[pclayton]

Matchpoints, noboby vul.

♠x
♥Qxx
♦AQx
♣AJxxxx

You open 1♣ in 4th seat (agree?) and raise pard's 1♥ bid to 2 (agree?). Pard now bids 2N and you now must choose if this hand qualifies as a minimum or a maximum with 3 trump (via 3♣ or 3♦).

Whats it gonna be?

[whereagles]

It's a max, and yes auction seems fine

[pclayton]

Jlall, on May 18 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

How could this possibly be a minimum?

Isn't it conceivable I could pass 1♥ with a minimum? Or just toss it in in 4th?

[gwnn]

yes yes max

[inquiry]

34 ZAR fit points, opening bid requires only 26... this is a max.

[Foxx]

Agree with 1♣ opening bid, not with 2♥ raise. You have six clubs, so best make the routine rebid.

We haven't gotten bowled over with enemy spade bids, so partner's majors are 4-4. I'll bid 3♣ to continue the description, allowing our side to play here if it is right. Over 3♦ or 3♠ I will go back to hearts.

[the hog]

Well I would have passed this hand in fourth seat, but I guess I am in the minority. Having opened I certainly agree with raising H. In this sequence I would show a maximum hand.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on May 18 2007, 08:46 PM, said:

Well I would have passed this hand in fourth seat, but I guess I am in the minority. Having opened I certainly agree with raising H. In this sequence I would show a maximum hand.

Really, you would not open this, and yet you consider it a maximum 2♥ rebid?

Do you believe so strongly in Pearson points you would pass this very nice hand?

[the hog]

inquiry, on May 19 2007, 09:48 AM, said:

The_Hog, on May 18 2007, 08:46 PM, said:

Well I would have passed this hand in fourth seat, but I guess I am in the minority. Having opened I certainly agree with raising H. In this sequence I would show a maximum hand.

Really, you would not open this, and yet you consider it a maximum 2♥ rebid?

Do you believe so strongly in Pearson points you would pass this very nice hand?

Actually "Yes", Ben. I have had mixed results basing my openings on Pearson points. Sometimes you get a great result, sometimes you miss a game, as likely on this hand. Without being dogmatic about this I think it is important to be consistent in your approach, so partner at least has some idea of what is going on in your mind. As I said, having decided to open it and having pd make the best possible response for me, I would treat this as better than a minimum.

I will say that it is better imo to open a hand with a S singleton or a void rather than a doubleton, as if the opponents buy the hand, trumps are likely to break badly for them.

[jdonn]

It's not inconsistent to want to pass the hand (not that I agree) and then call it a max when partner makes a great response for your hand, Ben. Anyway Hog took an action he admitted most would disagree with (as we all do in our own unique situations), and even if someone disagrees they can certainly see why he would do it, so I hardly consider it worthy of calling him out on it or expressing shock.

[pclayton]

Quote

It's not inconsistent to want to pass the hand (not that I agree) and then call it a max when partner makes a great response for your hand, Ben. Anyway Hog took an action he admitted most would disagree with (as we all do in our own unique situations), and even if someone disagrees they can certainly see why he would do it, so I hardly consider it worthy of calling him out on it or expressing shock.

To me, this is the crux of the argument.

The spectrum of hands after a 4th hand opening that raises to 2♥ is different than the spectrum that raises from 1st or 2nd.

I think it is very inconsistent to call this close to a passout, yet consider this a max.

Put it this way, if we took away the ♦Q, I think a lot of us would pass it out, but if we made the ♥Q the KJ, that we'd still only raise to 2♥.

What we decided in my partnership was that we weren't going to split hairs with these things. If its a 6 loser hand, its a maximum, period

[cherdano]

pclayton, on May 19 2007, 11:32 AM, said:

Quote

It's not inconsistent to want to pass the hand (not that I agree) and then call it a max when partner makes a great response for your hand, Ben. Anyway Hog took an action he admitted most would disagree with (as we all do in our own unique situations), and even if someone disagrees they can certainly see why he would do it, so I hardly consider it worthy of calling him out on it or expressing shock.

To me, this is the crux of the argument.

The spectrum of hands after a 4th hand opening that raises to 2♥ is different than the spectrum that raises from 1st or 2nd.

I think it is very inconsistent to call this close to a passout, yet consider this a max.

