[helene_t]

You are subbed into an IMP pairs tourney. You ask your p if ACOL without tranfsers is ok, upon which (could be a coincident, lol) your partner turns red. You get a new partner subbed in, thank the TD, and notice that you made a player note saying "good player" on your p, but it must have been long time ago. He has no system prefences on his profile so you ask him if he can play Precision. He says ok. Three boards later, you get the option of opening in second seat (none vulnerable) with

2♣-2♦
2♠-3NT
4♠-....pass

---

I thought that a 4♠ rebid would have shown a stronger hand while a 3♠ rebid would have shown a maximum 4/6.

Was my bidding correct?

[whereagles]

Your bidding, if not correct, sure was descriptive. Whether or not you finished the description too high is another matter

With an unknown pard I'd simply open 1♠.

[EricK]

If a random partner bid your hand the way you did, I would expect something like what you actually had.

[luke warm]

i like it... once pard bids 3nt, 4♠ shows the 5th and gives him a choice

[Double !]

luke warm, on Jun 12 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

i like it... once pard bids 3nt, 4♠ shows the 5th and gives him a choice

Jimmy: Isn't this hand a good argument for club canapes?

Try handling this hand playing matchpoint precision where a 2C opener denies a 4-card major.

DHL

[luke warm]

yeah, but this one is a 2♠ opener for me (5+ spades, 4+ clubs)

[1eyedjack]

I have been experimenting of late with passing initially (except in 4th seat!) with extreme 2-suiters, even with full opening strength, and then backing in later, often with a competitive bid that promises extreme 2-suiter. So far it seems to have worked quite well, but there may be an element of rose-tinting to the bifocles.

[helene_t]

I can imagine not opening this hand if playing standard. But one advantage of Precision is that with hands like this one you can start with a limited opening and then bid like a maniac without fear of partner thinking you have 16+ HCPs.

[inquiry]

helene_t, on Jun 13 2006, 08:38 AM, said:

I can imagine not opening this hand if playing standard. But one advantage of Precision is that with hands like this one you can start with a limited opening and then bid like a maniac without fear of partner thinking you have 16+ HCPs.

You lead too sheltered a life as a precision player. This is a sound opening no matter what system you play. For ZAR fans this come to a massive 32 ZAR points. He recommends opening with 25 ZAR points anytime you have four or more spades, and 26 ZAR points or more with less than 4 spades. So this is a highly sound opening hand (has quite a bit of extra values) using Zar's metric. I think nearly everyone would open this something. I would open 1♣ with a plan to bid ♠ twice more.

[awm]

I actually do frequently pass hands like this playing standard methods, and have found it to work quite well. The hand never passes out and often I can describe my suit holdings in a single two-suited bid later in the bidding. In any case pass then bid clubs then bid spades describes the hand completely.

How many ZAR points is this worth once you find out partner is 2-5-5-1? I'd bet not nearly so many. Unfortunately partner may have already forced to game by the time this misfit comes to light....

[whereagles]

awm, on Jun 13 2006, 03:29 PM, said:

How many ZAR points is this worth once you find out partner is 2-5-5-1?

I dunno, but when you're 75, the chances you have a fit are like 95% or something similar... That's why zar points work better than you'd like to credit them..

[inquiry]

awm, on Jun 13 2006, 10:29 AM, said:

How many ZAR points is this worth once you find out partner is 2-5-5-1? I'd bet not nearly so many. Unfortunately partner may have already forced to game by the time this misfit comes to light....

It is worth 32 ZAR points at the start of the hand, regardless of your partners hand (since you don't know it). For the record, after you discover your partner is 2-5-5-1, you would apply ZAR misfit points to the hand. This hand would not shrink too much in value, as you have an 8 card fit in clubs. But if you wanted to count ZAR misfit points here, the number would be quite large. ZAR subtracts misfit points when there is no fit, and adds them when there is a super fit. The total misfit points are quite high with these patterns.

[jdonn]

inquiry, on Jun 13 2006, 08:47 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 13 2006, 08:38 AM, said:

I can imagine not opening this hand if playing standard. But one advantage of Precision is that with hands like this one you can start with a limited opening and then bid like a maniac without fear of partner thinking you have 16+ HCPs.

You lead too sheltered a life as a precision player. This is a sound opening no matter what system you play. For ZAR fans this come to a massive 32 ZAR points. He recommends opening with 25 ZAR points anytime you have four or more spades, and 26 ZAR points or more with less than 4 spades. So this is a highly sound opening hand (has quite a bit of extra values) using Zar's metric. I think nearly everyone would open this something. I would open 1♣ with a plan to bid ♠ twice more.

So are you saying you could subtract 6 high card points and it would still be an opening bid?

KT9xx x - xxxxxxx?

