[mohitz]

♠ATx ♥8xx ♦Tx ♣AKTxx, vul against not, this hand was passed out in 4th seat in 9 out of ten tables in MBC.

[babalu1997]

the mass of men pass aka hands in the main bridge club

but give them

qj
qjxxxxx
kjx
qx

and they will open they will

then they rebid 3 hearts

given the chance they bid it again 4 hearts

[jillybean]

mohitz, on Apr 28 2010, 07:13 AM, said:

♠ATx ♥8xx ♦Tx ♣AKTxx, vul against not, this hand was passed out in 4th seat in 9 out of ten tables in MBC.

Rather then help the opps find their part score, I am with the MBC majority here - pass.

[mohitz]

jillybean, on Apr 28 2010, 09:00 PM, said:

Rather then help the opps find their part score, I am with the MBC majority here - pass.

Why does it have to be opponents who have a part score? With ATx and 8xx in majors, i think the odds are excellent that we are the ones who have a part score.

On the actual deal, we can take ten tricks in clubs. Opponents can take 8 tricks in diamonds.

[gordontd]

babalu1997, on Apr 28 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

the mass of men pass aka hands in the main bridge club

but give them

qj
qjxxxxx
kjx
qx

and they will open they will

then they rebid 3 hearts

given the chance they bid it again 4 hearts

Why not? The result will be cancelled whatever you do.

[mgoetze]

mohitz, on Apr 28 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

♠ATx ♥8xx ♦Tx ♣AKTxx, vul against not, this hand was passed out in 4th seat in 9 out of ten tables in MBC.

Incidentally, this hand fails not only the rule of 15, but also the rule of 20. Now, I myself have no problem opening rule of 18 any seat any vul, but I have noticed that most people I see in the MBC are a bit more conservative...

[the hog]

mohitz, on Apr 28 2010, 09:13 PM, said:

♠ATx ♥8xx ♦Tx ♣AKTxx, vul against not, this hand was passed out in 4th seat in 9 out of ten tables in MBC.

Clear pass in 4th seat. Just because on one particular hand you can make 10 tricks in Cs does not mean it is wrong to pass as the odds favour the opps being able to outbid you.

[hotShot]

The_Hog, on Apr 29 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

mohitz, on Apr 28 2010, 09:13 PM, said:

♠ATx ♥8xx ♦Tx ♣AKTxx, vul against not, this hand was passed out in 4th seat in 9 out of ten tables in MBC.

Clear pass in 4th seat. Just because on one particular hand you can make 10 tricks in Cs does not mean it is wrong to pass as the odds favour the opps being able to outbid you.

I don't think that the odds favor opps.
Since everybody in front of you has passed, you can expect them to hold their share of the average 9 2/3 HCP. Your side will hold 21 HCP more often than 20 and usually holding 20+ HCP you need a positive score to get a good result. Passing will just give you 0.
Since you hold 3 cards in each major, the average length for the remaining 3 player is 3 1/3. That would add to 6 2/3 for opps, so they have 7M cards more often than 6, but 7 is not a fit yet.

So if opps outbid you, they will usually play a 7 card fit and hold less than half of the points, of cause this does not guarantee a good score for your side, but you should have a reasonable chance to score better than 0.

[helene_t]

You have to open this hand IMHO. I would pass many rule-of-14 hands, but not this one.

Rule of 15 is often too conservative. If you have 10 points and 3.33 spades, you expect your side to have half the deck. Probably a little more since second-seat pass has a slightly higher upper limit than 1st and 3rd.

OTOH opps have a tactical advantage in that they both know that they can't make game on force so they have more freedom - our side is constrained by our obligation to show the (sub)minimum. So it must be right to pass some hands even if you expect the par score to be positive.

[Mbodell]

mgoetze, on Apr 28 2010, 01:15 PM, said:

mohitz, on Apr 28 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

♠ATx ♥8xx ♦Tx ♣AKTxx, vul against not, this hand was passed out in 4th seat in 9 out of ten tables in MBC.

Incidentally, this hand fails not only the rule of 15, but also the rule of 20.

But it hits 22 on the extended rule of 22 (HCP+2 longest +QT) and is 27 Zar points. Both of these suggest a clear opening hand.

Sounds like it might be worth a quick simulation to see if what double dummy par is on hands where it goes all pass to this hand. My bet is that it is positive for us, which would be evidence in favor of opening (obviously double dummy par is only an approximation, but still).

[gwnn]

I like this hand. 1♣.

[hotShot]

helene_t, on Apr 29 2010, 09:49 AM, said:

So it must be right to pass some hands even if you expect the par score to be positive.

Of cause there are, but (AAK) is better in both offense and defense than many opening hands with 12-14 HCP.

[mohitz]

KnR evaluator rates this as 13.7. This hand is pure, has 2.5 quick tricks, has 3 tens and 6 cards in the majors. I can't imagine passing this hand in any seat.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Apr 29 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

mohitz, on Apr 28 2010, 09:13 PM, said:

♠ATx ♥8xx ♦Tx ♣AKTxx, vul against not, this hand was passed out in 4th seat in 9 out of ten tables in MBC.

Clear pass in 4th seat. Just because on one particular hand you can make 10 tricks in Cs does not mean it is wrong to pass as the odds favour the opps being able to outbid you.

I am happy for them to outbid me if they go down.

[nige1]

IMO ♠ATx ♥8xx ♦Tx ♣AKTxx, even vul against not, is a clear 4th-seat opener. It seems that Pearson count is an unreliable yardstick. Even when you are short in spades, opponents are quite likely to encounter a bad trump break.

[Phil]

Passing is for bean counters.

Just because we 'think' the opponents might have the spades doesn't mean they do. And they might misjudge and get too high.

I like my chances for a plus here, so I open.

[the hog]

Phil, on Apr 30 2010, 05:36 AM, said:

Passing is for bean counters.

Just because we 'think' the opponents might have the spades doesn't mean they do. And they might misjudge and get too high.

I like my chances for a plus here, so I open.

Wasn't it bean counters who caught Goldman Sachs speeding? You are betting on Fabulous Fab I think.

[cherdanno]

Obvious opener. A AK!!! with two great tens!!! Roth-Stone would have opened this in any seat.

[Bbradley62]

I'd open this hand in first, second or third seat. But since this is MBC, I presume we're playing XIMPs, so when given the chance to pass it out, why would we want to fight for a part-score at this vulnerability?