Hand Evaluation

[pigpenz]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakj763hq7da6cak9]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

What would you open with this hand first seat nv vs nv, imps?

 

In a recent acbl imp game these were the following bids?

 

19 one spade

2 2nt

23 two clubs

1 one club forcing

[mike777]

1s of course. Planning to rebid 4s over 1nt.

 

Would not be shocked to see some rebid fake 3clubs or 3nt.

 

Not surprised to see many open 2clubs :lol:.

[Winstonm]

Since I have strict parameters for 2C (4 losers or 9 winners or 22+ nt) I have 2 options - open 1S or 2C (intending to treat as 22+NT.) My choice would be 1S as Puppet doesn't find the 6/2 fits and hopefully if partner is real weak he'll be able to make a preemptive raise with 4 little spades.

 

Winston

[mikeh]

No surprise for anyone who knows me at all: 1♠

 

And 3♣ over 1N (but I play 3♣ is either blacks, or exactly 4♥ or power ♠, all gf. If I played 'standard', 3N over 1N)

 

Give me the ♠10, and I'd be on the brink of 2♣

 

Give me AKJxxx xx AQ AKx, 2♣... just barely.

 

AKJ10xxx xx AQ AKx 2♣ comfortably

[Guest Jlall]

Hard hand. I voted for 2C as this hand is just too hard to describe once we start 1S-1N. If we open 2C and rebid 2S to be followed by a NT bid later, partner will have a very good description of our hand (albeit we overbid by a small bit). I don't really think this hand is good enough for 2C followed by 2S, but I think it's close and for the sake of simplifying the auction I consider it the least evil bid.

 

this WILL be a surprise to people who know me :lol:

[pigpenz]

I am sort of like Justin, this hand is too hard to describe. .... there are too many hands where partner can have where we can make game with out him being able to reply to one spade :lol:

[han]

Playing Ben's inquiry2over1 this is a fairly straightforward 2C opener.

[Guest Jlall]

Playing Ben's inquiry2over1 this is a fairly straightforward 2C opener.

That is why this problem is not posed playing inquiry2over1.

 

I just dont understand posts like this. It would be the same as me saying "In precision, this is an obvious 1C."

[keylime]

2C for me. Am very control rich. Don't need much help from pard for slam.

[pigpenz]

2C for me. Am very control rich. Don't need much help from pard for slam.

gee i am worried just about getting to game :lol:

[Al_U_Card]

5 losers and 5 quick tricks. I'll take my chances on 1S and if pard is 0-4 hcp then making 3 will be nice.

[Kalvan14]

2♣. This hand is too strong in controls and can make 4♠ against xxx in ♠ and a doubleton club. in any case my 2♣ includes this kind of hands, and, if pard is weak and in misfit, i can play 2♠ [2♣-2♠-P or 2♣-2♥-2♠-P]

[Walddk]

1♠, planning to rebid 3♣ over 1NT. If I have any excuse at all, I will avoid opening 2♣. I have a legitimate excuse, because I have 5 losers. If partner passes 1♠, he can't cover 2 of my losers.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

2♣. This hand is too strong in controls and can make 4♠ against xxx in ♠ and a doubleton club. in any case my 2♣ includes this kind of hands, and, if pard is weak and in misfit, i can play 2♠ [2♣-2♠-P or 2♣-2♥-2♠-P]

As Justin said, posts that say: 'in my specialized method, this hand is easy' do nothing to advance our understanding of the issues raised by the post.

 

I am not attacking your method (I do not know enough about it to do so), but it has nothing to do with the thread.

 

And observing that game is good opposite xxx - xx in the blacks, with nothing else, is also unhelpful. Would partner know to commit to game with that, and not with xxx♠ xx♥/♦??? Would you be able to tell that he held xx♣ and not xxx??

 

The problem is not susceptible to a right or wrong answer approach. It is, however, useful for prompting a discussion of how various players (with a wide range of experience and skill levels) approach this everyday evaluation problem in the context of a standardish method.

 

I prefer 1♠, but I would not criticize a partner who chose 2♣: as I pointed out in my first post, a minor change to the hand could get me to vote for 2♣ myself.

 

I and my partners stretch to respond. If you need 6 hcp to respond, then open 2♣. If you would bid 1N (on the way to 2♠) with Qxx Jxxxx Qxx xx, then open 1♠.

 

If you bid aggressively in response to a 2♣ opener (I do) then open 1♠: I would, as partner, assume opener's hand was slightly stronger than this and thus might push a level too high in my slam hunt.

