1, 2 or pass?

[Jinksy]

Playing 2/1. MP, nil vul, first in:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq9hkt9872dq5cat3]133|100[/hv]

 

What's your call?

[whereagles]

1♥. Defensive values lower the ODR, so a 1-level seems more appropriate.

[Cthulhu D]

I'd bang down 1H without thinking about it that much (yeah the two Qx doubletons suck, but 6 hearts, so no rebid issues) - which is making me question my 2H bid in the other thread because that is a better hand that this which is a miserable 11 count.

[biggerclub]

Maybe my partners are trained to expect this from me. What I don't like about this is that I lack 2 defensive tricks. But I cannot imagine this hand not contributing to 2 tricks on defense . . . unless we're defending a slam . . . so maybe it's OK.

 

Here, whatever P bids, I am rebidding 2♥s, which ought to slow her down a bit. If she doesn't fit ♥s then the Qxs should be specially useful whether we declare or defend. Having rebid ♥s, I will just keep making the most discouraging bids I can if I find myself in a GF auction.

[ggwhiz]

Too good for 2♥ in any partnership I know of and pass followed by 2♠ by them back to me, however they get there is to be avoided at all costs.

 

1♥ by default. Not proud of it but rebidding them says that.

[Jinksy]

I voted for 1♥ in the other thread, and, at least of the table with this one, 2♥. I still can't decide on this one, though. Take away the intermediates, and I definitely think it's too weak to open 1♥ - but then, the 2♥ bid gets less attractive.

 

Even with them, I'm not crazy about it. I'm trying as a heuristic for borderline opening hands* giving P a 4333 13 count with as-prime-as-possible scattered values - ie an easy-to-model sort of hand that GFes virtually 100% of the time over an opening bid but signs off as cheaply as possibly opposite a passed hand. Here if we give him Kxxx Axx Kxx Kxx, this looks like a non-awful but dodgy MP game(***) (remove the T♥ and it looks quite a bit worse). So my instinct is 2♥ at MP. At teams I'd like to have a specific agreement with P about which of opener or responder stretches for thin games** - if the latter, I'd open 2♥ then as well, if the former, 1♥.

 

* I'd be independently interested in comments on whether this seems like a good heuristic

** And I'd be interested if there's a consensus on which strategy is better. I have a feeling the latter has more support, but I'm not sure how I formed that impression, and don't have any strong reason to support it

(ETA: *** Wait, this is bollocks. With the ♥T9, I think we're around 50% after allowing for possible ruffs. So, following this heuristic, those cards make this just about a 1-bid.)

[Nabooba]

This is a 1♥ opening with 8 of my 11 points outside the ♥ suit.

[aguahombre]

This is a 1♥ opening with 8 of my 11 points outside the ♥ suit.

Yes. The late David Ashley required all of his HCP to reside outside the 2-bid suit.

[mikeh]

Pass.

 

I just don't get it. In real life most players aren't good enough to be as aggressive as they seem to be on these forums.

 

I know there is a school of thought that says that there cannot be a hand too good to open a weak 2 and not good enough to open a 1 bid, but the adherents to that school are being silly. This hand is simply wrong, in terms of honour location, to open a weak 2, and too weak in terms of basic hand evaluation to open a 1 bid unless one is deliberately playing very light opening bids, or playing a strong club method.

 

Those who argue, for example, that they fear a weak 2♠ on their left, passed to them, are nuts. Wtf makes anyone fantasize that of all the possible developments the very worst will always happen? Why get out of bed in the morning? Why not pay some tiny bit of attention to the idea that maybe after we open this, our partner will not like what happens next? [/end rant]

 

Make it xx KQ1098x Qx A10x or Qx KQ1098x xx A10x and it seems to me to be a clear opening, but I would trust that everyone past the beginner stage would see that we are discussing hands that are almost a full trick different in playing strength from the original hand.

 

I tell you, seeing how people value hands these days makes me think about getting back to playing....

[Cthulhu D]

My thoughts on this is it is a matter of style and methods - I think holding that hand someone is clearly going to open the bidding and someone is atleast making a part score. If I accept that as the condition of contest, I want to be the first to get my bid on the table, as that gives partner the maximum information to compete. I'm not planning to bid again with this hand unless forced by partner, or it's totally obvious (2H rebid as required) I'm not sure it matters about how good you are, you just have to have the methods that let you stop before you get too high.

 

Like, I am evaluating that hand as a bad 11 count. It's not a question of evaluation imho. I'm just saying we've agreed to open bad 11 counts, and thus holding a bad 11 count with no rebid problems I'm happy to just do that.

 

It's a very different philosophy - make the first bid for the partnership aggressively, and are conservative in our responses. Additionally, wherever possible we endevour to play methods that allow us to stop at the LoTT position. We think this is good because the bid of 1H conveys so much more information than Pass, we think we should strive to bid. I'm reluctant to pass, not because I think this a good hand, but because I miss an opportunity to add significant definition to my hand and communicate a lot of information to partner.

 

I'm not sure if this is right tbh, it could be that the costs outweighs the benefits - but I do think it is very important that this style needs to be matched with methods that let you get off the train before you overbid. Multiple ways to raise while keeping the auction low really, really help in this. I suspect this style is only playable because partner can get off the pain train at a low level before you get demolished.

 

I also think that it is very fun style, though you have to be sound and disciplined in responding and sometimes this makes sequences feel underutilized (anything 2/1 GF, because I am pretty sure that requiring a balanced 13 count over a balanced 12 count to force to game reduces the frequency markedly).

[jdeegan]

Wtp? 1♥. Maybe you want to start with 2♥? Not a crazy instinct, but still off percentage to me.

[jdeegan]

Yes. The late David Ashley required all of his HCP to reside outside the 2-bid suit.

Sorry to hear David passed on.

[Jinksy]

I know there is a school of thought that says that there cannot be a hand too good to open a weak 2 and not good enough to open a 1 bid, but the adherents to that school are being silly. This hand is simply wrong, in terms of honour location, to open a weak 2, and too weak in terms of basic hand evaluation to open a 1 bid unless one is deliberately playing very light opening bids, or playing a strong club method.

 

FWIW, I might have passed if vul. First in NV (esp favourable), it feels like your preempts should be quite wide-ranging, since the multiplier of (damage to your opps auction) is higher and of (damage to your auction) is lower, and opening weak 2s with some defence raises each base value by presumably about the same amount.