What's your call?
1, 2 or pass?
#1
Posted 2014-November-17, 16:21
What's your call?
#2
Posted 2014-November-17, 18:22
#3
Posted 2014-November-19, 03:39
#4
Posted 2014-November-19, 17:06
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.
#5
Posted 2014-November-19, 17:28
1♥ by default. Not proud of it but rebidding them says that.
What is baby oil made of?
#6
Posted 2014-November-19, 19:17
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.)
#7
Posted 2014-November-19, 22:11
#8
Posted 2014-November-19, 23:40
Nabooba, on 2014-November-19, 22:11, said:
Yes. The late David Ashley required all of his HCP to reside outside the 2-bid suit.
#9
Posted 2014-November-20, 00:35
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....
#10
Posted 2014-November-20, 02:58
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).
#11
Posted 2014-November-20, 03:36
#13
Posted 2014-November-20, 04:37
mikeh, on 2014-November-20, 00:35, said:
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.