[Trinidad]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-12, 14:13, said:

I sure hope that all of these 1♠ bidders have a really good hand when they invite game. LOL.

Why? This hand is an easy accept opposite a limit raise.

The problem with this hand comes when it is a misfit: Partner will bid 2/1 and we get to a bad 3NT.

But when partner has support this is a very nice opening.

Rik

[ArtK78]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-12, 16:33, said:

Why? This hand is an easy accept opposite a limit raise.

The problem with this hand comes when it is a misfit: Partner will bid 2/1 and we get to a bad 3NT.

But when partner has support this is a very nice opening.

Rik

Did I say invite game with a fit?

[Lord Molyb]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-12, 16:39, said:

Did I say invite game with a fit?

1♠ - 1nt (forcing)
2♣/♠ - 2nt
Like this?

[sfi]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-12, 16:39, said:

Did I say invite game with a fit?

You really do see things negatively, don't you? This hand has fitting honours in three suits, honours in the long suits, a source of tricks, an easy rebid, and pretty good defence. What exactly are you missing for an opening bid?

Sure you might go down in 3nt when partner doesn't have the right hand. But if partner pushes to game without a fit it's likely to have reasonable play. And if partner supports spades you'll probably take a lot of tricks.

[Cyberyeti]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-12, 15:24, said:

There is something to what you say, but I think you are going too far. The example hand is a 7-loser hand, which, if I grant that it is an opening bid (and I do not), I would classify the hand as minimum opening bid (at least for MLTC, it is as good as a minimum opening hand). If I hold a 7 loser hand as my opening bid, and my partner makes a simple raise, I would not consider even inviting game. For me, it takes a 6 loser hand to invite game, as a typical simple raise contains 2 - 2 1/2 cover cards (sorry for all of the losing trick count analysis - I know that it drives some people nuts to hear about losing trick count analysis, as they give it little or no credence. Their loss).

It brings to mind a saying that one of my regular partners is fond of employing after he goes down in a contract where he was hopelessly outgunned: "Too many high card points were offside!"

Many people treat AJ10 as less than 2 losers (I've seen 1 and 1.5 used) so this is not a 7 loser hand for me (not that I use LTC).

[ArtK78]

 sfi, on 2013-February-12, 16:55, said:

You really do see things negatively, don't you? This hand has fitting honours in three suits, honours in the long suits, a source of tricks, an easy rebid, and pretty good defence. What exactly are you missing for an opening bid?

Values?

[sfi]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-12, 18:12, said:

Values?

You do realise it's a chunky 6-4 with 11 points and good intermediates? If I gave you the DJ to make a full 12 count, would that make so much difference?

[ArtK78]

 sfi, on 2013-February-12, 19:39, said:

You do realise it's a chunky 6-4 with 11 points and good intermediates? If I gave you the DJ to make a full 12 count, would that make so much difference?

11 points? You can't seriously be counting the ♥Q?

If I replaced the ♥Q with the ♥2, would you still open the hand 1♠?

[655321]

Can't think of doing anything except opening 1♠, what am I missing?

[sfi]

 ArtK78, on 2013-February-12, 21:05, said:

11 points? You can't seriously be counting the ♥Q?

If I replaced the ♥Q with the ♥2, would you still open the hand 1♠?

At the risk of asking an obvious question, you do realise that assets increase in value as well as decrease?

The HQ isn't worthless. A priori maybe it's half its nominal value - maybe a bit less but probably not more. However, if you're counting the spades as 5 points you're underestimating their worth by at least a point, probably more like 1.5 points. Similarly, the KJ87 is worth rather more than 4 points - the 87 alone rate to be half a point on the average hand and the J is probably 1.5 points. If you're counting points, that adds up to about 12 plus whatever distributional values you want to throw in.

And yes, I think that opening this hand without the HQ is normal. Opening 2S stretches the range of that enough to make it very hard for partner to judge what to do, and passing that hand is just losing bridge. With the HQ it's a clear opener, and worth further action on many sequences.

[ArtK78]

This discussion is pointless, and some of the arguments being made border on silly. You are not going to convince me to open this hand with a one bid, and I am not going to convince you to open it with a two bid in second seat. So let's leave it at that.

[Codo]

1 ♠ because I have an opening bid.
4 ♠ may work from time to time, but why should I thorw a bomb if I do not need to?

2 ♠ is for senior citizens who like to have "full values" for their bids- for me this hand is much too strong for a weak two bid...

[ArtK78]

 Codo, on 2013-February-14, 10:49, said:

2 ♠ is for senior citizens who like to have "full values" for their bids- for me this hand is much too strong for a weak two bid...

I will respond to this post as soon as I find my scooter and my cane.

Is it a crime to have "full values" for one's bids? Or does every bid have to be subminimum?

What strikes me as funny is that everyone expects partner to have full values for their bids, but their own bids, not so much.

[aguahombre]

What happened to "Leave it at that." in your previous post?

[ArtK78]

I will "leave it at that" when others do likewise.

While I am old enough for the ACBL senior pairs (although I have never played in the event), I don't yet consider myself a "senior citizen." I am not yet on social security, nor am I retired.

Nor do I appreciate it when my choice of opening is disparaged (or is it complimented) by attributing it to "senior citizens who like to have 'full values' for their bids." I assumed it was a disparaging remark since the poster then stated that it was not his choice.

[aguahombre]

Just for the record Senior Citizens who like to have full values for their opening bids are no different from Citizens of any age who like to have full values...or my spouse, who is a senior alien.

Many of us senior citizens took no offense, because we believe the given hand fits our definition of full values --- the values expected by the guy across the table who matters.

I wouldn't dream of trying to convince anyone that their requirements of a 1-bid vs. a 2-bid vs a pass are wrong.

I don't mind expressing what I think is the difference between the choices, and why. You don't agree with that assessment. Next case, we might agree; and that should worry you.

[Zelandakh]

Full values for an opening bid are what you and your partner have agreed them to be. That would be different for a Fantunes pair than for a pair playing Moscito. Where there is perhaps some disagreement within that is in hands that have lots of potential but are perhaps not so good if we are defending or find a misfit. I think this hand is just too good to pass up in the modern game. You have 11 points and a 6421 with good honour structures in the 2 long suits. Sure you want to downgrade the ♥Q by at least a point but the hand is still good enough, at least for me. And I am happy to expect such a hand from partner too.

[Cyberyeti]

To the people who pass, what are you going to do over 1♥-P-3/4♥ ? This is a decision I don't want to take which is a large part of the reason I open 1♠.

[Galbrayek]

I'll open 1♠ even though there's no ♥Q

[Galbrayek]

I'll open 1♠ even though there's no ♥Q