Sanity check

[wank]

how would 2S openers feel when it went double - 4S - double?

 

i'm guessing sick and would fully expect to go 2 off when the opps struggle to make a part score

[Fluffy]

how would 2S openers feel when it went double - 4S - double?

 

i'm guessing sick and would fully expect to go 2 off when the opps struggle to make a part score

you can find worse scenario for anything, pass might lead to 1♥-p-4♥ from the opponents, and 1♠ might find partner doubling something that is making, this probes nothing.

[P_Marlowe]

If I decide against Pass, than I open 1S.

 

Technically and given the vulnerability the hand would fit, our req.

for either a 1S opening or a 2S opening.

But my partner does not like an 2S opening, when the points are so

much distributed.

All in all - if I wrote, that the hand full fills our technical req., than it

is only by the letter, not by the spirit.

 

And regarding 1S opening - the hand is garbage, but you have the

spades and an easy rebid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gwnn]

I admit I would bid 1♠ on this. I am not proud of this at all.

 

2M is sick btw.

[MFA]

how would 2S openers feel when it went double - 4S - double?

 

i'm guessing sick and would fully expect to go 2 off when the opps struggle to make a part score

This is all backwards. I, who supported the idea of opening 2♠ with this, specifically pointed out that it has to be in our agreed range.

If we have agreed that 2♠ could be this hand then my partner won't suddenly hope for a perfecto and hang me.

[jdonn]

how would 2S openers feel when it went double - 4S - double?

 

i'm guessing sick and would fully expect to go 2 off when the opps struggle to make a part score

This is all backwards. I, who supported the idea of opening 2♠ with this, specifically pointed out that it has to be in our agreed range.

If we have agreed that 2♠ could be this hand then my partner won't suddenly hope for a perfecto and hang me.

I don't think it's quite so simple. If this hand is on one end of your agreed range, he may sacrifice when it would only be successful over another portion of your agreed range and still bad over this hand. That should at least be acknowledged.

[chasetb]

I don't see how you can pass this hand- THAT'S the sick thing to do imo. If I am playing Ogust over a weak 2, then I am absolutely opening this 2♠, otherwise I am opening 1♠ and planning on a 2♠ rebid. I want to push the opps around, and opening is my way of doing it.

[mike777]

I don't see how you can pass this hand- THAT'S the sick thing to do imo.  If I am playing Ogust over a weak 2, then I am absolutely opening this 2♠, otherwise I am opening 1♠ and planning on a 2♠ rebid.  I want to push the opps around, and opening is my way of doing it.

I can understand a very very easy pass with this hand....

 

 

Just read Al roth...

 

 

Your comments make me wonder do you read about bridge...about bridge over last 60 years....

 

 

If you disagree ok...many good players do....but please read bridge..

 

 

Al Roth won alot...and he won with many partners.......

 

In fact I would have no problems playing with Al ...if he can read current bridge and play against you.

[the hog]

1S. If you want to pass, ok, but you do have the boss suit. 2S? No way!

[nigel_k]

Kaplan/Rubens values this at 9.05

 

The people who suggested 1♠ are either point count addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand. It just doesn't qualify unless your requirements are much lower than standard. The choices are 2♠ or pass.

[aguahombre]

1S. If you want to pass, ok, but you do have the boss suit. 2S? No way!

welcome back

I choose pass, but 1S second choice --the boss suit is still there later, after pass.

"No way" is my feeling about 2S, too. Center opponent is the one I don't want to fool.

[gnasher]

Kaplan/Rubens values this at 9.05

 

The people who suggested 1♠ are either point count addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

The Bowles evaluation method* values this as an opening bid. The people who suggest it's a pass are either Kaplan/Rubens addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

 

Doesn't that make just as much sense as what you posted?

 

* This method consists of looking at the hand and deciding how much I like it.

[billw55]

What an interesting thread.

 

One thing I find surprising are all the comments (from non-2♠ bidders) about the "weak suit" and the "outside values", even describing those values as "defensive". Personally I don't think a bunch of short suit quacks count for much value, and certainly not much defense. Which is my reason for not choosing 1♠ - shouldn't a first seat opener show something real on defense?

 

As for the "weak suit" - OK it's not great, but I have held a lot worse than KJ98xx. I would call that an average six card suit. True we are vulnerable, but still.

