Judgement call

[hrothgar]

IMPS

Red v Red

 

You're playing a simple version of Blue Club

1M openings show 4+ cards, might have a longer suit

1M openings are relatively sound

 

You hold

 

♠ T2

♥ A9742

♦ AKT8

♣ 72

 

Here's the auction

 

1♥ - (P) - 3♥ - (P)

???

 

Partner's 3♥ raise is an old fashioned limit raise with 4+ card support

 

Whats your call?

[whereagles]

Dunno if I should bid or pass, so that means bid.

[TimG]

If someone picks the 5th poll option, are they really abstaining?

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

You have a min. opening hand, at least if you open

sound.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gnasher]

Pass. I might have opened T2 A9742 AQT8 72, but not anything weaker, so this is one point above a bare minimum.

[TimG]

I think that one of the poll questions highlights some wrong thinking: "Pass This is damn far from a maximum 1H opening". The question isn't whether the hand is maximum or minimum, but rather whether there is a good expectation of making game opposite a limit raise.

 

The given hand counts to 6 losers (adjusting for two more aces than queens). A limit raise is typically 8 losers. This means we should bid game.

 

I might have opened T2 A9742 AQT8 72, but not anything weaker, so this is one point above a bare minimum.

You also would have opened T2 A9742 AK8 T72. Same points but not as good as the actual 2542 hand.

[P_Marlowe]

I think that one of the poll questions highlights some wrong thinking: "Pass This is damn far from a maximum 1H opening". The question isn't whether the hand is maximum or minimum, but rather whether there is a good expectation of making game opposite a limit raise.

 

The given hand counts to 6 losers (adjusting for two more aces than queens). A limit raise is typically 8 losers. This means we should bid game.

 

I might have opened T2 A9742 AQT8 72, but not anything weaker, so this is one point above a bare minimum.

You also would have opened T2 A9742 AK8 T72. Same points but not as good as the actual 2542 hand.

...

 

What does a limit raise ask?

 

A limit raise asks opener to have a look at his hand

to decide if he has a min., with which he would decline

the invitation, or if he had a max. with which he would

accept the invitation.

 

And this means that partner should take into account, how

does a min. opener look like.

 

I dont mind, if you say the hand can be upgraded to

a 6 looser hand due to controls excess, but than you

upgrade the hand, and this means in effect, you say

the hand could be whole lot worse.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[TimG]

What does a limit raise ask?

Maybe it's a minor semantic issue, but I prefer to think "what does a limit raise show?"

[Finch]

What does a limit raise ask?

Maybe it's a minor semantic issue, but I prefer to think "what does a limit raise show?"

This seems to be a circular argument.

 

A limit raise asks you to bid game if you have a better than minimum opening bid

A limit raise shows a hand where game is making if you have a better than minimum opening bid

 

"You also would have opened T2 A9742 AK8 T72..."

We have been told that we play "relatively sound" 1M openings, so I doubt whether either this hand or the 2542 10-count would be opening bids.

 

Anyway, this is a very hard question to answer, because very few of the respondents (including me) are used to playing a 4CM system and hence we aren't used to factoring in the value of the fifth trump in our hand on these auctions. Also, it depends what we call 'sound' 1M opening in the context of a Blue Club system.

[awm]

I'd bid game. Several reasons:

 

(1) I'd bid game opposite a four-card limit raise in standard methods with this hand. After all, something like KQxx Kxxx xx xxx makes for a fine game at this scoring, and this isn't a limit raise. In fact it is hard to construct ten-eleven point hands with doubleton diamond and four hearts where game is not worth bidding vulnerable at imps. And while partner might not have doubleton diamond, it is the most likely doubleton, and there are hands with three diamonds where game is quite cold like Axx KQxx Qxx xxx too (change either queen to a jack and it still is worth bidding game given the form of scoring).

 

(2) The opening style means that partner might have five trumps. While there's no guarantee, I assume that opposite the often four-card 1♥ opening partner would not force game with something like 10-11 points and five-card support. If partner has five trumps I really want to be in game; something like Axx Kxxxx xx xxx is an almost cold game (and again this isn't a limit raise).

[cherdano]

Not sure what "relatively sound" means, but compared to a 4432 12-count or a nice 2425 11-count this hand has quite some extras in playing strength opposite a 4-card limit raise. I would bid game.

[TimG]

"You also would have opened T2 A9742 AK8 T72..."

 

We have been told that we play "relatively sound" 1M openings, so I doubt whether this hand would be [an] opening bid.

I'm shocked! This 3 QT hand doesn't qualify as a "relatively sound" opening bid?

[han]

Close call, I'd usually bid game but I don't usually play sounds openings.

 

I've seen many threads where one partner posts a hand and the other then argues vehemently against the call chosen by the original poster or for the call chosen by himself. Playing with a partner almost as stubborn as myself I know how hard it can be to settle a difference of opinion, but this doesn't seem to be the best way to do it.

 

Yes, I know this is none of my business. :D

[jdonn]

I will bid game because I have no clue what is right in this system.

[TimG]

Close call, I'd usually bid game but I don't usually play sounds openings.