 

Those two factors are roughly equal, with the balance favouring 2♣. But what tips the scale for me is the presence of opponents. It is highly probable that one or the other will bid if I open 1♠. If It goes PPP, then there is a good probabilty that we have no fit: RHO will strain to reopen with short ♠, so a pass is an indicator (not an assurance) of ♠ length.

[Winstonm]

1♠, planning to rebid 3♣ over 1NT. If I have any excuse at all, I will avoid opening 2♣. I have a legitimate excuse, because I have 5 losers. If partner passes 1♠, he can't cover 2 of my losers.

 

Roland

He may actually have just enough to cover my losers and still not bid - xx, xxxx, QJxx, Qxx, but I'll pay the price of missing this one chance for game so partner won't be gunshy when I DO open 2C.

 

It's one thing to evaluate a hand upward because of shape and high card location; it's quite another to consciously violate a systemic agreement to make it easier on yourself to rebid; if that is a problem, the better solution is to rework the system to incorporate the hands.

 

If your system calls for 4 losers for 2C it is acceptable I would think to fudge that to 4 1/2. But a full trick is too big of difference in Fudge Factor, IMO.

 

Winston

[Guest Jlall]

If your system calls for 4 losers for 2C it is acceptable I would think to fudge that to 4 1/2. But a full trick is too big of difference in Fudge Factor, IMO.

 

Winston

I still don't understand LTC obviously. Is Qx the same as xx in LTC? is AKJxxx the same as AKxxxx? I'm confused, but I wouldn't rate this hand as a full trick too weak for 2C. Mikeh rates it as "the ten of spades" too weak.

[Winstonm]

If your system calls for 4 losers for 2C it is acceptable I would think to fudge that to 4 1/2.  But a full trick is too big of difference in Fudge Factor, IMO.

 

Winston

I still don't understand LTC obviously. Is Qx the same as xx in LTC? is AKJxxx the same as AKxxxx? I'm confused, but I wouldn't rate this hand as a full trick too weak for 2C. Mikeh rates it as "the ten of spades" too weak.

Depends entirely on which version you read. :P

 

Point to me is not about trick count but agreements - where, in a serious partnership, do you draw the line between "evaluation" and "misbid"?

 

Let's say you and partner decide that 9 winners is good enough for 2C.

 

Then is AKQJ10x, AJ10, Axx, xx enough - my thinking is "probably" although clearly not exactly right. But AKQJ10x, Axx, Axx, xx, although powerful and high risk to miss game, is clearly short. To open this violates agreements and to a degree trust - a lot when it doesn't work but even a little when it does.

 

The optimum is to play a forcing club system - I do not think this is in dispute - but to play a forcing club adds at least a full 25% additional memory work to be of value IMO, and another 25-35% to have a truly effective system when interference rears its head.

 

And for me, I find it easier to combine the approaches - some hands are easier for me to see as "winner" count and some as "loser count", so I use both methods to determine the worth of a 2C single-suited hand. I use a fairly simple LTC to give an approximation of value is all, where A, K, Q missing are each 1 loser, Qx is the same as xx, and combination cards like AJ10, AQ10 may sway the decision one way or another. So in my count, the example hand is 5 losers.

 

And on a final note, isn't the concept of opening 2C out of agreement very similar to opening when playing 14-16 NTs a hand with 4432 shape and 16 1D because you might miss the major game if you open 1N? Sure, in the short term you might hit it on the nose, but for the long run it seems better to stick with agreements and make the systemic bid as much as possible.

 

But, again, I'm not a WC so I can only argue theory, not practical experience at that level. I defer to the WC behind your name, "lil buddy".

 

Winston

[luke warm]

i'd open 1♠ also, planning on rebidding 4♠... to me that shows 19-21/22, one suited but not (for some reason) suitable for 2♣

[pclayton]

If I have a doo-dad that lets me make a forcing 2N rebid - like Meckstroth Adjunct, then 1♠ is OK. I'm not confusing the auction with a 3♣ or 4♠ rebid after a forcing NT response.

 

Otherwise, I'll open it 2♣.

[Guest Jlall]

Point to me is not about trick count but agreements - where, in a serious partnership, do you draw the line between "evaluation" and "misbid"?

I understand your point, I think we just differ in how rigid our requirements are for certain bids. Most of the systems I play offer a lot of room for judgement and "evaluation" and are not defined strongly (ie preempts or 2C openers). In my agreements (or lack thereof lol) this hand would be fine to open 2C or 1S.

[Winstonm]

Point to me is not about trick count but agreements - where, in a serious partnership, do you draw the line between "evaluation" and "misbid"?

I understand your point, I think we just differ in how rigid our requirements are for certain bids. Most of the systems I play offer a lot of room for judgement and "evaluation" and are not defined strongly (ie preempts or 2C openers). In my agreements (or lack thereof lol) this hand would be fine to open 2C or 1S.

