[foo]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

Foo!

AT9xxx Qx x KQxx is a king less and is an opening hand.

AKT9xx Qx x Qxxx is a king less and is an opening hand.

Conclusion: this hand is a king more than a minimum.

These have only 9 working HCP. Not everyone will open them.

Neither of these hands is a example of a sound minimum opening bid. They are examples of aggressive openings being made at least in part on the basis of their shape and not their values.

If we count every HCP and use long suit adjustments, either hand is still only worth 13 points. If we discount the potentially wasted Q, that value goes down to 11 points.

The original hand is a hand everyone would open regardless of style. It is therefore a good example of an opening bid. But by the same logic, a minimum opening.

In addition, this auction has devalued opener's hand to some degree. Whatever extras you may think you started with apriori, they do not rate to exist given the context of this auction.

[foo]

RichMor, on Dec 23 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

1. Don't agree with the auction so far. The hand is good enought to rebid 3♣; good controls, Spade texture, upgraded Heart Queen. Nothing wrong with 2♠, but 3♣ is a little better.

...and how will you bid AKT9xx_Qx_x_AKxx ?

[gnasher]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 05:14 PM, said:

When you bid ♠'s 2x, then bid ♣'s, you showed your 64 shape (even if you play a style where  1S-2H;2S  could be 5).
...
Responder's most likely shapes are =1543 and =1552.

So with 5242/5143 opposite 1552, Foo playing with Foo plays in 3NT without even mentioning the diamond suit?

Quote

[Regarding Han's 11-point examples] If we count every HCP and use long suit adjustments, either hand is still only worth 13 points. If we discount the potentially wasted Q, that value goes down to 11 points.

Supposing that we accept this evaluation, once partner bids 2♥ are we allowed to treat ♥Q as worth a full 2 points? If so, in the auction given Han's 11-point examples would be worth 13. Therefore the originally posted hand is worth a king more than a 13-count.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-December-23, 11:24

[foo]

gnasher, on Dec 23 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 05:14 PM, said:

When you bid ♠'s 2x, then bid ♣'s, you showed your 64 shape (even if you play a style where  1S-2H;2S  could be 5).
...
Responder's most likely shapes are =1543 and =1552.

So with 2542/1543 opposite 1552, Foo playing with Foo plays in 3N without even mentioning the diamond suit?

Foo playing with Foo thinks this auction is nigh unto impossible because in his style of 2/1 GF, We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N

So 1S-2H;2S-2N starts off looking like =2533 or 25(42) better suited for NT
Not a shapely 5431 or 5521.

But when the auction continues ...;3C-3N Something Smells because with xx or better in ♠'s, responder should have raised ♠'s instead of bidding 3N. Nor did Responder introduce a m or raise ♣'s at any point. Where are the ♦'s?

The implication is that Responder has a =15(43) with a crappy ♦ suit or a hand not strong enough to raise 3C... ...and therefore a minimum 2/1.

[han]

Responder had something like J AKxxx AJx 98xx.

Comments?

[foo]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Responder had something like J AKxxx AJx 98xx.

Comments?

yep. A 1-♠ minimum 2/1 with ♦'s that could not be bid or that was too weak to raise 3C.

J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx
+
AKT9xx_Qx_x_KQxx

3N by N looks acceptable to me.

12 tricks may there DD, but being in slam looks greedy. Not SD odds on.

[RichMor]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Responder had something like J AKxxx AJx 98xx.

Comments?

Comment #1: 3NT is not our best spot.

Comment #2: The example hand makes sense in the context of 2NT/3NT expressing doubt.

[gnasher]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 06:38 PM, said:

Foo playing with Foo thinks this auction is nigh unto impossible because in his style of 2/1 GF, We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N

So  1S-2H;2S-2N  starts off looking like =2533 or 25(42) better suited for NT
Not a shapely 5431 or 5521.

But when the auction continues  ...;3C-3N  Something Smells because with xx or better in ♠'s, responder should have raised ♠'s instead of bidding 3N.  Nor did Responder introduce a m or raise ♣'s at any point.  Where are the ♦'s?

The implication is that Responder has a =15(43) with a crappy ♦ suit or a hand not strong enough to raise 3C... ...and therefore a minimum 2/1.

I'm surprised that you can't think of a better meaning for this 3NT bid than to say that responder's previous action was a misbid. At least you seem to have dropped the suggestion that he might be 1552.

If 2NT showed a doubleton spade, and (as you've previously told us) 3♣ showed 6-4, wouldn't 3NT be some sort of slam try for spades?

[JLOL]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Responder had something like J AKxxx AJx 98xx.

Comments?

LOL

[JLOL]

RichMor, on Dec 23 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

Comment #2: The example hand makes sense in the context of 2NT/3NT expressing doubt.