 

I've seen many threads where one partner posts a hand and the other then argues vehemently against the call chosen by the original poster or for the call chosen by himself. Playing with a partner almost as stubborn as myself I know how hard it can be to settle a difference of opinion, but this doesn't seem to be the best way to do it.

 

Yes, I know this is none of my business. :D

That would be me he's talking about. But, you are wrong about the thread being used to settle a difference of opinion.

[pclayton]

I pass.

 

Its a minimum, I have no shortness and 7 losers.

[han]

That would be me he's talking about. But, you are wrong about the thread being used to settle a difference of opinion.

Well, it was more of a general comment because I see it a lot and dislike it. If you arguing a lot against your partner's call on a public forum works well for your partnership then please ignore my comment, it depends a lot on the people involved.

[hrothgar]

That would be me he's talking about.  But, you are wrong about the thread being used to settle a difference of opinion.

Well, it was more of a general comment because I see it a lot and dislike it. If you arguing a lot against your partner's call on a public forum works well for your partnership then please ignore my comment, it depends a lot on the people involved.

Hi Han

 

For what its worth, the post mortem on this hand was initiated on this end...

 

I noted that I had no real clue what the right course of action was. I was (and still am) very much torn between Pass and 4♥. I didn't launch this thread to try to bolster support for my decision at the table, rather, I am genuinely hoping to get some more perspective on the hand.

 

Moreover, if I had trouble with this type of public critique, I probably wouldn't have launched the thread to begin with... (Maybe I've just been through one to many MathWorks design review sessions)

[TimG]

That would be me he's talking about.  But, you are wrong about the thread being used to settle a difference of opinion.

Well, it was more of a general comment because I see it a lot and dislike it. If you arguing a lot against your partner's call on a public forum works well for your partnership then please ignore my comment, it depends a lot on the people involved.

Sorry, Richard, if my comments have been non-constructive or inappropriate.

[Guest Jlall]

I think passing would be ridiculous.

 

As far as the "I wouldn't open with anything worse..." arguments, when you find a nine card fit controls become much stronger, side shape becomes much stronger (including 5422), and hands with bad trumps become much stronger (because you don't have much wasted). This hand may have been a minimum opener to start with but it is much stronger than that given new information. It is far better than say QJx KQJxx Kx Jxx which is obviously a pass.

 

We are also at the 3 level with this hand type and have no idea how the hands mesh. Partner may have xxx diamonds, or maybe Qxxxx, or maybe a doubleton, who knows. When that is the case vul at imps, it is almost always right to kick it in. By passing you're betting on 9 tricks. Sometimes you need game to be even less %age than usual because the possibility of going down more than 1 in game changes the odds even more in favor of bidding game. With this type of hand it wouldn't surprise me to make 8 tricks sometimes and 11 tricks sometimes.

 

Basically whenever it's close you should just be kicking it in, and this hand has enough positive features for me to justify that.

[rogerclee]

Auto 4♥. It is too likely that our hands mesh well (ruffing my losing diamonds for example). Without any room to investigate, I will just push.

[kenrexford]

4♥ for me.

 

A couple of thoughts, though. You are using an approach that obviously includes a tendency canape rather than a pure canape. When partner is in the tweener range, my experience is that the systemic approach should include some catering toward card placement and pattern resolution, or tight definitional information. An agreement with no more meat than "limit" preempts Opener from that full description.

 

My guess is that the tendency canape has some parameter nuance, such as a tendency to use a canape with a weak hand, or with extra strength, but not either. If this is the case, then the systemic approach should cater to this reality in some manner.

 

As a simple example of what I mean, consider the difference in the hand if the fifth red card is in diamonds instead of in hearts. A fifth diamond reduces the value of partner's fourth heart for ruffing power, but covers in diamonds become more useful than external shortness. A small doubleton diamond with four trumps is great opposite this hand, but it is less valuable if you have five diamonds and four hearts.

 

A simplistic approach that I would use regularly, if no discussion occurred, would be to have a tendency to bid a forcing 1NT (is this forcing?) a lot to allow partner to develop his hand pattern before I, as responder, decide how to treat the hand. When I played canape, my practice was to define a jump raise as showing five-card support because of this, and other reasons. Now, I used a pure canape and not tendency canape, which affects things.

 

With a high-end tendency (canape if strong), one would expect a 2♦ rebid after a forcing 1NT, limiting the hand and establishing that the suit order was natural, which would allow partner to better evaluate his hand, knowing whether he was dealing with a nine-fit or not.

[jtfanclub]

No expert as always, but....

 

if my partner makes a limit raise, I pass.

 

Why?

 

Because everybody I know who plays limit raises also plays sound openers. So this only just qualifies as an opening.

 

With a limit raise shown with more modern methods (such as 1NT followed by 3♥, or a Begen 3♦), they'll expect looser openings, at which point my hand becomes stronger than the expected minimum.

[neilkaz]

4♥ gets a 6 from me and pass a 4 out of ten.

 

I'll bid the game, suspecting it to be about 45% red at IMPs. I have a 5th ♥ and good controls. Lets hope pd has something useful in ♦ or enough stuff in the blacks(hopefully not all offside) and ruffing values in ♦.

 

.. neilkaz ..