[maggieb]

1♦ - (2♣) - P - (P)
X - (P) - 2♥ - (P)
2♠

How do you play 2♠?

[Jlall]

Doesn't show extras, just running from 2H. Axxx Kx AQxxx xx would be one example.

[maggieb]

Jlall, on Nov 20 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Doesn't show extras, just running from 2H. Axxx Kx AQxxx xx would be one example.

What is the weakest hand with 4252 shape where you would not double and then plan to convert 2♥ to 2♠ (assuming you don't have particularly good hearts and/or bad spades).

Also what is your impression on how most experts would treat this auction?

[kenrexford]

ELC, I agree.

The weakest hand I might do this with 4252 is an 11-count.

[Phil]

I thought we had a thread on this some time back.

I referenced a MSC problem and I thought most treated this as extras and not a minimum offshape reopening.

[kenrexford]

Phil, on Nov 20 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

I thought we had a thread on this some time back.

I referenced a MSC problem and I thought most treated this as extras and not a minimum offshape reopening.

Most were idiots then. Unless I said that then. LOL

[Jlall]

kenrexford, on Nov 20 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

Phil, on Nov 20 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

I thought we had a thread on this some time back.

I referenced a MSC problem and I thought most treated this as extras and not a minimum offshape reopening.

Most were idiots then. Unless I said that then. LOL

Wouldn't surprise me if I used to think this should show extras, I used to lean pretty heavily in that direction.

[Phil]

2 years ago

God I'm good.

[jdonn]

I think it should be extras, though need not be as many as in the BW hand. I only think it shouldn't promise extras if you don't bypass your suit, like 1♠ 2♣ P P X P 2♦ P 2♥/♠.

On the 4252 example hands, if I have doubled I'll just pass and maybe take my lumps. I think if 2♠ doesn't show extras then they become too hard to show.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Nov 20 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

On the 4252 example hands, if I have doubled I'll just pass and maybe take my lumps. I think if 2♠ doesn't show extras then they become too hard to show.

Doesn't a 2S balance show extras? I don't think it's that hard to show. Seems like there's overlap in what people would balance with 2S on vs what they would X and bid 2S on, is the latter just more suitable for defending 2C X?

If you have to balance with 2S on 4252 extras you lose the ability to penalize them when you're strong. Oh well, it's not likely partner can pass anyways in that case. In exchange you get to balance with a double on 4252 mins which is a super common hand type where partner is reasonably likely to have a penalty pass and if he doesn't have a penalty pass you almost surely want to be competing anyways (so long as you don't have to play 4-2 heart fits!). I could not stomach either of the alternatives (pass it out, or X and pass 2H) with this hand type.

[Jlall]

I guess while we're on this subject:

1S 2H p p
X p 3C p
3D

5152 type hand not extras right?

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Nov 20 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

I guess while we're on this subject:

1S 2H p p
X p 3C p
3D

5152 type hand not extras right?

I still think it's extras (like maybe 16). I don't want to give up on the penalty with that hand but I still want to show extras! At least there partner is really likely to have 5+ clubs.

[mikeh]

I agree with Josh.

I also agree with Justin (wow, I'm being agreeable...heck, I even agreed with Ken a few posts back).

When I say I agree with Justin, I mean only that I agree that his arguments make sense. I would NOT, however, expect a pickup expert partner to play it as Justin espouses...I would expect such a partner to more often than not treat the given sequence and Justin's alternative as showing extras....which, in my case, I would define as about a K more than a minimum. Others may have other definitions.

[Jlall]

mikeh, on Nov 20 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

When I say I agree with Justin, I mean only that I agree that his arguments make sense. I would NOT, however, expect a pickup expert partner to play it as Justin espouses...I would expect such a partner to more often than not treat the given sequence and Justin's alternative as showing extras....which, in my case, I would define as about a K more than a minimum. Others may have other definitions.

Yeah I do not think my preferred way is standard (yet?) and I would not assume a random expert would be playing this. Guess I should have said that. I do strongly prefer it though.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Nov 20 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 20 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

Phil, on Nov 20 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

I thought we had a thread on this some time back.

I referenced a MSC problem and I thought most treated this as extras and not a minimum offshape reopening.

Most were idiots then. Unless I said that then. LOL

Wouldn't surprise me if I used to think this should show extras, I used to lean pretty heavily in that direction.

Dude where were you two years ago when we were discussing this?

I felt like I was on my own little island.

[gnasher]

My opinion on this varies according to what I had last time this sequence came up. My current agreement is "If opener removes to the remaining unbid suit or to his own suit at the one or two level, without changing the level or reversing, it’s a correction of contract." That would make this a 2♠ bid.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Nov 20 2009, 08:38 PM, said:

My opinion on this varies according to what I had last time this sequence came up.  My current agreement is "If opener removes to the remaining unbid suit or to his own suit at the one or two level, without changing the level or reversing, it’s a correction of contract."  That would make this a 2♠ bid.

Would make what a 2♠ bid?

It sounds like a more complicated way to state my rule, no extras are bypass if opener doesn't bypass his suit. Well I guess we would differ on 1♦ 1♥ p p X p 1♠ p 2♣ since he changed the level?

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Nov 21 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

Would make what a 2♠ bid?

Sorry, it would make Justin's example a 2♠ bid.

Quote

It sounds like a more complicated way to state my rule, no extras are bypass if opener doesn't bypass his suit. Well I guess we would differ on 1♦ 1♥ p p X p 1♠ p 2♣ since he changed the level?

Yes, although I don't have a strong opinion about it. Would you double and bid 2♣ with Kx xx AQxxx Axxx?

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Nov 20 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

I guess while we're on this subject:

1S 2H p p
X p 3C p
3D

5152 type hand not extras right?

I agree.

BTW -- I agree now with myself then. Happy to see that.

[Winstonm]

This 5422 discussion is pretty interesting. I would think one ingredient to know is how often partner really wants to penalty double the opponents, and I would think that percentage would rise dramatically if opener held x instead of xx in opponents suit. The other factor is how often will we want to compete with minimum 5422 and partner has passed.

The choices are among allowing opponents to play undoubled versus us competing with minimums and us competing and showing extra values.

Without a lot of brain cells spent, I would imagine balancing with 5422 would be at least slightly above the minimum opening requirements. There isn't going to be a lot of loss between down 2 +100 and any partial. But if I have a goodish 14 and partner a 10-11 count that may not be applicable any longer.