what do you think of yukky 12 balanced hands

[sceptic]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=skt92hqt985d87cq8&w=s843hk32daqj94ct9&e=sa75ha4dt2ck76432&s=sqj6hj76dk653caj5]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     1♦

 Pass  1♥    2♣    Pass

 Pass  Dbl   Pass  2NT

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

[paulg]

It's a clear opener and a clear 2♥ over partner's double.

 

Paul

[helene_t]

It's a clear pass, probably even if the weak balanced variant is systematically 11-13 (playing 1NT=14-16). If the board is passed out it's everyone else's fault not yours. East and West both come closer to an opening, and North could preempt in 3rd seat at this vulnerability.

 

And yes, it's a clear 2♥ over partner's reopening double. 2N shows a non-minimum and usually denies 3-card support.

[Rossoneri]

play weak NTs.

[Gerben42]

You broke the rule that 2NT is not a "well I can't think of anything else" bid. Rebid 2♥ after partner's Double. This kinda hand used to be passed out, but hey, this is the Century of the Fruitbat!

 

BTW I agree on not making a support Dbl on this, even if I'm playing them.

[gwnn]

unless pd kills me for every 12 hcp pass, I'll pass.

 

but if I opened, I double for support.

[firmit]

I see no reason to open this hand. But given that "I did" - i'd support dbl. But given that "I passed" - i'd bid 2♥.

[mcphee]

I would not mind passing this hand if no weak NT was in use. If I did choose to open I would make a support dble if they were in use. I suspect they were not here and would bid 2H over reopening dble.

[goodwintr]

There are two questions here: (1) Do you open all balanced 12-counts? (2) If you don't, why is this particular one "yukky" (assuming "yukky" is a technical term for a 12-count that you wouldn't open)?

 

If you open all balanced 12-counts, either with a weak notrump or in a suit, then you don't have to bother with part (2). If you don't open all balanced 12-counts, then you should have some sort of standard. The tried-and-true rule was that you needed at least 2 quick-tricks (and some would have said 2 1/2). The example hand doesn't qualify by that standard. Another tried-and-true rule was to subtract a point from a hand for being 4-3-3-3; if you do that, this hand becomes an 11-count, and again not an opening bid.

 

Having said that, the various posters are right about the merits of 2H vs. 2NT. And the support-doublers implicitly raise an interesting partnership question, whether the failure to make a support double denies three-card support for responder's major.

 

TLG

[Flame]

I wouldnt open this but you can if you want.

Your second bid should be supprt double.

Your third bid should be 2♥ and not 2NT.

[inquiry]

I don;t follow ZAR ponts strickly, but they are useful guidelines. Many (most) balanced 12 hcp hands will fall outside of the ZAR opening bid range.. ESPECIALLY when 4333. Your example hand, for instance has only 23 ZAR points, a full 3 points (a queen and a jack) less than an opening bid.

 

Change the hand too.

 

♠QJxx

♥xx

♦KJxx

♣AJx

 

and I would open it without a second thought.

[Free]

It's an ugly opening followed by 2 ugly rebids. Bleh!

[SoTired]

i would open it, because i open most 12's

 

if u deem it an opener, then u must make a support dbl.

 

the 2N bid is clearly wrong. It shows extras and lack of 3-card support.

[zasanya]

Playing 12-14 nt i will always open 1NT.Otherwise i will open 1♦ at favourable vul and pass at equal or unfavourable vul.

[pclayton]

For me, 4333 12 counts are optional openers. It depends on the texture of the hand usually. With good intermediates and controls, I'll open. If its quack, I'll pass. I probably pass 70% of them and open 30%.

 

If I'm playing a 12-14 NT, I'll open them slightly more often, but there's nothing mandatory about it.

 

I'd pass the South hand.

[jdonn]

i would open it, because i open most 12's

 

if u deem it an opener, then u must make a support dbl.

No! I'm sorry but I can't let that slide. There is not the slightest reason to make a support double if you have opened the bidding on a hand like this, what can it possibly gain you other than partner over-competing? You would much rather defend if possible. If there was ever a hand to pass with 3 card support instead of making a support double, this is it.

[jmc]

I believe that support dbls with minimum balanced hand should be optional and not mandatory. I would rather not play them than play mandatory support dbls.

 

I also feel strongly that 99.9% of 12 point hands should be opened. Even hands that may be an optional pass because of a lack of quick tricks, gain value by entering the auction first and early. This would be less of an advantage in good fields, but in the normal mixed club games or bbo tourneys there are plenty of pairs that will find ways to mess up over light openings. This might be because they are talked out of bidding or of going to game. It might be because they end up choosing to overcall the light 1M with 2m when 5422 and miss a major fit. There are plenty of pitfalls.

 

jmc

[mike777]

<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> EW </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KT92 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> QT985 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 87 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Q8 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 843 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> K32 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AQJ94 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> T9 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> A75 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> A4 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> T2 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> K76432 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> QJ6 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> J76 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> K653 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AJ5 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->

 

West  North East  South

 

 -     -     -     1♦

 Pass  1♥    2♣    Pass

 Pass  Dbl   Pass  2NT

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

With a few partners Yes I open this hand type or even less. Yes, I make a support x on this hand type. Partners expect it and full thought out system follow ups with it. You either agree to open these hands or you do not but you should not try and reinvent your agreements in the middle of the hand.

