[Lord Molyb]

---

First seat, none vulnerable.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

pass

[broze]

Don't mind pass but I don't really think you can catch up enough. Prefer 1♦

[Cyberyeti]

broze, on 2014-February-12, 08:38, said:

Don't mind pass but I don't really think you can catch up enough. Prefer 1♦

Agreed.

[mikeh]

it's a question of style. For me, a pass. Not enough controls, and for every hand where we 'can't catch up' after passing, I'll show you a hand on which we can't slow down after opening. I doubt it's possible to convince anyone on this type of hand, but when I open crap, I want to hold controls, not quacks.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I have no strong feelings, basically I am torn between pass
and 3D.

Most likely I would go with pass, we prefer our honors in our
suit, at least as long as partner no chance to speak.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2014-February-12, 09:08, said:

it's a question of style. For me, a pass. Not enough controls, and for every hand where we 'can't catch up' after passing, I'll show you a hand on which we can't slow down after opening. I doubt it's possible to convince anyone on this type of hand, but when I open crap, I want to hold controls, not quacks.

QJxx and Q109xxx are pretty good quacky holdings, I'd be opening this without Q♣. K&R gives 11.00 (with the Q♣ only worth 0.2, it's 10.80 with that as a small one)

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-12, 10:13, said:

QJxx and Q109xxx are pretty good quacky holdings, I'd be opening this without Q♣. K&R gives 11.00 (with the Q♣ only worth 0.2, it's 10.80 with that as a small one)

you and I inhabit different bridge universes. I doubt there is any other frequent poster with whose answers I more consistently disagree, whether it be your tendency to always have auctions that reach the optimum spot when you see both hands, or your overcall style, or your opening bid style. Perhaps the only areas where I don't recall consistently disagreeing with you are play or defence problems, and I suspect that that is because you rarely respond to them...after all, many such problems are susceptible to proof of the correct answer, which isn't the case with single hand bidding problems, while the two handed bidding problems seem always to be trivial for you.

Thus, while I respect your right to claim that you'd open this piece of sh*t even without the club Q, I'm not the least persuaded that such is good bridge.

[gszes]

PASS with not a care in the world -- opening this some sort of preempt

may all too easily bury the heart suit and a 1 D opening with 1 defensive trick and

a bunch of med school rejects (quacks) and no clear lead direction just seems to

miss the point of bidding. Catching up with this sort of hand is generally super easy

unless you happen to play 2 way drury (for some reason sigh) and p opens 1s.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2014-February-12, 18:06, said:

you and I inhabit different bridge universes. I doubt there is any other frequent poster with whose answers I more consistently disagree, whether it be your tendency to always have auctions that reach the optimum spot when you see both hands, or your overcall style, or your opening bid style. Perhaps the only areas where I don't recall consistently disagreeing with you are play or defence problems, and I suspect that that is because you rarely respond to them...after all, many such problems are susceptible to proof of the correct answer, which isn't the case with single hand bidding problems, while the two handed bidding problems seem always to be trivial for you.

Thus, while I respect your right to claim that you'd open this piece of sh*t even without the club Q, I'm not the least persuaded that such is good bridge.

Bear in mind I don't play 2/1, so my opening bids don't have to deal with partner responding with a misfitting GF I may not like.

Also a lot of the auctions where I contribute are ones that are difficult for people playing American systems, but much easier for people who for example open real minor suits. The problems don't tend to be posted where Acol struggles but 2/1 makes it easy because people playing 2/1 got them right and didn't feel they were interesting.

This is to my mind a 6-4 9 count with decent intermediates and we open 6-4 9 counts unless there's a real reason not to like a stiff honour or Quackx.

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-12, 18:28, said:

Bear in mind I don't play 2/1, so my opening bids don't have to deal with partner responding with a misfitting GF I may not like.

Though often claimed, I do not believe this to be of overriding concern.
2/1 has little to do with the question how light to open.
If you open light a 2/1 response needs to be stronger than if you don't. End of story. You open more hands, but a lower percentage of them will receive a 2/1 reply.

The question of opening light means the partnership must care for a wider range of strength and this does cost somewhere.
For example if you allow for more signoff and invitational non forcing sequences (not playing 2/1) your choice of game and slam bidding will be less precise, since more sequences will be reserved as non forcing.
I can understand that playing strong club systems, a lighter opening style can be accommodated slightly better.
But what set of responses you play to wide ranging opening bids can not narrow the issue that you have to handle a wider range of hands and precision will suffer.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2014-February-13, 04:14, said:

Though often claimed, I do not believe this to be of overriding concern.
2/1 has little to do with the question how light to open.
If you open light a 2/1 response needs to be stronger than if you don't. End of story. You open more hands, but a lower percentage of them will receive a 2/1 reply.

The question of opening light means the partnership must care for a wider range of strength and this does cost somewhere.
For example if you allow for more signoff and invitational non forcing sequences (not playing 2/1) your choice of game and slam bidding will be less precise, since more sequences will be reserved as non forcing.
I can understand that playing strong club systems, a lighter opening style can be accommodated slightly better.
But what set of responses you play to wide ranging opening bids can not narrow the issue that you have to handle a wider range of hands and precision will suffer.

Rainer Herrmann

If you require the earth to 2/1 then your 1N response gets silly, which is why I think most people open a bit stronger playing 2/1.

You need some methods to cater for light opening bids, and say 1♦-1♠/2♣-2♦-2♥(artificial inv+)-2N(9-10 6-4 reds or 10-11 5-4) allow us to sort these hands out OK most of the time.

[whereagles]

Look at opps. If they are aching to bid, try the effect of 2D.

Otherwise just play down the middle and open 1D.