[hanp]

I think the K-R evaulator puts way too much emphasis on honors in long suits. I agree that this hand is not quite an opening though, and 2S is disgusting.

[Fluffy]

I like the Bowles method, can you give me an executable file or script to use it?

[fred]

For me, if playing a natural system:

2S is normal but questionable. I have some sympathy for Pass, but I have zero sympathy for 1S.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

compare this to

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=35651

it's mostly the same problem (of course it makes sense to bid spades lighter than hearts, which I think is why I opened this 1♠ but was reluctant to do so on the other hand). I wonder if the same people have the same choices. I will cross-check.

anyway of course I'm happy that this thread exists, now we learned about the Bowles method

I kind of remember a similar thread from longer ago but I can't find it.

[nigel_k]

gnasher, on Jan 12 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

nigel_k, on Jan 11 2010, 11:08 AM, said:

Kaplan/Rubens values this at 9.05

The people who suggested 1♠ are either point count addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

The Bowles evaluation method* values this as an opening bid. The people who suggest it's a pass are either Kaplan/Rubens addicts or need to take a closer look at the actual hand.

Doesn't that make just as much sense as what you posted?

* This method consists of looking at the hand and deciding how much I like it.

Heh. I suspect one difference is that Kaplan/Rubens is designed to get to contracts that most of us can make while the Bowles method is designed for getting to contracts that only Andy Bowles can make.

Still, this is really quite a bad hand. Before using K/R I looked at the hand and decided how much I liked it and the answer was 'not much'. K/R is just a shortcut way to attach a number to the things that make this hand bad.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Pretty sure this is one of those things that lots of people teach that is absolutely terrible advice. The flaw in the thinking is that whether or not to preempt is determined by points, which it is not. So the thought process should be:

Why "preempt" ? Why not think about 2M openings as just weak openings with 6card majors ? Not as "preempts".
Going through generated hadns I think 2♠ works best. This is why I open it. I don't care at all about beauty points.

[fred]

OleBerg, on Jan 8 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ KJ9854 ♥ Q4 ♦ Q86 ♣ QJ

There is one strange reason to be optimistic about this hand:

Any Kings and Queens that partner was dealt are working cards.

For me that helps justify opening at the 2-level, but not at the 1-level. With respect to opening 1S, I can't get past the close to zero quick tricks.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[whereagles]

well, shame on you fred

zero quick tricks, but lots of slow ones eheh

[jmcw]

6 card suit, 2 of top 4 and less than an opener = 2♠
Whats the problem again?

[the hog]

fred, on Jan 12 2010, 05:01 AM, said:

OleBerg, on Jan 8 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> KJ9854 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> Q4 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> Q86 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> QJ </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

There is one strange reason to be optimistic about this hand:

Any Kings and Queens that partner was dealt are working cards.

For me that helps justify opening at the 2-level, but not at the 1-level. With respect to opening 1S, I can't get past the close to zero quick tricks.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

This comment appears to be oxymoronic. If the quacks are working cards then they are working in a 1 level contract as well. A 2S opening, (or its equivalent), should be a much purer bid in my opinion. All 2S will do is to confuse partner; I regard it as a very poor bid. As I said, I don't mind pass, and would do so with certain more conservative partners.

[helene_t]

fred, on Jan 11 2010, 11:01 PM, said:

There is one strange reason to be optimistic about this hand:

Any Kings and Queens that partner was dealt are working cards.

Well, it means that the hand has the offensive potential that partner expects from a 2♠ opening. If he bids 4♠ to make it is probably ok. Maybe we go down but in that case we would probably have gotten the same bad results if I start with a pass and then invite to game after his opening. Maybe a 2♠ opening serves to rightside the contract, if p opens 1NT we may end up in 4♠ by the wrong side after a transfer. (This is not much of an issue for strong-notrumpers since if p has 15+ we probably have game anyway).

The problem I see is that the queens may work in defense also, so if partner bids 4♠ as a sac, and he is assuming we play disciplined preempts, it is likely to be bad.

[jdonn]

This thread has 51 posts.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Jan 21 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

This thread has 51 posts.

Really?