[ralph23]

For those of you who would not open

♠5
♥AT94
♦AKT7
♣9865
,

would you open this hand (with the stiff moved from ♠ to ♣, and all the intermediates beefed up considerably):

♠T987
♥AT98
♦AKT9
♣9


Doesn't satisfy Rule of 20.
Does have three QTs.

If you would now open it, is that because (1) the singleton is now in clubs, not spades; or (2) the intermediates are better; or (3) both??

[hrothgar]

would open both, almost regardless of system

[gwnn]

If I'd agreed with p that we pass hands like the first, I'd certainly also pass this one.

[awm]

I'm likely to pass the first and open the second, although of course depends on system.

Both these hands are easily worth an opening bid if there's a major suit fit. For example, if partner opened 1M I would certainly force to game with either hand. The increased liklihood of a major suit fit is what makes me want to open the second hand.

Similarly I would open AQxxx KJxxx xx x but would pass if my two suits were the minors.

[jtfanclub]

Spots Schmots. I open the second, don't open the first, even without the extra spots.

I like majors. I especially like spades. The two hands are not equal.

Reason 1 only.

P.S. Why is this surprising?

AKxxx xxx xx Axx I open.
xxx xx AKxxx Axx I don't.

[BebopKid]

I would open both in third/fourth seat vul and open both non-vulnerable

I opened a 9 pointer with AKT98 of diamonds last night at our local club in third seat vul. Opp overcalled and got a raise from partner and ended up going down 1. All but 1 other table passed it out, so at Match points we ended up with a top board.

Plus, I get the pleasure of seeing my partner's face when I tell her I opened with 9 points.

[Free]

I open both, middlecards in the 2nd hand convince me to open. If it were the same suit qualities, I would probably pass the 2nd hand.

[skjaeran]

The first hand I'd open in 1st, 2nd and 3rd seat, pass in 4th seat.
The second hand I'd open in any seat.

[jdonn]

I would open both, the stiff spade doesn't bother me like I see it bother some people.

[mike777]

Again I really think because your are in "like" with a hand or you "like" majors that is hardly a good reason to open or not.
I would not even disagree that most if not all experts open this hand but what are the pros and cons of opening or not opening the hand. It would help if people could discuss both sides of the issue and not only one side or what they like or what the experts like.

Perhaps if someone who thinks opening this hand is clear at least tried to argue the other side(not opening in first or second seat) with passion and thought it would be interesting.

[kenrexford]

If I would not open this (I would), the reason would be the location of the stiff in spades, because of rebid problems.

As it is, however, I play that 1♦-P-1M-P-1NT promises a stiff in Responder's major, resolving the rebid problem.

[awm]

Seems to me there are two main things to consider when deciding whether to open in 1st seat (there are some other considerations in 3rd/4th). These are:

(1) How good is your hand if you have a fit?
(2) How good is your hand if you don't have a fit?

The 4441 shape with quick tricks is very powerful if you find a fit. For example, consider the second hand opposite AKxxx xx xxx xxx; you will make 4♠ if the spades break (not a bad game at imps) and this hand isn't even particularly close to being an opening bid. So you're certainly fine to open when you have a fitt.

What if there's no fit? Take some hand like AQx xx xxx AKxxx, which is a pretty obvious game force playing normal methods. Without the good spots your chances of making game are basically nil... because of opener's many tens and nines you have some chance at 3NT.

So the nice spots make the second hand better than the first, especially when you hit a misfit and end up playing in notrump. The other point is what happens when you have a fit but it's in a minor. A 4-4 minor fit won't help nearly as much as a 4-4 major fit, since 4-4 fits don't produce many extra tricks in notrump and you need one trick more to make 5m as opposed to 4M. The second hand (with both majors) offers a good chance of a major suit fit (which will upgrade the hand substantially) whereas the first hand (only hearts) will find many of its fits in a minor suit which will not play so well.

