jdonn, on Mar 4 2008, 06:45 PM, said:
kenrexford, on Mar 4 2008, 04:32 PM, said:
FWIW, I don't agree that 4♥ as a "Bluhmer" (or an empathetic splinter, if you will) is right on this hand.
The "best possible hand" would be something like Kx of diamonds, KQxxx in clubs. The Qx in diamonds is a hesitant value, the spade Ace is nice but not internal, and the club contribution is limited.
I don't think you need be in the top 1% of your range, or whatever, to make that bid. The top say 5% seems good enough to me, which this hand certainly is.
Also you are correct Bluhmer's are made when your first suit is bad but I always considered this more of an inference than part of the definition, since if you have a lot in that suit your hand can't be good enough. I could be wrong but it's essentially all semantics. In any case I'm not impressed that you quote two definitions when one is a quote of the other.
I disagree with you about exactly what opener should be thinking. He need not know 'exactly' in what way his values are working. It's simply obvious on this hand that they are, as it tends to be. Like I said anyway, it's not my preferred method here, but it would certainly have come in very handy.
I actually completely agree with you about 4
♦ by opener being wrong and why.
I agree that a bid need not be in the top 1% (whatever that means precisely) to be the right call in a given situation. The amount of real estate that a bid must cover is often determined by the number of other avenues available to cover other needed situations. If you only have two ways to invite something, then each of the two options roughly should cover half of the biddable situations. If you have ten ways, then maybe each covers 10%.
That said, it seems to me that you have essentially three major types of hand patterns to consider here.
1. COV in the minors
2. Lesser COV in the minors, and a heart card
3. Lesser COV in the minors, and a spade card
With the COV in the minors, 4
♥ seems right.
With a lesser COV in the minors, and a heart card, you start with 3
♥ and then later make noise, loudly with the Ax or Kx in diamonds, softer with the Queen.
With a lesser COV in the minors, and a spade card, you start with 3
♠ and then do the same as to volume.
So, I would assess this such that I believe a 4
♥ call to cover 33% of the needed coverage and 66% through 3M. Addressing this hand through 4
♥ seems to mean that you cover 66% of the situations through 4
♥, and you lose the space needed to clarify the diamond-cover quality, leaving a completely unknown value in the 3
♥...noise category.
IF, and this is a big "IF" in my opinion, you were to handle any COV or any "lesser COV with a major Ace" through 4
♥, and then only the later if the diamond contribution was prime (Ace or King), you would be better, but not ideal, IMO. But, even then, this hand does not qualify because the diamond contribution is the Queen.
Look at this from a 6KCB perspective. There is a material difference between three key cards or two key cards and the trump Queen, as opposed to this hand, which has two key cards and the side Queen. Kx-KQxxx is two keys plus the trump Queen.
♠A,
♣K,
♣Q is also.
♠A,
♦K,
♣K/Q are both big hand.
♠A,
♣K, and
♦Q is at the very low end of this thing.
I find it strange to talk of "top 1%" or even "top 5%" with this hand. I would consider this mere mild interest, only enough to Last Train in response to noise from Opener. This hand certainly is not in the top 5% of any hands that would consider accepting a slam move. IMO, this hand is in the bottom half at best.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.