[Antrax]

---

First seat all vul. at matchpoints, I chose to open the above and it led to a bad result. I'm wondering if I should've passed, and why.

[Zelandakh]

It's an opening bid playing a very light opening style. Playing standard methods, not so much. Why? Because the quacks bring the effective playing strength down considerably, even with the 2 tens. It would be reasonable to treat the hand as an effective 10 count.

[the_clown]

I am passing. 11 bal and no Ace is very ugly. Jx doubleton doesnt make it any better.

[P_Marlowe]

No.

Ask yourself, what do you bid / how do you feel, if partner responds 1S, 1NT, 2C, ...

1S - I guess, selling the hand as bal. with 12-14 is ok.
1NT - Even if it is forcing, you can pass, the worst maybe missing a 53 heart fit
2C - If the bd is forcing for one round (Acol Style), you can stop in 2H, so this is fine
If the bid is self forcing, you will end up in 2NT, facing a partner with 10-11HCP
If the bid is gameforcing, you may need 13/14+ for the bid, increasing the set of hand
that have to go via 1NT, or go regular down with a combined strength of 23/24 HCP

In general: 2/1 with strong NT is not a system that works well with light openers.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

No. yuck. You should have passed because you have 1 control and a lot of quacks (of course these two are correlated ).

[Fluffy]

quacky and also very important: balanced, both downgrade the hand potential as well as the ODR. The intermediates are good, but not enough to compensate the flaws.

[PhilKing]

Yuck!

[Antrax]

Okay, seems unanimous enough
Partner forced to game (2/1) with this:

---

We had an intelligent auction that established that we have no 8 card fit and no ♦stopper, so we played 4♥-1. Not the worst result (3NT is down more and there were several) but I was wondering after the hand if we were unlucky or if I should just pass - I tried applying that principle of upgrading early and then showing a minimum throughout, but I guess this time the shoe doesn't fit

[Cyberyeti]

It's a balanced 11 count, and that's probably about what it's worth, it has pluses and minuses, if you play an 11-13 no trump opener or rebid I'd consider it, but otherwise no, it's definitely not a 12 count and shouldn't be bid as such.

Edit - Crossed with your previous post - playing 2/1 I certainly don't open it.

[sfi]

Antrax, on 2013-February-14, 06:22, said:

I tried applying that principle of upgrading early and then showing a minimum throughout, but I guess this time the shoe doesn't fit

The problem with that approach is that once you treat it as an opening hand you have set a clear minimum for the hand - "opening values" - and can never convince partner that you have less than that. You can only narrow the range of possible hands, not expand the top and bottom (mostly).

So treating it as a minimum doesn't help if it starts off as a sub-minimum. Which, as others have said, this is if you're playing some standardish opening range.

[rmnka447]

It may be a tad old fashioned to some hereabouts, but most really expert players (Bergen, Lawrence, etc.) advocate not only looking at HCP, but also "Quick Tricks" [QTs] when deciding whether to open a hand.

Quick tricks are as follows based on your holdings in any individual suit:

AK(x...) = 2 QTs
AQ(x...) = 1 1/2 QTs
A(x...) = 1 QT
KQ(x...)= 1 QT
Kx(x...)= 1/2 QT

The pretty much accepted standard is to open when you have 12 HCP and at least 2 QTs with a 1 level bid. You can also open 11 HCP hands with 2 1/2 QTs. Some experts say you should open any 3 QT hand, some might not open a hand like xxx Axx xxxx AKx.

The best explanation as to why you are looking at QTs is this. QTs are the foundation of the hand's strength. They represent solid defensive values/controls vital to play. If you open at the 1 level, then you want to do so with a solid foundation for further bidding and play. Hence, the above standards represent a good minimum for that foundation.

Applying the QT table to your hand,

0 QTs for ♠ Q103
0 QTs for ♥ QJ1086
0 QTs for ♦ J4
1 QT for ♣ KQ9
---
1 QT total for the hand

So the hand doesn't have enough QTs to warrant an opening bid.

[Fluffy]

I want to see those american experts passing with KJ KJ KJ QJ

[billw55]

Pass for me, but I consider it close and wouldn't mind much if partner opened it. After all, if it had just one more jack, who would hesitate to open it?