[mike777]

If I read awm correctly and I may not be, he seems to be saying opening this hand in first or second seat makes it more likely to be able to find your fit than passing this hand. It seems that there would be arguments for and against this theory to some extent. Just off the top of my head is that perhaps if you pass this hand in first seat, second seat who may have been thinking of making a jump preempt or an overcall may not now?

I am only pointing out there seems to be a second side here that is just not being addressed.

[awm]

mike777, on Aug 28 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

If I read awm correctly and I may not be, he seems to be saying opening this hand in first or second seat makes it more likely to be able to find your fit than passing this hand.

No... this is not the point.

The point is:

(1) If I pass a good hand, our side might never bid. It would be rather embarrassing to pass a hand out when we have a game.

(2) Even if I pass a good hand and the hand doesn't pass out, I will often find it difficult to "catch up" later in the auction. Partner may open and then pass my response when we have game, or partner may underbid opposite my subsequent action because my hand is limited by failure to open (for example make only a single raise with limit raise values).

(3) There is usually some advantage to the "first strike" in an auction, in that your side often finds a fit first and it becomes more dangerous for opponents to come in (because the auction is higher, your side has already announced values, and your hands are better defined). There is some counterbalancing aspect because people overcall lighter than they open (at least at the one-level) so opening 1m might "let them in" on a hand they would otherwise pass.

(4) The main risk of opening is that we will overbid. If partner will game force on many hands where game is actually awful, then opening will be a losing proposition. Similarly if partner will look for slam on a lot of hands where game is the limit, or will overcompete the hand, this will be bad. Of course, you can agree that your openings "can be trash" but then you run into other issues because the range is too wide (basically you will underbid hands where opener actually has something decent, because responder is trying to accomodate the garbage opening).

On the two hands given, my feeling is that these 4441s are very powerful opposite a fit. It's definitely possible to pass out a game hand if we don't open and we have a major suit fit. However, there is some element of risk on the first (1444) hand because we might let the opponents spades into the auction more easily by opening than by passing (point 3). There is also some element of risk on both hands because these 4441s are kind of lousy opposite a misfit (only 11 hcp after all) and partner might overbid. Even with a minor suit fit, you can overbid the hand because 12 points opposite 11 with a 4-4 minor fit often doesn't make game (usually if the 4-4 fit is in a major and you have a singleton in one of the hands, 4M is decent). This is point 4, and again I think it's a lot worse for the first hand because your fit (if you have one) is more likely to be in a minor than a major, and also because the spots in the second hand are so good that they help compensate for the lack of high card points.

[mike777]

1) why.....never bid when you have game? Again assuming partner is aware of this? This may be true but why?
2) why...should partner pass when you may have game? assuming partner is aware of this? This may be true but why?
3) I think 3 seems to be the main reason but would love to hear more from both the pro and cons.

[han]

The point is you try to make the hands you open better than the hands you pass. There is nothing mysterious about that.

If you open only 14+ balanced hands (which I don't recommend) then you probably shouldn't open the second hand here, but if you open most balanced 12-counts then you should definitely open the second hand since it is much much better than almost all balanced 12 counts. If you open some balanced 11-counts and almost all balanced 12-counts as I do, then you should probably also open the first hand.

So as you say, it just depends on your style, pick one and be consistent so that your partners can count on you.

Many experts believe that it is tougher to play against a pair that is in the auction a lot then a pair that is rarely in the auction. Bidding is easier when the opponents pass. That may be a reason why opening requirements have gone down a fair bit in the past. I don't expect world class players to open much lighter 20 years from now than they do today. There are still a few world class players left that open very soundly but not many.

[mike777]

I only keep raising this issue of this 11 hcp hand because:
1) If you must open this hand to win, ok.....but would love to hear more about why?
2) If you can win by making less errors and assuming passing this hand(first or second seat) is a clear nonerror for your partnership can you still win?
3) I raise this since people I play with on a reg or semireg basis feel violently you must open on this or less to win.

