[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

I opened this 1♠, intending to bid 2♥ if my partner responded with 1nt.
How would the experts bid here?

tyia
jb

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Sep 25 2006, 11:36 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

I opened this 1♠, intending to bid 2♥ if my partner responded with 1nt.
How would the experts bid here?

tyia
jb

Hi,

ignoring the word "expert":

I would pass, intending to show my
hand later via a 2-suiter overcall.

Opening 1S is ok, altough it depends
a bit on the system you are playing,
but there are opening hands out there
in the 10-12 range, who are a lot worse.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[blackshoe]

Heh. Whenever I decide to pass with a hand like this, it seems the auction goes 1D on my left, partner passes, 3D on my right. On that auction, I really don't want to bid 4D.

I'm with Jilly. This is an opening hand.

[paulg]

When opening weakish hands one of my checks is whether I can show both suits without implying extra values. This hand meets that criteria, has all its points in the two suits, only has 6 losers and meets the Rule of 19 (HCP + length of two longest suits).

So I'd open this 1♠ without too many concerns.

Paul

[Rule of 19 is an aggressive rule and Rule of 20 is often recommended for opening hands]

[HeartA]

With Bergen's law of 20, which I use for judging an opening hand, it's 19, but both are majors and all high point are in the suits. I would open it. If you count Zar points, it has 28.

[Mr. Dodgy]

great 9-count , 1♠ for me too, sub-sub-expert status notwithstanding.

[whereagles]

The good thing with having the majors is you don't need to bid right away. It's really a matter of style. Usually most experts would open 1♠, but it's quite likely some would pass.

[hotShot]

jillybean2, on Sep 26 2006, 06:36 AM, said:

Dealer: south Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ Axxxx ♥ KQxxx ♦ xxx ♣

I opened this 1♠, intending to bid 2♥ if my partner responded with 1nt.
How would the experts bid here?

tyia
jb

Polish experts and even beginner would open that hand, because "polish club" has an opening bid for hands like that. The same goes for a lot of other strong club systems.

I guess every expert pair will have an agreement how to deal with such hands.

So if your question is: "Is this hand worth opening?"
The answer is, a lot of bidding systems consider this an opening and have opening bids for this type of hand.

But your question should be, what is my partnership agreement on such hands?
This is beween you and your partner and it is more a matter of style and agreement, than a matter of right or wrong.

Having agreed on plain SAYC/BBO Basic or 2/1 / BBO Advanced the systemic bid is pass.
Your hand is about a king worth short of the minimum HCP strength your partner expects from you. This means that your partner should (and will) bid to a level one trick to high. So what would you do, if he bids a game force? Quit and miss game or slam?
You forced you partner to misjudge your combined hands and you can't judge your combinded strength, if you partners answer is unlimited.

If you and your partner agreed to open weak 2 suiters on the 1 level, he should be prepared to find a hand like that and 1♠ seems an option, having no better agreement for this type of hands.

[SoTired]

If you play a strong club systems, this is an opener.

If you play SAYC or 2/1, it is borderline and a matter of partnership style. With a new (or almost new) partner, I would pass. With an established partnership, where we never got around to discussing opening bid style, I might open it.

Although lacking in hcp, you have plenty of offensive strength. You even have 2 quick tricks on defense. 1S has preemptive value. If you pass this hand, you could miss a game or slam. Certainly, this hand is at least as nice as, say, Axxxx Jxxxx KQx - which most would open.

I don't think pass or 1S would be a "mistake"

[inquiry]

I open 1♠, planning or rebidding hearts... to find out what experts do...ask some of them...

[Walddk]

If I have a tool to show both majors (I have), I will prefer that to 1♠. If I don't have a gadget like that, I will open 1♠, but I would not criticize anyone for passing the hand.

I would have liked better intermediates for a 1♠ opening, but I won't apologise for opening 1♠ and rebid 2♥. After all, my (few) high cards are are in the suits I am going to bid.

Qxxxx
Kxxxx
QJ
Q

1 hcp more, but do not open 1♠! It even meets the Rule of 20, and still it's no opener for me.

Roland

[mikeh]

A voice of dissent: I would pass, unless I held the A109xx KQ10xx: now I'd open, but with fewer spots, I'd pass.

As for references to the law of 20, I do not know a single expert who uses that rule. It is the worst numerical 'rule' ever inflicted upon the average player, and every expert I have discussed this with agrees..... the only thing it has going for it is that it is simple.... idiotic, yes, but simple.

[hrothgar]

A few years back, some folks did some rather extensive studies of different pre-emptive opening bids in top international. The Polish Wilkosz 2D opening score exceptionally well. (A Wilkosz 2D opening shows a a hand with 5/5 shape and at least one major. The range was typically 7-11 HCP or so) As I recall, the Poles were averaging something like 2.5 IMPs a board on this opening.

What I found especially interesting was where the Poles were picking up these IMPs. A lot of the big gains cropped up on hands where the Poles opened 2S and their opponents were making a 1M opening. The yanks/brits/dutch/whomever couldn't bear to pass these juicy 5-5 hands, however, their bidding weren't systems geared towards light openings. Their partner's keeping making bad decisions because they expected more defense or HCPs.

In short, there is nothing wrong with opening these types of hands. However, if you want to do so, you need to adjust your methods according. I'd never open this in the context of a vanilla 2/1 GF system.

[P_Marlowe]

Walddk, on Sep 26 2006, 08:59 AM, said:

<snip>

Qxxxx
Kxxxx
QJ
Q

1 hcp more, but do not open 1♠! It even meets the Rule of 20, and still it's no opener for me.
<snip>

Just one comment in defence for the rule of 20:

Even Marty Bergen would not claim that the
given hand meets the rule of 20.

Counting the single Queen and the doubleton
Queen Jack combination as full values,
... every rule needs judgement or at least one
should follow the rule letter by letter.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[barmar]

Deja vu! I actually held this hand in a club game yesterday, except that vulnerability was none (and I assume the spot cards were different). I chose to pass, but it was a close decision. Surprisingly, partner opened 1♠! The whole auction was:

[CODE]
Pass Pass 1♠ 2♦
4♣* Pass 4♠ 5♣
Pass Pass Dbl 5♦
Dbl All Pass

Unfortunately, we got her for only 300, when we could make 5♠ with our combined 20 HCP. Partner's hand:

---

I chose to defend because I expected partner to have wasted values in ♣; my plan was to underlead my ♠A, which partner would realize asks for a ♣ ruff, and then we'd hopefully get a ♥ or two and partner's natural ♣ as well.

But declarer was 0=2=6=5 with solid ♦, so she ruffed the lead, drew trumps, and all we got were a 1♥ and 3♣.

Regarding the Rule of 20, I prefer the Rule of 22. This is like the Rule of 20, but you also add in your quick tricks. This hand only has 21 of these.

[HeartA]

Since I brought up Bergen's law of 20, I would like to add something here. First of all, Bergen's law of 20 is just a reference, I don't follow it strictly. For the hand Roland gave (SQxxxx, HKxxxx, QJ,Q), I would not bother to count the points: the quacks in the minors don't count at all. I also use Zar points as a reference for opening, but don't follow it strictly either. I wouldn't open a slightly better hand like SKxxxx, HKxxxx, DQJ, CK, which has 12 hcp, 22 of bergen's count, and 27 of Zar points.

[pclayton]

If I had to choose between the Rule of 20 and opening all 12 counts using 4321 count, I'd rather use the Rule of 20. There's worse evaluation devices out there.

Hands like this are the reason that I prefer fit jumps in comp instead of splinters.