[EricK]

The_Hog, on Feb 6 2004, 11:08 PM, said:

No problems Lenze, on the condition that I can play with my current partner, Luis or Ben, iow anyone who can cope with light openings.

Axxxx ♥Axxx ♦xx ♣xx
Wow EricK! Here you have 8 losers, 5-4 in the Majors and 4 controls and you say this is "a gross misstatement of values". I never picked you for a Roth Stoner

As a matter of interest, here is a hand from the semi finals of the recent National Open Teams in Canberra. Bourke vs Indonesia.

Nth opened this
KTxxxx
xxx
x
AQx
with 1S. The reporter said that he felt the Nth hand was more a 2S opening. Ron Klinger - well known expert and author made the tongue in cheek comment "Only from a Seniors point of view". They got to 4H with Sth holding:
Ax
Kxxxx
Axxx
xx
and made it with AJT9 of H offside. I guess "if you bid em up you have to play em up."

As I say, it all depends what is meant by a "gross" mis-statement and what one considers a minimum opening bid with no mis-statement, whatsoever.

I would say that KTxxxx xxx x AQx or AQxxx Axxx xx xx are minimum opening bids, and that Axxxx Axxx Qx xx is about a quarter of a trick worse, Axxxx Axxx xx xx is at least half a trick worse, and Kxxxx Txx Tx AJx is at least a trick worse.

Since minimum opening bids will be worth about 4 tricks, then half a trick is twelve and a half per cent of the value of a minimum opener. Does that make opening Axxxx Axxx xx xx a gross mis-statement or not? If someone who was 5' 8" tall (173 cm) said they were 5' (151cm) or 6' 4" (194 cm) I would say they were grossly mis-stating their height. But there are no doubt other scenarios where a 12.5% error would be considered slight.

Eric

[the hog]

If someone who was 5' 8" tall (173 cm) said they were 5' (151cm) or 6' 4" (194 cm) I would say they were grossly mis-stating their height. But there are no doubt other scenarios where a 12.5% error would be considered slight.

You must know some of the women I have been out with!!
rofl

[EricK]

The_Hog, on Feb 7 2004, 07:04 AM, said:

If someone who was 5' 8" tall (173 cm) said they were 5' (151cm) or 6' 4" (194 cm) I would say they were grossly mis-stating their height. But there are no doubt other scenarios where a 12.5% error would be considered slight.

You must know some of the women I have been out with!!
rofl

It sounds to me that you have been making gross statements, never mind gross mis-statements

[Free]

EricK, on Feb 6 2004, 05:15 PM, said:

At the very least you should alert all your 3rd seat openers and give a clear description of the actual minimum values you might hold.

If you have to alert a 3rd hand opening and say the minimum value is 0 HCP, I think your opps will go crazy! It's a known FACT that 3rd hand openings can be light, can be psychic,...

[Trpltrbl]

lenze, on Feb 6 2004, 05:38 PM, said:

For those who would open the hands in this tread in all situations, please, if you ever pass through Montana, PM me. I will arrange a seat for you at our monthly 10 cents a point game. We are ALWAYS looking for dead money.

I will be there next time I fly into Montana, love to take some money from cowboys

Mike

[Cascade]

Free, on Feb 7 2004, 09:30 AM, said:

EricK, on Feb 6 2004, 05:15 PM, said:

At the very least you should alert all your 3rd seat openers and give a clear description of the actual minimum values you might hold.

If you have to alert a 3rd hand opening and say the minimum value is 0 HCP, I think your opps will go crazy! It's a known FACT that 3rd hand openings can be light, can be psychic,...

Unfortunately that is not how the rules are written in many places.

In many places there are restrictions on opening hands lighter than some "rule of ???".

If your partnership has an agreement to open these lighter hands even in 3rd seat then you may run foul of the regulations.

Wayne

[Free]

Dont tell me about rule off ???, I hate it! here we have rule of 18, and most of these hands are good enough to open according to that rule. Some are not, so I miscounted or had a ♣ between my ♠s

[EricK]

Free, on Feb 8 2004, 04:43 PM, said:

Dont tell me about rule off ???, I hate it!  here we have rule of 18, and most of these hands are good enough to open according to that rule.  Some are not, so I miscounted or had a ♣ between my ♠s 

Rules create a level playing field. If you ignore a rule you don't approve of you are cheating those people who abide by the rule.

You can bid whatever you like. But if you open eg Kxxxx Txx Tx AJx and partner makes allowances for it in his bidding then you are cheating. If, however, partner always bids as if you had at least the minimum values allowed in your locality then that would be fine. At least that is my understanding of the rules.

And playing online, where people can come from localities which have different "rules of ???", it is only fair to let the opponents know what "rule of ???" (or other method) your minimum opening bids are based on.

Eric

[Chamaco]

With my p we have agreed to open extra-light (8+) in 3rd seat, with an eye to vulnerability and lead-direction (guidelines being the same adopted for overcalls: actually we treat 3rd hand light openings as anticipated overcalls)

I would open all the 3 given hands NV, or all vuln. At unfav vuln, I'd open only the better of the 3 (AQxxx in spades).

We have another rule which must be respected strictly: if you open below opening value, you must be prepared to pass ANY reply by pard (not a splinter of course ).
It turns that we frequently open light in spades, less frequently in ♥, and even less frequently in a minor (e.g. if we cannot tolerate a ♠ bid by pard bcos we have shortness there).

[WGF_Flame]

Its a metter of partnership. with no drury i would pass all of them.
with drury i would pass the first and open the next two.