[Zelandakh]

rmnka447, on 2013-February-14, 07:21, said:

It may be a tad old fashioned to some hereabouts, but most really expert players (Bergen, Lawrence, etc.) advocate not only looking at HCP, but also "Quick Tricks" [QTs] when deciding whether to open a hand.

Do you actually know any "really expert players"? The majority? I would be quite surprised if the majority relied on a crutch rule like the one you are advocating. Rather, I suspect they look at many different aspects of a hand and judge them together to decide if a given hand should be opened with a one bid or not. Sometimes very good players also publish short-cut rules for helping intermediate players which are surrogates for real judgement and not what they actually use at the table. Not that I personally know and "really expert players" personally. Luckily we actually have a couple using these forums so why don't we see what they have to say about it?

[mikeh]

My own views have been expressed here a number of times. I agree that I think most really good players use judgement rather than any one or two simple measurements. However, such judgement is, in my experience, based upon the often unconscious melding of various aspects of a hand.

Factors I consider include:

hcp. I won't pass 13, but I have no difficulty passing very bad 12 counts. I open good 11's and great 10's and consider myself to be a conservative bidder

controls: I think most experts these days are more comfortable using controls as a metric, rather than quick tricks. They are related but different. My personal rule is that I will very rarely, if ever, open light in 1st or 2nd seat withoout at least 3 controls, A=2, K=1

ltc: losing trick count, used primarily for shapely hands. Some clear openers have a high LTC, but one of the factors I weigh in deciding whether to open a great 10 count would be that the LTC is 7 or fewer. Btw, I've never seen a great 10 count with a higher LTC, so I suspect that my assessment of 'greatness' comes with an automatic feel for the ltc.

In and out valuation: this tends to overlap with ltc: hands with hcp in one's long suits are worth more than hands with hcp in the short suits. This is why simplistic rules such as the rule of 20 are absurd.

Combined honours and good texture: again, combined honours to some degree reflect the same concepts as ltc and in and out valuation. KQxxx xxx is better than Kxxxx Qxx.

Ease of rebid. While one can never predict how the other players will act over our opening, we can sometimes forsee problems. For example, with a borderline 1=4=4=4, and the agreement that a 1N rebid over a 1♠ response promises xx or better in spades, one might choose to pass rather than open. Whereas with 4=1=4=4, one will have zero problem rebidding 1♠ over a 1♥ response so one would be inclined to open.

Vulnerability and preemptive effect of opening. I'm more inclined to stretch to open 1♠ than 1♥. The lower the rank of one's opening suit, the more the opening is an anti-preempt, allowing LHO to overcall on a hand that wouldn't open had I passed.

I doubt that there are any players who, when evaluating a hand using some mix of these or other factors, would reduce the analysis to any formula or come up with a 'number'. I do know that there are metrics out there than take into account a number of factors and generate a numeric value and maybe there are players who do that at the table. I am definitely not one of them and I have never heard a good player explain his decision based on that sort of approach.

Basically, I throw all of this into the mental hopper and out comes the decision as to whether to open.

I would not have opened the given hand. It's ok on ltc, does well on combined honours and texture, and has no rebid problem. But is it woefully short of controls. Queens and Jacks are overvalued by the 4321 method, while Aces and Kings are undervalued, so this isn't really 11 hcp and, even if it is, it is incredibly soft.

IRL, at the table, I'd have looked quickly at this hand and passed without doing any conscious valuation such as above, but I am sure that were I later asked to explain 'why' that seemed like the right decision, I would at least mentally have reviewed these considerations.

[kfay]

No

[dustinst22]

Playing 2/1, its too risky to open this imo. A lot of bad things can happen.

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2013-February-14, 11:55, said:

I do know that there are metrics out there than take into account a number of factors and generate a numeric value and maybe there are players who do that at the table. I am definitely not one of them and I have never heard a good player explain his decision based on that sort of approach.

+5

Almost worth changing my signature for this.

[neilkaz]

Easy pass. The 10's don't make up for the lack of aces, balanced natural, ton of quacks, and dub J. This is a very bad 11 count.

[Free]

Even MOSCITO (a very light opening system) doesn't open this garbage. Btw, any particular reason why you didn't play 4♠ in the Moysian?