[awm]

Reason 1 looks something like this. Say partner has:

AKxx
Qxxx
xx
xxx

We have excellent odds for 4♥ or 4♠, even if one of the majors if 4-1 we can probably make. We will not win many IMP events by bidding Pass-Pass-Pass-Pass when partner has this hand and I have hand number two. Even if I declare and defend flawlessly, I will still not be able to win many IMPs on this board when the other table is getting +420 my way and I have passed the hand out.

Now, we can always pass and then tell partner he has to open balanced nine-counts. But opening balanced 9-counts is a lot more dangerous than opening 4441 11-counts, both because the third seat opening range becomes ridiculously wide and because the worse your openings are, the more likely opponents can take advantage and wield the double. And even if partner does open the balanced nine, if he opens 1♣ and we bid 1M, isn't he going to pass? Isn't it much more likely that raising gets us too high than it is that we have a hand that was really worth an opening bid and passed in first seat?

As for reason 3, it is very difficult to make a living by making consistently correct decisions in auctions like:

1♠ - Pass - 2♠ - My call???

The auction is pretty high. There are many hands where they can make 2♠ and I can also make something at the three level or even make 4♥. There are also many hands where it appears from my cards that we may be able to make something at the three level or even make 4♥, when in fact anything I bid at the three level goes for 500 opposite no game. It simply does not matter "how good a player I am." Surely a good player gets these right more often than a weaker player, but it's quite impossible to always get them right without seeing through the backs of the cards since the same hand for me can lead to either result.

The goal of a good partnership should be to avoid these annoying decisions whenever possible since we can't get them right all the time. The more I pass decent hands in first seat, the more frequently I will get these kinds of decisions, where opponents bid first and I have to decide whether to jump into their auction (maybe go for a number) or pass it out (maybe let them make a partial when we have a partial or even a game). This is a primary reason to open.

[mike777]

awm, on Aug 29 2007, 01:09 AM, said:

Reason 1 looks something like this. Say partner has:

AKxx
Qxxx
xx
xxx

We have excellent odds for 4♥ or 4♠, even if one of the majors if 4-1 we can probably make. We will not win many IMP events by bidding Pass-Pass-Pass-Pass when partner has this hand and I have hand number two. Even if I declare and defend flawlessly, I will still not be able to win many IMPs on this board when the other table is getting +420 my way and I have passed the hand out.

Now, we can always pass and then tell partner he has to open balanced nine-counts. But opening balanced 9-counts is a lot more dangerous than opening 4441 11-counts, both because the third seat opening range becomes ridiculously wide and because the worse your openings are, the more likely opponents can take advantage and wield the double. And even if partner does open the balanced nine, if he opens 1♣ and we bid 1M, isn't he going to pass? Isn't it much more likely that raising gets us too high than it is that we have a hand that was really worth an opening bid and passed in first seat?

As for reason 3, it is very difficult to make a living by making consistently correct decisions in auctions like:

1♠ - Pass - 2♠ - My call???

The auction is pretty high. There are many hands where they can make 2♠ and I can also make something at the three level or even make 4♥. There are also many hands where it appears from my cards that we may be able to make something at the three level or even make 4♥, when in fact anything I bid at the three level goes for 500 opposite no game. It simply does not matter "how good a player I am." Surely a good player gets these right more often than a weaker player, but it's quite impossible to always get them right without seeing through the backs of the cards since the same hand for me can lead to either result.

The goal of a good partnership should be to avoid these annoying decisions whenever possible since we can't get them right all the time. The more I pass decent hands in first seat, the more frequently I will get these kinds of decisions, where opponents bid first and I have to decide whether to jump into their auction (maybe go for a number) or pass it out (maybe let them make a partial when we have a partial or even a game). This is a primary reason to open.

Now we are getting somewhere we need to open so we can win on your example hands.
When do we lose, we need a counter argument which I still do not see, and which are more frequent at mp or larger at imps?

Again does opening this hand produce more annoying decisions or less? I still only see people making one side of a debate, when being able to argue both sides with equal passion, helps more.