LOL

[foo]

gnasher, on Dec 23 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 06:38 PM, said:

Foo playing with Foo thinks this auction is nigh unto impossible because in his style of 2/1 GF, We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N

So  1S-2H;2S-2N  starts off looking like =2533 or 25(42) better suited for NT
Not a shapely 5431 or 5521.

But when the auction continues  ...;3C-3N  Something Smells because with xx or better in ♠'s, responder should have raised ♠'s instead of bidding 3N.  Nor did Responder introduce a m or raise ♣'s at any point.  Where are the ♦'s?

The implication is that Responder has a =15(43) with a crappy ♦ suit or a hand not strong enough to raise 3C... ...and therefore a minimum 2/1.

I'm surprised that you can't think of a better meaning for this 3N bid.

If 2N showed a doubleton spade, and (as you've previously told us) 3♣ showed 6-4, wouldn't 3NT be some sort of slam try for spades?

Responder may be endplayed into needing 3N in a misfit auction. As they were here in fact. (Do you want Responder to simply leap to 3N, as in 1S-2H;2S-3N , with J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx or the like?)

Therefore, it can not be Serious 3N.

Serious 3N is usually on only if We have agreed a fit in a Major.

[mike777]

edit

[gnasher]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

Responder may be endplayed into needing 3N in a misfit auction. As they were here in fact. (Do you want Responder to simply leap to 3N, as in 1S-2H;2S-3N , with J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx or the like?)

Therefore, it can not be Serious 3N.

Serious 3N is usually on only if We have agreed a fit in a Major.

So when you said that this auction was "nigh unto impossible" because "We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N", you actually meant that 2NT followed by 3NT is a perfectly normal action, showing a 1534 or 1543 shape with a poor second suit?

[foo]

gnasher, on Dec 23 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

Responder may be endplayed into needing 3N in a misfit auction.  As they were here in fact.  (Do you want Responder to simply leap to 3N, as in 1S-2H;2S-3N ,  with  J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx  or the like?)

Therefore, it can not be Serious 3N.

Serious 3N is usually on only if We have agreed a fit in a Major.

So when you said that this auction was "nigh unto impossible" because "We bid as much of Our shape out as can possibly be done below 3N", you actually meant that 2N followed by 3N is a perfectly normal action, showing a 1534 or 1543 shape with a poor second suit?

It's both "perfectly normal" and not.

With the hand type given, it's "perfectly normal"

What's relatively rare is having a hand of that type that is good enough to 2/1 GF.

J_AKxxx_AJx_98xx

...is a control rich 5431 minimum opening with almost perfect value placement. Only something like
J_AKxxx_(AJxx_xxx) or
x_AKJxx_(AJxx_xxx) would be better.

But relatively rare or not, these are important hand types that we must have a way to bid.

So 1S-2H;2S-2N;foo-3N is likely to be better as natural rather than Serious 3N unless "foo" was 3S and irrevocably set trumps.

[han]

Foo this thread would undoubtedly have been more interesting had you not covered everything with a thick layer of garbage.

[CSGibson]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

Foo this thread would undoubtedly have been more interesting had you not covered everything with a thick layer of garbage.

+1

[foo]

CSGibson, on Dec 23 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

han, on Dec 23 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

Foo this thread would undoubtedly have been more interesting had you not covered everything with a thick layer of garbage.

+1

WiTW are you complaining about?

You asked for a decision and the logic behind the decision. I gave both. They happened to be correct, but that's not as important as being on topic.

Someone else asked about using a different meaning for the sequence given and I tried to answer that logically. Even included examples.

So what's your beef? Please PM it since I do not want to derail this thread any further or air private dirty laundry in public.

[FrancesHinden]

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 08:07 PM, said:

You asked for a decision and the logic behind the decision. I gave both. They happened to be correct, but that's not as important as being on topic.

Correct?

Having seen partner's hand it's clear that 4H or 4S are both better contracts than 3NT.

[foo]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 23 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

foo, on Dec 23 2008, 08:07 PM, said:

You asked for a decision and the logic behind the decision.  I gave both.  They happened to be correct, but that's not as important as being on topic.

Correct?

Having seen partner's hand it's clear that 4H or 4S are both better contracts than 3NT.

I did not say 3N was perfect. I said it was acceptable. *shrug* it is.

The best contract looks to be 4S. But IMHO the only realistic way to get there is for Opener to mastermind and bid 4S over 3N.

...and how's that going to play compared to 3N if Responder has the ♠x instead pf ♠J?

I'm reminded of the AJ Simon quote about the best result possible vs the best possible result.

[jdonn]

Comment 1: 4♥ seems obvious to me over 3NT.
Comment 2: This thread is fun. I disagree with you han, I think foo's arrival has made the thread more interesting not less.