Yes, exactly my question....how much leeway is or should be given in expert partnerships before it becomes destructive....interesting question.

 

Winston

[mike777]

If your system calls for 4 losers for 2C it is acceptable I would think to fudge that to 4 1/2.  But a full trick is too big of difference in Fudge Factor, IMO.

 

Winston

I still don't understand LTC obviously. Is Qx the same as xx in LTC? is AKJxxx the same as AKxxxx? I'm confused, but I wouldn't rate this hand as a full trick too weak for 2C. Mikeh rates it as "the ten of spades" too weak.

Yes! In general the answer to your question is Yes same loser count. Of course loser count in LTC is not repeat not used to evaluate opening bids! If you want to count losers for opening bids, FINE, but that is not Losing Trick Count (LTC).

 

Of course I understand LTC to help me with close decisions.

Qx would lean toward a plus.....AKJ would lean towards a plus. xx or AKx =clear loser count no plus.

 

In any case as usual I am surprised my 1s=1nt=4s is the only one in the field, oh well.

[Kalvan14]

2♣. This hand is too strong in controls and can make 4♠ against xxx in ♠ and a doubleton club. in any case my 2♣ includes this kind of hands, and, if pard is weak and in misfit, i can play 2♠ [2♣-2♠-P or 2♣-2♥-2♠-P]

As Justin said, posts that say: 'in my specialized method, this hand is easy' do nothing to advance our understanding of the issues raised by the post.

 

I am not attacking your method (I do not know enough about it to do so), but it has nothing to do with the thread.

 

And observing that game is good opposite xxx - xx in the blacks, with nothing else, is also unhelpful. Would partner know to commit to game with that, and not with xxx♠ xx♥/♦??? Would you be able to tell that he held xx♣ and not xxx??

 

The problem is not susceptible to a right or wrong answer approach. It is, however, useful for prompting a discussion of how various players (with a wide range of experience and skill levels) approach this everyday evaluation problem in the context of a standardish method.

 

I prefer 1♠, but I would not criticize a partner who chose 2♣: as I pointed out in my first post, a minor change to the hand could get me to vote for 2♣ myself.

 

I and my partners stretch to respond. If you need 6 hcp to respond, then open 2♣. If you would bid 1N (on the way to 2♠) with Qxx Jxxxx Qxx xx, then open 1♠.

 

If you bid aggressively in response to a 2♣ opener (I do) then open 1♠: I would, as partner, assume opener's hand was slightly stronger than this and thus might push a level too high in my slam hunt.

 

Those two factors are roughly equal, with the balance favouring 2♣. But what tips the scale for me is the presence of opponents. It is highly probable that one or the other will bid if I open 1♠. If It goes PPP, then there is a good probabilty that we have no fit: RHO will strain to reopen with short ♠, so a pass is an indicator (not an assurance) of ♠ length.

"my method" was just an aside. The issue is that I do not want the risk of pard passing with the little that i need to make a game.

Therefore, I rate it better to open this hand 2♣, and i would do it certainly playing either SAYC or 2/1.

The hand has 8 controls out of 12 and a solid spade suit. frankly 5 or 4.5 losers against 4 is not a major issue, IMHO

[Rebound]

It cracks me up that some of the same people who have previously advocated overbidding rather than underbidding (given no other choices) now rate this hand as a 1♠ opening. Not that I cannot understand that this is a different situation entirely, and not that I don't have a great deal of respect for their skill, intelligence, and analytical abilites (far moreso than my own lol), but it still gives me a chuckle :-)

 

FWIW, I feel that there are far too many holdings with which partner will pass 1♠ for me to open that with this hand so I would open 2♣. However, mikeh's post elucidated the point very well. As usual, it depends a lot on style and partnership understanding. My recurring partners, on the whole, will never stretch enough to bid over 1♠ with many hands that will produce game opposite the given hand.

[cherdano]

Playing Ben's inquiry2over1 this is a fairly straightforward 2C opener.

That is why this problem is not posed playing inquiry2over1.

 

I just dont understand posts like this. It would be the same as me saying "In precision, this is an obvious 1C."

Not quite I think. You see, whether you open this (not so rare) handtype 1S or 2C is, IMO, more of a style and overall system issue than a question of evaluation of this specific hand.

 

This style depends of course a lot on what follow-up agreements you have after 1S or 2C. Mike has special agreements after 1S-1NT that allow him to describe this hand well after 1S. In Ben's system, it is very convenient to stop below game after a 2C opening, allowing for this hand type in 2C. It is a small change from standard (well, is there a standard after 2♣?), and solves this frequent hand type well.

 

Arend