 

If you think the "law" protects you at low levels you need to push it and find your lawful level. If you think the "law" is a bunch of crap then you design something else.

 

With a pickup partner I have an easy pass.

[Guest Jlall]

I think it is the majority action to open this hand, but its certainly not wrong to pass. Whatever style your partnership plays you should stick to it.

 

Similarly if you play mandatory support Xs you should make a supp X, otherwise not. In answer to jdonns question, what can it gain, partner will play you for 3 hearts. If you play mandatory support Xs and you don't make one partner is not going to play you for 3 hearts later in the auction unless you do something drastic (which would defeat the point of passing).

 

I think that 2N instead of 2H is a poor choice though.

[Finch]

I think it is the majority action to open this hand, but its certainly not wrong to pass. Whatever style your partnership plays you should stick to it.

Quite.

 

If you play mandatory support doubles, you should double. I've agreed with my partner that if a hand is worth an opening bid, it's normally (80%+ of the time) worth a support double, the only exception being if the overcall has made your hand noticeably worse/more defensive/more suitable for NT play. Or if you only opened for a laugh (i.e. it isn't an opening bid at all).

 

As for whether yukky 12 point hands should be opened, it depends on the form of scoring and the vulnerability. NV at mps - yes, 90% of the yukky ones; 2nd seat vul at imps - no, almost none of them. NV at mps there is a huge 'first mover' advantage to getting in the auction. When you are vul, the -200s in 1NT, and the at imps the 3NT contracts they make because they know where the high cards are, mitigate against opening.

 

Also, the more serious the event and the better the opposition, the more likely I am to pass a 12-count. In a fun event, it's generally more fun to be in the auction, and the pre-emptive value of opening is worth more than the inferences opponents get from your bidding. I've opened hands in 4th seat in a local league match against a weakish team simply because our team-mates can be a bit slow and we'll only be waiting around for longer if we pass a board out.

 

As for what makes a 12-count yukky - my husband quite likes the 6-4-2-1 point count (is this the 4 aces one?) - find the total and multiply by 3/4, which gives 11.25 (not an opening bid). I prefer to look at the hand and say "no aces, too many jacks" which is much the same thing. Most 12 counts I pass have no aces in them.

 

Things that make a hand yukky:

More queens and jacks than aces and kings

No aces (yes, an additional one, aces are such good cards)

Short honours

No pips

4-3-3-3 distribution

 

This particular hand is marginal for me. Plus points are it has an ace and a king and no doubleton honours. Minus points are 4-3-3-3, a 4:2 ratio of QJ to AKand no pips.

 

Make the hand

 

QJ9

J109

K1098

AJ10

 

and I think virtually everyone would open.

 

 

(NB: this is all in the context of a virtually-unlimited-1-level-opening system such as standard american 2/1; playing limited openers is a totally different kettle of fish)

[barmar]

This hand seems like a particularly yucky 12-count. Most 4333 12-counts have 8 losers, this one has 9.

[skjaeran]

Opening any 12 point hands and most 11 counts, this is a clear opening to me. Systemically I'd open 1♣, not 1♦. But that's an aside.

 

I'd make a support double. Failing that, I'd rebid 2♥ over north's double.

[awm]

I'd pass the south hand. I've found that 4333 hands are really pretty bad in terms of playing strength. In general I pass most 4333 12-counts, and open most 12-counts with other patterns (except if holding Qx or Jx in my doubleton). There are exceptions for hands with really nice spots like Frances' example (which I would open of course).

 

I agree with others that 2♥ is a standout bid over the double of 2♣.

[mike777]

I'd pass the south hand. I've found that 4333 hands are really pretty bad in terms of playing strength. In general I pass most 4333 12-counts, and open most 12-counts with other patterns (except if holding Qx or Jx in my doubleton). There are exceptions for hands with really nice spots like Frances' example (which I would open of course).

 

I agree with others that 2♥ is a standout bid over the double of 2♣.

I think all of this is fine but in my continuing posts it seems clear there is no "standard expert" in opening hands despite such strong denials from many. Opening hand strength is greatly varied around the world as well as the USA. Just see threads such as this one.

[awm]

Of course there is no "standard" and it's all system dependent. You could agree to open most balanced 11s, or pass most balanced 12s, and as long as partner knows what to expect it doesn't really effect things much. Occasionally there will be hands where one style or the other is superior.

 

But I think it's fairly accepted that this is a lousy hand:

 

QJ2

QJ2

QJ32

QJ2

 

whereas this is a much better hand:

 

65

AQT8

AJT9

542

 

The second hand is probably at least a point better than the first. I am sure you can find people who would open both hands, or people who would pass both hands. But I doubt you can find many good players who would open the first hand and pass the second. All of 4333 shape, bad spots, and queens+jacks rather than aces+kings downgrade the first hand.

 

The fact that, for me, the example hand that started this thread is a bit short of opening, whereas for others (like Justin) it's an opening bid is just a matter of style and mostly misses the point. We both acknowledge that "this is a bad twelve-count" and just differ on whether we open bad twelves.