[Kaitlyn S]

(A) S-QJx H-QJx D-KJx C-QJxx
(B) S-QJx H-QJxx D-QJxx C-KJ
© S-QJx H-QJxx D-KJxx C-QJ

[mike777]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-March-23, 17:18, said:

(A) S-QJx H-QJx D-KJx C-QJxx
(B) S-QJx H-QJxx D-QJxx C-KJ
© S-QJx H-QJxx D-KJxx C-QJ

If we AGREE to open on junk then yes....easy opener all....not close.

[Vampyr]

Soft values OK for 1NT.

[Phil]

Not even minimums.

[ggwhiz]

All of them but on B and C I'm rebidding 1nt even over a 1♥ response

[eagles123]

passing a 13 count wouldn't occur to me

[kenberg]

I am getting in late here. But yes, I also open all of them. Maybe a Qxx is not worth 2 points, and Jxx is often not worth 1 point, but QJx is often worth 3 points. And it's a sure trick on defense if they come in with that suit, it's a trick in NT if they attack that suit, I am happy with it. Anyway, I just do it.

[Kaitlyn S]

Apparently the Kaplan-Rubens hand evaluator is obsolete.

Hand A came up at 8.95 points.
Hand A

Hand B came up at 9.35 points
Hand B

Hand C came up at 9.05 points.
Hand C

I didn't bring this up to argue with anybody, I was just curious. Bridge has come a long way since the days of Culbertson and two quick tricks.

I saw mention that these aren't even minimum. Does that mean that both of these would be opened as well? (Assume a strong notrump.)

(D) QJx QJx QJx QJxx
(E) QJx QJxx QJxx QJ

(At the time of this post, there were 12 votes to open them all and nothing for anything else.)

The person I was discussing this heard Phil's post (not even minimums) and interpreted it to mean "These hands aren't even minimum opening hands!" Judging from the votes, I am inferring that Phil meant "I would open with less."

[SteveMoe]

Ugly for sure. But not making the first move, now THAT's REALLY UGLY.

[MrAce]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-March-23, 19:56, said:

(D) QJx QJx QJx QJxx
(E) QJx QJxx QJxx QJ

When you have that hand, the values partner has will be prime cards. All of them.
I would never open these 2 hands btw and I am not known to be a conservative bidder.

[mycroft]

As you know, I play a weak NT a lot of the time. The Weak NT is semi-preemptive, and one of the benefits of it is that junk like this gets opened 1NT and not in some 11-21 3-9 card 1m call. Another benefit is that with junk like this, we take away the entire 1 level from the opponents. Of course, one downside is that when we're already in trouble, it's easier for them to know it than over that wide-ranging 1m.

But if you don't open these hands, you get "sorry partner, all I had was three bare aces." Passouts into 620 (or +100 into 620 for that matter) score just as badly as -200 (or -800 for that matter) into -140 or -110 instead of +110 because partner won't balance on his 5-count (clearly they've stopped in 2 with game on!)

But, as always, it's a partnership decision. If you, like me playing strong NT, open "all 11s that aren't 10s", this "13 that is really 11" had better be an opener. If you play "1m is sound, 1M could be aggressive", you might choose to pass these - and partner will know that when it comes time to come in on his side.

[nekthen]

A few months ago I polled about Axx, Axx, xxx, Axxx. Most people said they would open it. From the perspective of a weak 1N opening you are much more likely to get in trouble with a 3 Ace hand than with 4 QJ suits. I open QJx QJx QJx QJxx every time any seat any vul

I still pass 3 Ace hands

I do give them full credit after partner opens because they will work well with most opening hands. They work less well opposite poor hands where no one can make game. It is a struggle to develop 4 extra tricks from a 5 count in dummy.

