7 5 ♣ Q 9 7
Most experts would open this hand without a second thought, but I probably would not. By modern expert standards I am a deliberately conservative bidder. As a general rule I'll open "good" 12s and try to pass all the "bad" 12s and most of the mediocre 12s. Most experts will open all 12-point hands, or all but the very poorest.
So what makes a "good" 12?
- a decent five-card (or longer) suit
- a three-suited hand
- two four-card suits with good texture
and a "bad" 12?
- a square hand (4-3-3-3 distribution)
- two four-card suits with poor texture
At matchpoints I use the Rule of 20 (high card points plus length of two longest suits) to assess whether or not everybody else in the room will open. My reasoning is that they all will either open any 12-count or use the Rule of 20, and I just have to decide whether I know something they don't.
♠ A J 10 4 ♥ J 4 ♦ A 8 7 5 ♣ Q 9 7
Reasons to open:
- most of the field will open (Rule of 20)
- the spade suit is nice, and spades is the master suit
- two aces are nice
- is partner a superb declarer?
- is the field strong (Regional Flight A players)?
- are the opponents poor defenders?
Reasons not to open:
- I think the doubleton jack is worthless
- honors are scattered rather than supported
- we are vulnerable
- is partner a weak declarer?
- is the field weak (not Flight A)?
- are the opponents expert defenders?
♠ A Q J 10 ♥ 5 4 ♦ A J 8 7 ♣ 9 7 4
I would gladly open 1♦.
One thing to keep in mind: if you bid like an expert, you must also play like an expert! Modern experts want to be in all 25-point games, most 24s, and some 23s (especially vulnerable at IMPs). The traditional "26 points for game" is too conservative because the general level of expert declarer play is so much better than it was fifty or sixty years ago. And if you want to be in 24-point games, then you must open 12-point hands. Players like Larry Cohen and Bobby Wolff and most Flight A players will all recognize the sophisticated or perhaps obscure line of play needed to bring home a skinny contract, when you and I are going down without a prayer. My declarer play isn't as good as theirs, so I don't open as light as they do.
This got a little long-winded, sorry. It's all opinion, no hard and fast rules here. My opinions on this are at variance with most experts. Your mileage may vary. Good luck!
SIDE NOTE: This discussion illustrates why I object to the custom of re-shuffling a passed-out hand if the board has not been previously played. I think my decision to pass is the winning decision; others will rush in to bid and live to regret it :) And that decision deserves a good (or bad) result just as much as if other tables had already bid and played the hand before we passed it out at our table. We don't re-shuffle a board if it appears to be a totally routine flat board, 3NT making 3; why should we re-shuffle if it appears to be a totally routine Passed-Out instead?
