[kfay]

Scoring: You Choose

---

For those of you not familiar with the question: Do you open?

[Blofeld]

Opening doesn't even occur to me.

[han]

I would not.

[nick_s]

Pass. Any position or vulnerability - unless my 1NT includes a poor 12 count.
With the majors and minors reversed I open. Always.

[gwnn]

Yuck!

[kenrexford]

Not if playing Walsh. I probably would if not playing Walsh.

[inquiry]

clear pass for me.

[mike777]

kfay, on Dec 9 2007, 05:40 PM, said:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> You Choose </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> You Choose </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> KQ </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> KQ </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> J10xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> J10xxx </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

For those of you not familiar with the question: Do you open?

Yes I would since you ask.

But in first, second or third seat, any vul, I open all balanced 11 hcp hands with one QT in some 2/1 partnerships.

Will rebid 1nt(11-13) over one of a major(walsh).

[pclayton]

I think the other hand is closer to a pass than this hand is to an opener.

[neilkaz]

I like my 10's connected to my J's in long suits, but two doubleton KQ's and no aces are severe flaws. I don't see where this mess is worth anything more than a bad balanced 11 count and will pass.

[Mbodell]

I would open this any vul when playing precision with limited openers. Playing 2/1 or standard I wouldn't open this except 3rd seat any or 1st seat favorable.

[Halo]

Pass.

Unless partner can say something interesting, I would rather defend with this hand.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Dec 9 2007, 09:51 PM, said:

I think the other hand is closer to a pass than this hand is to an opener.

I think I understand what this means, but I doubt that it is what was meant.

If a pass is 0.000 and a non-pass is 1.000, then 0.100 is closer to a pass than 0.750 is to an opener.

That would suggest that opening this hand makes more sense than opening the other hand. Was this meant?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I may open, but I will quite often regret it.

The main problem is, you have a rebid problem,
switch the minors, and at least you will be able
to get both minors into the game.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Dec 10 2007, 05:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 9 2007, 09:51 PM, said:

I think the other hand is closer to a pass than this hand is to an opener.

I think I understand what this means, but I doubt that it is what was meant.

If a pass is 0.000 and a non-pass is 1.000, then 0.100 is closer to a pass than 0.750 is to an opener.

That would suggest that opening this hand makes more sense than opening the other hand. Was this meant?

What Justin said.

With KQ KQ bla bla, Passing is 100 and bidding is 40.

With bla bla KQ KQ, Bidding is 100 and passing is 70.

[jtfanclub]

Even with a 12-15 hcp NT, I pass this one.

I don't want partner to try 2♣ on a minimal hand and end up at 2NT.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Dec 10 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 10 2007, 05:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 9 2007, 09:51 PM, said:

I think the other hand is closer to a pass than this hand is to an opener.

I think I understand what this means, but I doubt that it is what was meant.

If a pass is 0.000 and a non-pass is 1.000, then 0.100 is closer to a pass than 0.750 is to an opener.

That would suggest that opening this hand makes more sense than opening the other hand. Was this meant?

What Justin said.

With KQ KQ bla bla, Passing is 100 and bidding is 40.

With bla bla KQ KQ, Bidding is 100 and passing is 70.

"The other hand" was the blah-blah KQ-KQ hand. You call that that hand is "70" for passing.

"This hand" was the KQ-KQ-blah-blah hand. You call that hand "40" for bidding.

You then say that "the other hand," a 70 for passing, is farther from a pass than "this hand," a 40 for bidding, is to an opener.

Because 70 is greater than 40, I think you have this backwards.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Dec 10 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 10 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 10 2007, 05:31 AM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 9 2007, 09:51 PM, said:

I think the other hand is closer to a pass than this hand is to an opener.

I think I understand what this means, but I doubt that it is what was meant.

If a pass is 0.000 and a non-pass is 1.000, then 0.100 is closer to a pass than 0.750 is to an opener.

That would suggest that opening this hand makes more sense than opening the other hand. Was this meant?

What Justin said.

With KQ KQ bla bla, Passing is 100 and bidding is 40.

With bla bla KQ KQ, Bidding is 100 and passing is 70.

"The other hand" was the blah-blah KQ-KQ hand. You call that that hand is "70" for passing.

"This hand" was the KQ-KQ-blah-blah hand. You call that hand "40" for bidding.

You then say that "the other hand," a 70 for passing, is farther from a pass than "this hand," a 40 for bidding, is to an opener.

Because 70 is greater than 40, I think you have this backwards.

I don't think so, but whatever. You understand what I mean.

This is becoming annoying by the way.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Dec 10 2007, 03:08 PM, said:

This is becoming annoying by the way.

roflol!!!

I was wondering how long this inane discussion would continue. I was planning to ride her to my death. LOL