Join Bridge Winners
Logically, shouldn't the authorities be more strict with 3rd hand openings rather than less strict?

Various bridge authorities have regulations about how weak a hand you are allowed to open with a 1-level bid. Whether they should have those rules is another matter. But for the sake of this argument let's just accept that they do.

So what are their reasons? Well, light openings have advantages for the opening side eg getting the first blow in, taking away room from the opposition; but they also have disadvantages eg making it harder for partner to penalise opponents, taking bidding room away from partner etc [these are in no way intended to be complete lists of the advantages and disadvantages]. Presumably, the authorities wish to regulate light openings because of (some of) their perceived advantages rather than because of any disadvantages of the methods.

But if you get a chance to open in 3rd seat, especially NV, the advantages of opening light are accentuated, and many of the disadvantages are minimised.

So, whatever reasons the authorities have for regulating light openings, they should apply at least as much in 3rd seat as in 1st or 2nd seat, and so logically the authorities would want to be at least as strict on 3rd seat openings as on others.

But they aren't.

So where is the flaw in my logic?

50 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top