[skjaeran]

A simple 1♥.
Higher openings misdescribe the hand.
I'm comfortable opening at the 1-level. Overcalls will just help out when I later declare some number of hearts. And I've got decent defence too.

[foo]

jdonn, on Jun 1 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

What, if I may be so bold as to ask, is wrong with 1♥ rather than lying about our trump length as forumers love to do so much?

pass-pass-pass-???

♠KQ♥KJT9xxx♦Kxx♣x

Justin, Intermediate 2's are Standard in 4th seat.

We have a flawed 12 count (no A's, KQ tight). That leaves 28 Highs for the rest of the table and since no one opened or preeempted the odds are good that everyone has unexceptional 9 counts (1/3 CHO has an unexceptional 10 count.)

We have 3 controls. 3N or 4M requires 7+ usually. If CHO had 4 controls, the odds go up that they would have an opening bid. Thus the percentages are that the remaining 4 A's + 1 K are more or less evenly split around the table.

The odds of Us having a Game do not look good. This looks like a partscore hand.


We only have 2 S's. CHO did not bid S's, so the odds that They have S's and not Us is reasonably high.

Opening 1♥ looks like it rates to make things too easy for the opponents.

Opening 2♥ is both practical and darn close to dead on as a description of our likely trick taking strength in this seat (the extra trump balances out the KQ tight.)

Heck, @ IMPs I might open this 3♥. Especially if They are Red.

[jdonn]

foo, on Jun 1 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 1 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

What, if I may be so bold as to ask, is wrong with 1♥ rather than lying about our trump length as forumers love to do so much?

pass-pass-pass-???

♠KQ♥KJT9xxx♦Kxx♣x

Justin, Intermediate 2's are Standard in 4th seat.

We have a flawed 12 count (no A's, KQ tight). That leaves 28 Highs for the rest of the table and since no one opened or preeempted the odds are good that everyone has unexceptional 9 counts (1/3 CHO has an unexceptional 10 count.)

We have 3 controls. 3N or 4M requires 7+ usually. If CHO had 4 controls, the odds go up that they would have an opening bid. Thus the percentages are that the remaining 4 A's + 1 K are more or less evenly split around the table.

The odds of Us having a Game do not look good. This looks like a partscore hand.


We only have 2 S's. CHO did not bid S's, so the odds that They have S's and not Us is reasonably high.

Opening 1♥ looks like it rates to make things too easy for the opponents.

Opening 2♥ is both practical and darn close to dead on as a description of our likely trick taking strength in this seat (the extra trump balances out the KQ tight.)

Heck, @ IMPs I might open this 3♥. Especially if They are Red.

As usual you have offered a lot of analysis, most of which is to put it bluntly wrong or irrelevent. For example

You don't need as many controls as usual for game when you have a 7 card suit. This should be patently obvious.

Having more hearts than your bid shows doesn't "balance out" having a KQ tight, since when do two wrongs make a right? Having 2 features that are undesirable for a bid make it even less desirable, not back to where you started.

The opponents are <50% to have 8 or more spades. They are in fact even slightly less likely than the odds would suggest since more hands open light in 3rd seat with spade length.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jun 1 2007, 01:30 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 1 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

What, if I may be so bold as to ask, is wrong with 1♥ rather than lying about our trump length as forumers love to do so much?

Thanks, thought I was just going insane when I saw all the 2H vs 3H debate lol.


BTW to me 3H shows a very good hand not something like this or close to this.

If the queen was in hearts instead of spades with the same shape I would think 3♥ is right. Is that not a good enough hand to you? Good for me to know anyway.

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Jun 1 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jun 1 2007, 12:11 PM, said:

We don't care about partner here

Ok now I see the problem. You should care, you could have game too easily, there is just no reason to misdescribe your hand. I don't understand why it's the end of the world if they overcall, my defense vs. 3♠ if they choose to bid it is very fair.

I can buy that this hand may be too strong for 2♥. I do not agree that this hand contains better defense than would be expected for a 2♥ opener.

[ochinko]

foo, on Jun 1 2007, 06:28 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jun 1 2007, 05:16 AM, said:

All Vul, MP, West

pass-pass-pass-???

♠KQ♥KJT9xxx♦Kxx♣x

The "book bid" with this hand is 2♥

I see no reason to mastermind.

The "book bid" with this hand is Pass actually, because it doesn't fit in the Rule of 15 (pts + spades). Yet no one passed it so far.

2♥ in 4th position means a six cards suit and 14 points. Maybe good 13, maybe excellent 12. But not these 12.

We have too little defense, first as a general strength, second, because of the wasted holding in spades, and third, because of the extra length in hearts. That's why I'd even prefer passing rather than opening 1/2♥ inviting opps to find their spade fit against which I have no defense.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Jun 1 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 1 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jun 1 2007, 12:11 PM, said:

We don't care about partner here

Ok now I see the problem. You should care, you could have game too easily, there is just no reason to misdescribe your hand. I don't understand why it's the end of the world if they overcall, my defense vs. 3♠ if they choose to bid it is very fair.

I can buy that this hand may be too strong for 2♥. I do not agree that this hand contains better defense than would be expected for a 2♥ opener.

But that's not what I said. I said/implied that I don't mind if the opponents get in and end up bidding (say) 3♠ since I have good defense against that. So I still don't see what is wrong with 1♥. Ohmygosh the opponents might overcall, the world is over!

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Jun 1 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

No, it says 6 hearts, but when people say it's the bid they want to make they change the definition to 6+ hearts.

Why? This may have merrits in 1st and 2nd seat, but in 4th seat I see no reason not to allow 2♥ with a 7-card.

[mike777]

One heart. No problems yet.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jun 1 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 1 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

No, it says 6 hearts, but when people say it's the bid they want to make they change the definition to 6+ hearts.

Why? This may have merrits in 1st and 2nd seat, but in 4th seat I see no reason not to allow 2♥ with a 7-card.

Because partner will pass on hands where game is good and he holds a stiff heart, not knowing the trump situation is so secure.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Jun 1 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

Ohmygosh the opponents might overcall, the world is over!

yeah sometimes people overreact on that

[mr1303]

Well someone has passed now, and that someone was me. I just don't like this hand at all. My hand is aceless, minimum, and KQ doubleton of spades doesn't look up to much. If opponenets balance with spades I won't be happy. Partner needs something like an opening hand for us to make a game with these cards, so I very much doubt I'll do badly with passing the board out.

[Foxx]

1♥, wtp?

[jdonn]

What is this 'partner needs an opening hand for game' talk? QH AQD. Wrap it up. QD and any 2 aces, wrap it up. And there are only about a zillion hands where game is on a hook. Or partner has AJx(x) of spades and you get a fast pitch. We clearly have the best hand at the table, by a lot, how can we pass it out?

Btw any single one of those examples make game even if partner has a singleton heart, which just shows what I still consider the foolishness of 2+♥ as an opening bid.

[Fluffy]

I feel so lonelly at 4♥ *sigh*, oh well, 2 and 3♥ weren't an option in my system anyway