[kgr]

Scoring: MP

---

MP's. You passed in 1st hand (..would you?) and bidding goes:
Pass-(Pass)-1♦-(4♥)
??
 
You play that DBL is info (at this level your partner will of course pass sooner then at lower level).

[rogerclee]

I would have definitely opened 2♠, having ♥Jxxx is not a good enough reason to pass.

Now I really think 4♠ here should be a choice of games between 4♠ and 5♦ so I feel I have to pass, since there are so many distributional hands that want to give partner a choice of games here and very very few hands where I would initially pass and now bid 4♠ to play. It's strange for me to be arguing that 4♠ should be fitted here, I am always one of the few who says that if it can be natural it's natural, lol.

If I could bid 4♠ to play, I would do that. Partner won't reopen enough for passing to be right, and occasionally this will get us to slam.

[gnasher]

4♠, but I wouldn't have started from here.

Roger's argument for pass seems quite compelling, but I can't bring myself to pass throughout with ♠AKJxxx

[mtvesuvius]

I agree with clee... This is a wtp 2♠ opener IMO, it take a lot of flaws in a hand to prevent me from pre-empting. This is another reason why 4♠ should be fitted, becuase with a long ♠ suit like this I would have bid before... This means that 4♠ is out of the question. X or pass? At IMPs I would Double for sure, even at MPs, I think I double. I have (probably) 2 tricks, and the long trumps will be a pain for declarer.

[jdonn]

Of course 2♠ before. As for now, of course 4♠. Even if it were a choice of games, partner is short in hearts so almost surely has some spades and can pass it. I won't risk pass in case he is too minimum to reopen, or is off shape like 2155 and just wants to pass it out.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Feb 25 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

Of course 2♠ before. As for now, of course 4♠. Even if it were a choice of games, partner is short in hearts so almost surely has some spades and can pass it. I won't risk pass in case he is too minimum to reopen, or is off shape like 2155 and just wants to pass it out.

Or is 2155 and decides to bid 4NT.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Feb 25 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 25 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

Of course 2♠ before. As for now, of course 4♠. Even if it were a choice of games, partner is short in hearts so almost surely has some spades and can pass it. I won't risk pass in case he is too minimum to reopen, or is off shape like 2155 and just wants to pass it out.

Or is 2155 and decides to bid 4NT.

Not my partners...why wouldn't he double first, just in case?

[Fluffy]

This is an obvious 4♠, the same as if we weren't a passed hand. If our aprtnership accepts having this hand after we are a passed hand, then 4♠ doesn't show a fit.

[Phil]

2♠ is fine on R1 although 1♠ is my style and I'm not a Zar nut. Definitely not pass.

Now 4♠ seems obvious.

While partner might not play us for spades this good (which is why you should open 2♠ in the first place), pard should recognize that I might have had a flawed preempt which includes a side four card major. It's a little awkward since I can't double 4♥ for penalty here, so partner won't recognize my spades are this good.

[kgr]

Thanks all for the answer.
(DBL would have been the winner here as North was minimum with 3=3=4=3 and both 4♥ and 4♠ did go down.)
Seems like majority would open 2♠ (♥ too weak to be concerned) and would bid 4♠ if they were recplacing somebody who passed in 1st hand.

[gnasher]

I'd have opened 1♠.

[whereagles]

2♠ before, 4♠ now

[Mosene]

So RHO bid 4 hearts with 6! Must remember that next time I play RHO.

[mtvesuvius]

Mosene, on Feb 26 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

So RHO bid 4 hearts with 6! Must remember that next time I play RHO.

To be perfectly honest, this was the hand I had in mind for RHO... a 1=6=2=4 type hand, with lots of HCP. I thought we could get it 1 or 2, and I figured 4♠ would be down... But if this was the wrong decision, I would certainly take the blame.

[the hog]

whereagles, on Feb 27 2009, 12:48 AM, said:

2♠ before, 4♠ now

Agree with Nuno.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Feb 26 2009, 08:38 PM, said:

whereagles, on Feb 27 2009, 12:48 AM, said:

2♠ before, 4♠ now

Agree with Nuno.

Ouch, Phil and I take offense to that! Unless you were simply agreeing with Nuno's use of the smiley face.

[H_KARLUK]

kgr, on Feb 25 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ AKJxxx ♥ Jxxx ♦ xx ♣ x

MP's. You passed in 1st hand (..would you?) and bidding goes:
Pass-(Pass)-1♦-(4♥)
??
 
You play that DBL is info (at this level your partner will of course pass sooner then at lower level).

Scoring: MPs

---

One possible distribution. A matter of expertise or let's flip a coin? Who knows destiny is not in a fickle mood today.

[Gerben42]

My opinion is that not opening this 2♠ was losing bridge, now you have to bite into the lemon and bid 4♠.

[kgr]

RHO had a void in ♠.
About opening 2♠: I think that the answers could have been biased because you already saw 4♥ coming back. Not opening 2♠ will often be better if partner has ♥'s.

[H_KARLUK]

South's hand analyse
AKJ876 J987 72 3
KnR Points 12.90 *  Zar Points 27 *  Kleinman Points 9  Honor Tricks 2½*
Righty has Swallow points<long-suit "smother" potential,1-3 pts>
7cards: missing Q or J or both =1
8 cards : missing Q or J or both = 2; missing J only 1

Then righty is extremely dangerous. I cannot toss a nickel into box for who's short or void in ♥..already 2 or 1 cards at p or lefty. Righty may also start with not 7 times but 8 times ♥. Who will ruff or not 1st ♥ ? Oh it's not too much expertise. And prediction about th Winning minor suits Honors placement is another swamp.


About KnR, conceived by Edgar Kaplan, with Jeff Rubens. KnR evaluates hands based upon controls, loser Count, suit quality, and Honor placement, rather than upon th rote totaling of Milton Work's inadequate 4-3-2-1 point count. KnR provides some expert insight into th 'starting' valuation of a hand, for th purpose of choosing whether to open th bidding.
(Bridge World,1982--Article was "FOUR C's," for "Caution! Complex Computer count")(Original article contains a numeric error : 764-AQJ74-42-A83, evaluates to 12.20, not 12.25)(Following years th arena saw some KNR disclaimer advertise about some online hand evaluators produce erroneous KnR calculations)
About Zar, derived by Zar Petkov, is based upon extensive statistical compilation of tactics employed by international stars in world class competition. It takes Marty Bergen's Rule of 20 concept to a much higher level by factoring in shape, control values, placement of honors, and even a bit of bidding strategy.
About Kleinman, developed by Doug Bennion of Toronto from his double dummy analyses of thousands of <balanced hands>. Also called "Little Jack Points". Subsequently DB adopted th method to reflect both his own judgment, and that of EK in his own FOUR C'S evaluation. 11 Kleinman points=opening bid.