Put it this way, if we took away the ♦Q, I think a lot of us would pass it out, but if we made the ♥Q the KJ, that we'd still only raise to 2♥.

Phil, I really disagree with your post here.
1. Maybe for some this is close to a passout, but there are still substantially weaker hands that even The_Hog would open, they would just contain more spades.
2. This hand improved A LOT after partner bid 1♥, not only is the singleton great, but also the dubious ♥Q has become the trump queen. And with the aces and a suit that can be set up, it is a great hand for suitplay anyway.

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on May 18 2007, 12:53 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 18 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

How could this possibly be a minimum?

Isn't it conceivable I could pass 1♥ with a minimum? Or just toss it in in 4th?

And you did neither of those, did you? And partner already is aware of this, right?

So now in the context of the remaining possible min/max hands, I think 2H just assured opening hand, and this hand is minimum in that context.

Would you have bid differently holding x KJx AJxxx KQxx? I would consider this to be a max hand, and the one you held is minimum for the given auction.

jmoo.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on May 19 2007, 09:55 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 19 2007, 11:32 AM, said:

Quote

It's not inconsistent to want to pass the hand (not that I agree) and then call it a max when partner makes a great response for your hand, Ben. Anyway Hog took an action he admitted most would disagree with (as we all do in our own unique situations), and even if someone disagrees they can certainly see why he would do it, so I hardly consider it worthy of calling him out on it or expressing shock.

To me, this is the crux of the argument.

The spectrum of hands after a 4th hand opening that raises to 2♥ is different than the spectrum that raises from 1st or 2nd.

I think it is very inconsistent to call this close to a passout, yet consider this a max.

Put it this way, if we took away the ♦Q, I think a lot of us would pass it out, but if we made the ♥Q the KJ, that we'd still only raise to 2♥.

Phil, I really disagree with your post here.
1. Maybe for some this is close to a passout, but there are still substantially weaker hands that even The_Hog would open, they would just contain more spades.
2. This hand improved A LOT after partner bid 1♥, not only is the singleton great, but also the dubious ♥Q has become the trump queen. And with the aces and a suit that can be set up, it is a great hand for suitplay anyway.

Arend; I don't think this is logical.

The fact that we chose to raise to 2♥ already expresses we have a non-minimum. I agree that certain cards have improved in value, but this is reflected in our decision to raise.

So initially this may have been close to a passout (I agree; I stated that if I took away the ♦Q, many would pass).

Our hand has now improved to a non-minimum (also agree).

Where your argument breaks down is that because this hand is a non-minimum we have raised to 2♥. You seem to say that because its a non-minimum, we have to bid 3♦. According to this logic, I can't see any hands that raise to 2♥ that would ever bid 3♣.

Therefore, we have to divide the hands that raise to 2♥ into two sets, and this hand seems clearly to fall into the lower half.

[neilkaz]

I agree with the bidding so far although rebidding 2♣ is not out of the question when I have a nice looking 13 HCP, 3 card support to the Q and a stiff I want to support PD's major, especially with the 2NT gadget used here.

In difference to a couple others, my raise to 2♥ doesn't indicate a non minimum hand, but just shows support for PD's major in what is likely to be the part score battle I started. A minimum hand would not have been opened by me here, or with my 6♣ I'd rebid them lacking ♥ support.

So like most other I show my max here.

I don't pass the hand out as I miss too many games, and have a 6th ♣ to compete to 3 over the likely comp to 2♠. If the opps by the hand for 3♠ and make, then I've lost, but on balance unless PD opens anything breathing in 2nd seat I miss too many games/part score by passing. I think I have enough defence when I open this, that anything but opps who open very conservatively aren't likely to bid and make 4♠..ie I doubt PD is broke and perhaps he may have a few ♠.

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[han]

I agree with those that say that this is a clear max.

[jdonn]

If you removed the queen of diamonds and switched the pointy suits

Axx Qxx x AJxxxx

I would open 1♣ in 4th seat, raise the 1♥ response, then show a minimum. I do not want to either pass the hand out or pass 1♥ since we might have game if partner has a 5 card major, and since the opponents never end up passing it out there anyway.

I understand your point Phil, I just don't think it's practical. The top end of the single raise hasn't changed, if you are unlikely to show a minimum that doesn't mean you switch what the other ranges encompass.