[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Apr 12 2007, 02:57 AM, said:

his limit raise was an excellent decision

vindicated =)

I got some looks from the opps when I put that dummy down.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Apr 12 2007, 11:41 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 12 2007, 02:57 AM, said:

his limit raise was an excellent decision

vindicated =)

I got some looks from the opps when I put that dummy down.

Varis Carey once got the director called on him for raising 1♠ to 2♠ with AKxx Jxx Jxx Jxx.

You can't please 'em all.

[pclayton]

Apollo81, on Apr 11 2007, 09:00 AM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 11 2007, 12:57 PM, said:

I have a 6 loser hand and good intermediates so I'll bite on 4♥. The J♦ is a small bonus too.

As far as Mike's comments are concerned, I sometimes find them inconsistent. But to each his (their) own.

Frankly, I don't find that opening strength requirements vary that much. Maybe in 1967. But not in 2007.

I strongly feel that LTC is not appropriate for this auction. LTC assumes the ability to ruff as needed in partner's hand and he is showing a 3-card limit raise.

Yes and no. The 3rd trump may or may not help deal with 4th round problems.

Certainly holding 9 or 10 trumps helps 'purify' LTC evaluation.

[pclayton]

Dunno; the hand looks pretty good for a limit raise with all those prime cards. I generally don't make a limit raise with a hand I'd open, but if you stick to LTC evaluation, then its not a bad decision with 8.5 losers.

[bid_em_up]

Apollo81, on Apr 11 2007, 08:53 PM, said:

I got some looks from the opps when I put that dummy down.

Did partner hold this hand (the limit raise)? Or did you?

If you did, why did you not bid 1S?

[Apollo81]

Quote

Did partner hold this hand (the limit raise)? Or did you?
If you did, why did you not bid 1S?

we play different methods (and had a different auction than what i posted) but the decision is identical to the one I posted

[mikeh]

Apollo81, on Apr 11 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

mike777, on Apr 11 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

As a nonexpert player, I find what is a "standard strength" opening hand quite confusing and undefined. That is the main reason for my discussing my opening hand style so often in my posts. Playing often on BBO in pick up partnerships, I see a huge variety of "standard" opening bids.

maybe I can help.


To give us some starting point:
Rule of 20: add your HCP and 2 longest suit lengths.

Standard is, IMO:
---------------------
18 or less: opening is a mistake
19: normally pass
20: normally open
21: open almost all hands
22+: not opening is a mistake

Some examples of 19/21 hands where I would consider a "deviation" from normal appropriate (but I would understand if the normal action was taken)
-------------------------
AJ109xxx x Ax xxx open 1♠
A1098x x AJ10xx xx open 1♠
Qx Qxxxx AJ Kxxx pass
QJ KJxx QJx QJxx pass

If your "bar" is set at:
--------------------------
19.5-20.5 you are playing standard strength openings
19-19.5 you open a little light, but not enough to warn your opponents
20.5-21 you open a little soundly, but not enough to warn your opponents
anything else: you are either making a mistake or playing something that I would call "non-standard"


Hope this helps.

While I completely agree that Mike777's Roth Stone type of valuation is at oods with all current standard approaches, I am as strongly opposed to the use of the Rule of 20. The only thing it has going for it is that it is easy to use. Not good to use... not effective to use... but definitely 'easy'... both to use and to teach. It certainly doesn't teach anyone anything worth learning about valuation, but that is just my opinion

I have never seen an expert announce that he or she uses the Rule of 20 in actual play... but maybe some do.

Any method that equates AK xxxxx xxxxx K with AKxxx Kxxxx xx x is more than a bit silly, and once you acknowledge that this sort of result obtains from the rule, it is pretty clear that the rule is dysfunctional...

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Apr 12 2007, 02:44 PM, said:

I have never seen an expert announce that he or she uses the Rule of 20 in actual play... but maybe some do.

Any method that equates AK  xxxxx xxxxx K with AKxxx Kxxxx xx x is more than a bit silly, and once you acknowledge that this sort of result obtains from the rule, it is pretty clear that the rule is dysfunctional...

I have seen experts claim they use Rule of 20 (heck, Marty Bergen is one for certain, as much as I dislike his methods ).

The problem lies in the basic teaching and understandings of it.

Beginners/intermediates get taught to add the number of cards in their two long suits plus HCP and think that hand #1 qualifies, because they (usually) don't get told that high card location is also a function of this decision. Or if they are told, they soon forget that part of the lesson.

An accurate Rule of 20 opening based on the original definition would never open hand #1, but always hand #2. The Rule, when applied accurately as intended, isn't that dysfunctional. And...

My understanding is, the Rule of 20 was originally intended for judging whether or not to open in 3rd or 4th seat, and not for 1st/2nd seat openings as it has migrated to these days.

[Apollo81]

mikeh, on Apr 12 2007, 03:44 PM, said:

Any method that equates AK xxxxx xxxxx K with AKxxx Kxxxx xx x is more than a bit silly, and once you acknowledge that this sort of result obtains from the rule, it is pretty clear that the rule is dysfunctional...

This isn't the A/E forum, the post was intended to help mike777 understand that xx Q1098x AJ AQxx is clearly an opening bid, etc.

[skjaeran]

I bid game.
It will probably come down to finding the jack of trumps, unless partner puts it down in dummy.

[temp3600]

Apollo81, on Apr 12 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

Quote

Did partner hold this hand (the limit raise)? Or did you?
If you did, why did you not bid 1S?

we play different methods (and had a different auction than what i posted) but the decision is identical to the one I posted

The fact that responder cannot have 4+ spades for his 1NT bid is important. Here, that point is actually what - to me - tips the scale in favor of bidding 4♥. I would pass after 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♥.

[nik1998]

I bid 4 ♥

[mgtusi]

Well...

3♥ is an impossible bid after the 1NT response which denies a ♥ fit

It can show only one hand :
- a maxi NT response (10HCP)
- a big club fit
- Kx or Ax in ♥

Something like
♠ Axx
♥ Rx
♦ xx
♣ Rxxxxx

Even with that nice hand, I bid........5♣ !