[helene_t]

Interesting thread. I would certainly have opened 2♠ at the table. The low O-D makes it important to make the relatively safe 2♠ opening bid rather than a risky 2♠ overcall at my next turn.

 

Maybe I should change my habits. Or at least discuss it with partners. Some partners like to raise my preempts on hands with a shockingly low O-D, say a balanced hand with Hx in my suit, or a 4333 with xxx in my suit. That is safe opposite a disciplined preempt but not opposite one of my preempts. Of course, sometimes I will have a textbook preempt and then it's a shame if p can't raise aggressively.

 

Agree with Nigel and the K-R evaluator that this hand is worth about the 9.05 HCPs. Even playing Precision I would not open this hand 1♠. Much less playing 2/1.

[hotShot]

Kaplan/Rubens values this at 9.05

 

The people who suggested 1♠ are either point count addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

The Bowles evaluation method* values this as an opening bid. The people who suggest it's a pass are either Kaplan/Rubens addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

 

Doesn't that make just as much sense as what you posted?

 

* This method consists of looking at the hand and deciding how much I like it.

Actually Kaplan and Rubens supplied formulas for everybody to replicate their method.

 

So if I wished to adopt K/R i could do so.

 

If I where to believe that the Bowles evaluation method (BEM) is superior , I doubt I could replicate your evaluation.

[hanp]

I think the K-R evaulator puts way too much emphasis on honors in long suits. I agree that this hand is not quite an opening though, and 2S is disgusting.

[Fluffy]

I like the Bowles method, can you give me an executable file or script to use it? :lol:

[fred]

For me, if playing a natural system:

 

2S is normal but questionable. I have some sympathy for Pass, but I have zero sympathy for 1S.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

compare this to

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=35651

 

it's mostly the same problem (of course it makes sense to bid spades lighter than hearts, which I think is why I opened this 1♠ but was reluctant to do so on the other hand). I wonder if the same people have the same choices. I will cross-check.

 

anyway of course I'm happy that this thread exists, now we learned about the Bowles method :lol:

 

I kind of remember a similar thread from longer ago but I can't find it.

[nigel_k]

Kaplan/Rubens values this at 9.05

 

The people who suggested 1♠ are either point count addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

The Bowles evaluation method* values this as an opening bid. The people who suggest it's a pass are either Kaplan/Rubens addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

 

Doesn't that make just as much sense as what you posted?

 

* This method consists of looking at the hand and deciding how much I like it.

Heh. I suspect one difference is that Kaplan/Rubens is designed to get to contracts that most of us can make while the Bowles method is designed for getting to contracts that only Andy Bowles can make.

 

Still, this is really quite a bad hand. Before using K/R I looked at the hand and decided how much I liked it and the answer was 'not much'. K/R is just a shortcut way to attach a number to the things that make this hand bad.

[bluecalm]

Pretty sure this is one of those things that lots of people teach that is absolutely terrible advice. The flaw in the thinking is that whether or not to preempt is determined by points, which it is not. So the thought process should be:

 

Why "preempt" ? Why not think about 2M openings as just weak openings with 6card majors ? Not as "preempts".

Going through generated hadns I think 2♠ works best. This is why I open it. I don't care at all about beauty points.

[fred]

Dealer: South Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ KJ9854 ♥ Q4 ♦ Q86 ♣ QJ

There is one strange reason to be optimistic about this hand:

 

Any Kings and Queens that partner was dealt are working cards.

 

For me that helps justify opening at the 2-level, but not at the 1-level. With respect to opening 1S, I can't get past the close to zero quick tricks.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

well, shame on you fred :)

 

zero quick tricks, but lots of slow ones eheh

[jmcw]

6 card suit, 2 of top 4 and less than an opener = 2♠

Whats the problem again?

[the hog]

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> KJ9854 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> Q4 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> Q86 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> QJ </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

There is one strange reason to be optimistic about this hand:

 

Any Kings and Queens that partner was dealt are working cards.

 

For me that helps justify opening at the 2-level, but not at the 1-level. With respect to opening 1S, I can't get past the close to zero quick tricks.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

This comment appears to be oxymoronic. If the quacks are working cards then they are working in a 1 level contract as well. A 2S opening, (or its equivalent), should be a much purer bid in my opinion. All 2S will do is to confuse partner; I regard it as a very poor bid. As I said, I don't mind pass, and would do so with certain more conservative partners.