[nige1]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-March-23, 17:18, said:

(A) S-QJx H-QJx D-KJx C-QJxx
(B) S-QJx H-QJxx D-QJxx C-KJ
(C ) S-QJx H-QJxx D-KJxx C-QJ

 nekthen, on 2017-March-24, 02:22, said:

A few months ago I polled about Axx, Axx, xxx, Axxx. Most people said they would open it. From the perspective of a weak 1N opening you are much more likely to get in trouble with a 3 Ace hand than with 4 QJ suits. I open QJx QJx QJx QJxx every time any seat any vul. I still pass 3 Ace hands I do give them full credit after partner opens because they will work well with most opening hands. They work less well opposite poor hands where no one can make game. It is a struggle to develop 4 extra tricks from a 5 count in dummy.

It depends on what partner expects and with what the system can cope i.e. style and method. We open most rule of 18 hands. Hence we would open all of [A-C]. Take away a knave and we would still open them
We open all rule of 18 hands with 3 quick tricks e.g.
(D) Axx Axx Axx xxxx
(E) xxx xxx AKx Axxx
(F) xx xxx AKQx Jxxx

We're reassured by observing that top players seem to open such hands (e.g. in the Vanderbild).

[Jinksy]

At the table I would open all three. The third one feels like the most marginal, with 3 points almost wasted, so I might pass it if I were seeking a swing.

These hands all have the upside that you have an easy opening (or rebid). I'd feel less comfortable opening slightly more distributional hands stacked in the short suits - eg Kxxx Qxxxx QJ KQ would get a pass from me.

[FelicityR]

I would open all 3 with a weak NT (12-14) if using that system, though I would hesitate a tiny amount in 3rd position, vulnerable against non-vulnerable.

And, if using a 15-17 strong NT, I would be happy to open 1 of a minor as all hands have a 4 card suit.

As for the Kaplan Rubens evaluator, I find it's better when it's used to upgrade hands with good suits, rather than downgrade balanced or semi-balanced hands that contain adequate high card points.

[Tramticket]

It depends on system of course.

I play a weak NT and all of these are easy openers for me. I can't imagine any 13 point hand that I would pass; I would open almost all 12 point hands (the passes are likely to be 4441 shape with potential rebid problems) and I would tend to pass on balanced 11 point hands.

[aguahombre]

 FelicityR, on 2017-March-24, 04:54, said:

As for the Kaplan Rubens evaluator, I find it's better when it's used to upgrade hands with good suits, rather than downgrade balanced or semi-balanced hands that contain adequate high card points.

Yes, downgrading is so out of fashion. Many tools are useful when they give us the answer we want, and defective when they don't.

[phoenix214]

I can see myself passing some of those hands, some % of the time, just as they look so bad. To note, my style is to open lots of 10 counts, but im not sure which of those hands is better.

[PhilG007]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-March-23, 17:18, said:

(A) S-QJx H-QJx D-KJx C-QJxx
(B) S-QJx H-QJxx D-QJxx C-KJ
© S-QJx H-QJxx D-KJxx C-QJ

None are ideal,but if you have opening points then you MUST open the bidding.

[msjennifer]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2017-March-23, 19:56, said:

Apparently the Kaplan-Rubens hand evaluator is obsolete.

Hand A came up at 8.95 points.
Hand A

Hand B came up at 9.35 points
Hand B

Hand C came up at 9.05 points.
Hand C

I didn't bring this up to argue with anybody, I was just curious. Bridge has come a long way since the days of Culbertson and two quick tricks.

I saw mention that these aren't even minimum. Does that mean that both of these would be opened as well? (Assume a strong notrump.)

(D) QJx QJx QJx QJxx
(E) QJx QJxx QJxx QJ

(At the time of this post, there were 12 votes to open them all and nothing for anything else.)

The person I was discussing this heard Phil's post (not even minimums) and interpreted it to mean "These hands aren't even minimum opening hands!" Judging from the votes, I am inferring that Phil meant "I would open with less."

Yes indeed!Kaplan and Reuben's hand evaluators are obsolete as they are too conservative.Forgotten for good as some would say!