On the hand in question, AT9xx x - AJxxxxx
If partner has a stiff club then yes, technically we have a fit, but obviously the hand is still a misfit. If partner is like 2551 with his hand in the red suits, then you are most likely to lose three spade tricks and two clubs if playing in clubs. This will be doubled at the 5 level if you opened this and partner forced to game. Even a 5-3 spade fit where you have to ruff a red suit in hand early leaves you with a boatload of handling problems. This hand could easily be very awkward unless partner has four spades or three clubs.

All that and I still would open it. But passing is hardly crazy, and tends to work fine. And I still think ZAR points are silly, just 98% a reiteration of what people should already know and apply without having to count to 35, and 2% craziness.

[inquiry]

jdonn, on Jun 13 2006, 11:01 AM, said:

inquiry, on Jun 13 2006, 08:47 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 13 2006, 08:38 AM, said:

I can imagine not opening this hand if playing standard. But one advantage of Precision is that with hands like this one you can start with a limited opening and then bid like a maniac without fear of partner thinking you have 16+ HCPs.

You lead too sheltered a life as a precision player. This is a sound opening no matter what system you play. For ZAR fans this come to a massive 32 ZAR points. He recommends opening with 25 ZAR points anytime you have four or more spades, and 26 ZAR points or more with less than 4 spades. So this is a highly sound opening hand (has quite a bit of extra values) using Zar's metric. I think nearly everyone would open this something. I would open 1♣ with a plan to bid ♠ twice more.

So are you saying you could subtract 6 high card points and it would still be an opening bid?

KT9xx x - xxxxxxx?

On the hand in question, AT9xx x - AJxxxxx
If partner has a stiff club then yes, technically we have a fit, but obviously the hand is still a misfit. If partner is like 2551 with his hand in the red suits, then you are most likely to lose three spade tricks and two clubs if playing in clubs. This will be doubled at the 5 level if you opened this and partner forced to game. Even a 5-3 spade fit where you have to ruff a red suit in hand early leaves you with a boatload of handling problems. This hand could easily be very awkward unless partner has four spades or three clubs.

All that and I still would open it. But passing is hardly crazy, and tends to work fine. And I still think ZAR points are silly, just 98% a reiteration of what people should already know and apply without having to count to 35, and 2% craziness.

You are not allowed to open

KT9xx x xxxxxxxx

systemically, so it is rather moot point rather or not this an opening hand or not (it is not, BTW in case you are wondering).

No one said pass with the hand in question was "crazy". Indeed a lot of players perfer to pass and enter later with a two suited overcall. What I said was that precision players think they are the only ones protected by a maximum of 15 hcp for opening bids, so they can open lighter than normal without risk of getting partner too excited. What I am suggesting is that many players would open this hand even not playing precision. I added ZAR metric to demonstrate the principle that this is not just a fantansy that some people would consider this an opening hand.

In this very thread, I would open it, you would open it, as would the other players (or so they claim), whereagles, lukewarm, annd it is unclear on awm, he passes these "frequently" which also means he opens them sometimes. Others agreed with helen's auction, but then that was precision (I agree with her precision auction btw).

You don't like ZAR points, fine. Don't use them. I seldom if ever count them either. I use them in post where people fail to do something that I think that is obvious to illustrate a "quantitative" way to arrive at why bidding (or not bidding) is required. I certainly don't need ZAR to see this is an opening hand, and neither should anyone else.

[awm]

Actually I always pass these hands in 1st/2nd seat playing standard or 2/1 (I'll open them playing a light opening system where we agree to open most 9s). To see the problem, what game do you want to bid opposite:

Kx
AKxxx
Axxxx
x

This is a prime 14-count; there is absolutely no way partner lets me out short of game holding this hand. Let's see, if I play 3nt I can set up spades for 4+2+1+1=8 tricks. If I play on clubs I can get to nine, but will likely lose three diamonds and two clubs on the way (even if opponents don't lead diamonds at trick one they will get in twice). In 5♣ it will be tough to get rid of the spade loser unless spades break 3-3 and they don't lead trumps, and I need clubs 3-2 regardless. In 4♠ I have to do something with all the clubs and am likely to face a diamond tap at some point in the hand. Honestly I don't like my chances, and partner will force game with a much worse hand than this.

Okay, that is somewhat misfitty, surely we would do better if partner had 3 cards in a black suit, or doubleton honor in clubs. But there's no reason passing prevents you from getting to game, and the odds of the hand passing out are pretty much nil.

It just seems to me that opening these hands is a gamble: you're betting that partner has a decent fit (which makes your hand easily worth an opening) and accepting that you've utterly fixed yourself when partner has a misfit (and a small singleton club opposite AJxxxxx doesn't really count as a fit). People who like to open this junk routinely argue that "a fit is more likely than not, so opening will pay off most of the time." While it's true that a fit is more likely than not, I don't think the argument holds because it assumes that any good result you get by opening is a result you could not get by passing. In other words, by opening you are essentially committed to a lousy result when partner has a misfit, but passing does not commit you to a lousy result when partner has a decent fit. And among other benefits, passing and bidding aggressively later is more likely to get you doubled in a making contract.

