[Wackojack]

This discussion seems to have developed into guessing partner's shape. So FWIIW I can say that we had a general agreement that we bid up the line. So I would normally expect her to open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors, not to bypass a 4-card spade suit, and to perhaps to raise the 1♥ response to 2♥ with 3 holding a poor doubleton spade. OTOH playing 2/1 with another partner, I would expect 1♦ open with 4-4 in the minors, and playing Walsh style a 1NT rebid could have 4 spades. However, I am not sure if 1 style or another should change the valuation of the hand.

If one could evaluate by converting to a normalised HCP evaluation. Then I reckon AK + A would increase the value by about half a point and the lack of shape of 10's and 9's would decrease the value by about the same amount (perhaps a bit more) and a vulnerable IMP game needs 24 when the 2 hands are almost equal. It is this rule of thumb approach that I would like to have confirmed.

[kenberg]

Wackojack, on Apr 17 2006, 06:41 PM, said:

This discussion seems to have developed into guessing partner's shape. So FWIIW I can say that we had a general agreement that we bid up the line. So I would normally expect her to open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors, not to bypass a 4-card spade suit, and to perhaps to raise the 1♥ response to 2♥ with 3 holding a poor doubleton spade. OTOH playing 2/1 with another partner, I would expect 1♦ open with 4-4 in the minors, and playing Walsh style a 1NT rebid could have 4 spades. However, I am not sure if 1 style or another should change the valuation of the hand.

If one could evaluate by converting to a normalised HCP evaluation. Then I reckon AK + A would increase the value by about half a point and the lack of shape of 10's and 9's would decrease the value by about the same amount (perhaps a bit more) and a vulnerable IMP game needs 24 when the 2 hands are almost equal. It is this rule of thumb approach that I would like to have confirmed.

Your rule of thumb may not be what I would use. My thinking would be something like: My hand will take three tricks with a slight chance of another if partner has three hearts and they split. My other cards don't much rate to help partner either control the hand (beyond my three tricks) or help him develop tricks. That leaves a lot for partner's hand to do. But it could happen. Sort of a Clint Eastwood hand: You gotta ask yourself this, punk. Are you feeling lucky?

Perhaps I am the villain who started getting everyone talking about shape. I was mostly thinking of the problems of simulation. If a simulation is to be useful, it has to be planned carefully and that means knowing what sort of hands are in fact consistent with this bidding. I think it is tough. I virtually never open 1C when 4-4 in the minors (I tried it for a while and the auction always went 1C-(1S)-negative double and there I was with 2 hearts, no spade stop, and a strong wish I had opened 1D). After 1C-1H I used to sometimes skip over a spade suit to bid 1NT but partners got tired of me hogging the NT and so, while I may do it from time to time, I usually don't. But that's me, others are different, and if a simulation were to be done these matters would have to be settled. There would definitely also be the issue of when partner would raise 1H on a 3 card holding (never? well, hardly ever?).

Anyway, this has been interesting. There seems to be some pretty strong and experienced voices for passing 1NT. I'll cite them when it goes wrong. Actually, I don't think it much will. Points shmoints there just are not enough tricks.

Ken

[FrancesHinden]

I would raise, though vul at imps upwards only.
Perhaps I'm biased by recent emphasis on aggregate scoring...

[han]

Frances, how do you go upwards from vulnerable at IMPs? (I assume that you don't play total points )

[Blofeld]

Isn't aggregate the same as total points?

[FrancesHinden]

Aggregate is indeed the same as total points.

There is a national knock-out in England, the Hubert Phillips Bowl, which is scored as total points (honours counting). We recently played the semi-final, and were practising for the final on Sunday.

Bidding vulnerable games is very, very important at total points scoring. So is not going off in slams.