[EricK]

awm, on Jun 13 2006, 05:22 PM, said:

Actually I always pass these hands in 1st/2nd seat playing standard or 2/1 (I'll open them playing a light opening system where we agree to open most 9s). To see the problem, what game do you want to bid opposite:

Kx
AKxxx
Axxxx
x

This is a prime 14-count; there is absolutely no way partner lets me out short of game holding this hand. Let's see, if I play 3nt I can set up spades for 4+2+1+1=8 tricks. If I play on clubs I can get to nine, but will likely lose three diamonds and two clubs on the way (even if opponents don't lead diamonds at trick one they will get in twice). In 5♣ it will be tough to get rid of the spade loser unless spades break 3-3 and they don't lead trumps, and I need clubs 3-2 regardless. In 4♠ I have to do something with all the clubs and am likely to face a diamond tap at some point in the hand. Honestly I don't like my chances, and partner will force game with a much worse hand than this.

Okay, that is somewhat misfitty, surely we would do better if partner had 3 cards in a black suit, or doubleton honor in clubs. But there's no reason passing prevents you from getting to game, and the odds of the hand passing out are pretty much nil.

It just seems to me that opening these hands is a gamble: you're betting that partner has a decent fit (which makes your hand easily worth an opening) and accepting that you've utterly fixed yourself when partner has a misfit (and a small singleton club opposite AJxxxxx doesn't really count as a fit). People who like to open this junk routinely argue that "a fit is more likely than not, so opening will pay off most of the time." While it's true that a fit is more likely than not, I don't think the argument holds because it assumes that any good result you get by opening is a result you could not get by passing. In other words, by opening you are essentially committed to a lousy result when partner has a misfit, but passing does not commit you to a lousy result when partner has a decent fit. And among other benefits, passing and bidding aggressively later is more likely to get you doubled in a making contract.

How do you envisage the bidding going opposite your 2551 hand if the 5107 hand passes to begin with?

[1eyedjack]

Perhaps where I differ from Inquiry is that he defines a cutoff point (ie by reference to Zar count) above which he opens and below which he does not, and when partner opens or fails to open he can be relied upon to be above or below that limit respectively. I on the other hand agree with partner that to open the bidding does promise values above that minimum (unless it is preemptive), whilst to pass initially does not deny those values. The pass is of course alertable, although the frequency of holding opening values to pass is very low. It is almost a controlled psyche, in terms of frequency.

The obvious risk in that strategy is that the auction may get passed out. So far I have not encountered that problem, and 4th seat opponent is in a difficult decision if he has an "obvious" 4th seat opener, suspects (on a particular occasion incorrectly) that I am sitting there with a trap pass and acts on that suspicion. Similar problems arise with 4th seat protector against players who do not play strong 2 openers and have opened 1-suit passed round to 4th seat.

Returning to the subject in hand, partner may initially misguess my Zar count from my initial pass, but as someone (was it Rubin?) once said "if I can just get past this round ..." then I can reappraise him of the position.

You could play a system (and many do) where each bid, at the time it is made, places a set limit on playing strength and each subsequent bid simply places a progressively more narrow limit on that strength. An alternative, possibly workable plan is that a subsequent bid can broaden the playing strength (compared with partner's current statistical expectations) if there are compensating virtues, such as placing a very narrow and extreme definition of distribution (after which by all means whittle down the range of high card values in the subsequent auction).

I don't know if I have the theory down pat. I do know that I have tried it. Quite likely I have not tried it often enough for it to be statistically valid, and some of the benefits may have arisen from opponents' unfamiliarity, but so far the results appear favourable.

[P_Marlowe]

1eyedjack, on Jun 13 2006, 11:44 PM, said:

<snip>
..., but as someone (was it Rubin?) once said "if I can just get past this round ..."
<snip>

Alvin Roth

[Chamaco]

I ignore whether it is "standard" 2C development, but with my usual pds we play that with 6+ clubs and 5 spades we jump to 3S over the 2D relay.

That's what I would have done here

[barmar]

awm, on Jun 13 2006, 01:22 PM, said:

Actually I always pass these hands in 1st/2nd seat playing standard or 2/1 (I'll open them playing a light opening system where we agree to open most 9s). To see the problem, what game do you want to bid opposite:

Kx
AKxxx
Axxxx
x

This is a prime 14-count; there is absolutely no way partner lets me out short of game holding this hand.

So? That's just one possibility. You can't make a decision based on assuming the worst. I prefer to be optimistic during the bidding; then when dummy comes down you start worrying about how to deal with bad breaks, etc. I think this is expert style as well -- you frequently see them bidding close slams and even grands, hoping that something will work out (a key card will drop or a squeeze will materialize).

Most of the time, opening hand facing opening hand can make a game. Sometimes they can't -- either the hands don't mesh well, or you run into bad breaks. Sometimes you can find this out during the auction and may be able to stop short, but usually you just take a shot and hope for the best. In the long run, I think it usually works in your favor.