[katonka]

I am holding the top rundown in Hearts and eight of them, I have around 12 points.

It seems that most open this with 4 Hearts. I also find that at least half of them go down when they discover that their pard has nothing.

I am thinking that this should be opened 2 Clubs. This will hold the bidding down and give my pard a chance to respond and me to find out if she has anything to cover my loosers.

When I tried this the other day, she did have points, no hearts, assumed I had 22 points and and the bidding went: 2 Clubs, 2 Diamonds, 2 Hearts, 4 NT, 5 Diamonds, 6 NT and it was not pretty.

Should I just open 1 Heart, even if I only have 11 points, see what her response is and them go to 5 if it shows 10 points or so?

I am hoping that some of the experts that follow and help on this forum will give me advise on this situation.

[Cyberyeti]

4 hearts is a 2-way shot, if you're not making 4♥, opps might be making 4♠ or 5m and you may keep them out of it or partner can visualise that it's right to bid 5♥.

In some jurisdictions you can agree to open this 2♣, but partner needs to be aware you can do this. 4N is rarely the right bid over 2♣-2♦-2♥ without a heart fit.

[wank]

you're 100% wrong. 2 clubs shows a far stronger hand and forces to game. anyway, going off in 4h is rarely a big problem as it the opponents can normally make something when your hand is very pure.

[ahydra]

Given a 1822 hand, here's the approach I use with my regular pard:

♠x ♥AKxxxxxx ♦xx ♣xx - A minimum 4H opening.
♠x ♥AKQJxxxx ♦Qx ♣xx - A maximum 4H opening.

♠x ♥AKxxxxxx ♦KQ ♣x - Open 1H and rebid 4H which we play as a long suit but not many points.

♠x ♥AKQxxxxx ♦AJ ♣xx - Open 1H and rebid 3H.

♠A ♥AKQxxxxx ♦Kx ♣xx - This is about the minimum for opening 2C (3-4 losers or 8-9 PTs).

If I had something like ♠Ax ♥AKQJxx ♦KJ10 ♣xx I would open 1H and rebid 3NT which fills the gap between 1H-...-3H and 2C opening, but it's limited to a 6-card suit really for majors (since we play a NF supernegative response in the major over our 2C/2D strong openings, with a 7-card suit we might as well just open 2C).

As others have said, opening 4H is a two-way shot. It's likely to make; it's also likely to be a good sac vs 4S or even 5m.

Opening 2C on the "maximum 4H" opening I've given above is a rather sizeable misdescription and it's no wonder your partner leaped into the stratosphere. Also 1H...5H is rather unusual as well and runs a large risk of getting too high or to the wrong place. If you don't play the 3NT rebid (or fake jump shift) so that you can use 1H...4H to show weakish hands with a long suit, define with your partner where the boundaries for 2H, 3H and 4H rebids should be and go from there.

ahydra

[billw55]

1♥ will probably get the most votes here. Although some data collected by Richard Pavlicek seems to suggest that opening 4♥ may be just as good.

2♣ is bad for the reason you experienced, and others.

[wank]

ahydra, on 2014-September-02, 10:45, said:

♠x ♥AKQxxxxx ♦AJ ♣xx - Open 1H and rebid 3H.



ahydra

you devote that sequence to 9 trick hands?

this is an example of 1 thing i've noticed on bbf: the standard of bidding in england is far lower than in other countries for players of a similar overall level.

[neilkaz]

billw55, on 2014-September-02, 11:34, said:

1♥ will probably get the most votes here. Although some data collected by Richard Pavlicek seems to suggest that opening 4♥ may be just as good.

2♣ is bad for the reason you experienced, and others.

I don't mind 4♥ but whether to bid 4♥ or just open 1, depends upon PD, opps, which seat I am in and what vul, for me.

[Zelandakh]

Without playing any gadgets you choose between 1♥ and 4♥. In third seat I would always go for 4; in first or second 1 comes back into it. The chances of 1♥ being passed out with 11-12hcp and an 8 card suit is close to zero. 2♣ would be a misdescription and in some jurisdictions would not even be allowed. The biggest problem is not ctually what you experienced, partner getting over-excited, but rather what to do when the opponents bid and partner doubles at a high level. Are you going to pull it, even at the 7 level?

There are also a couple of useful conventions that can help here. The older one is Namyats, where an opening bid of 4♣ shows a good 4 level preempt in hearts. There are a few different ways of playing this but a popular one is for it to show either a solid heart suit and nothing outside or a 1 loser heart suit with an outside ace or void. The more recent alternative that has been gaining in popularity over the last years is for a 3NT opening to show a good 4M preempt in either major. The extra space compensates for the major being unknown.

[ahydra]

wank, on 2014-September-02, 19:04, said:

you devote that sequence to 9 trick hands?

this is an example of 1 thing i've noticed on bbf: the standard of bidding in england is far lower than in other countries for players of a similar overall level.

No, 1H...3H is the standard "(15)16-18 / 6 losers or equivalent playing strength". Admittedly AKQ8th plus an outside ace warrants more than 3H - come to think of it, I'd go 1H...4H with this - so was a bad example. Perhaps A J109xxxxx AJ Kx would be a better example.

The gap you perceive in standards of bidding may be in part due to different system approaches given that nearly everyone in England uses a weak NT and most use 4cM. This has wide-ranging implications on many other sequences, as you can no doubt imagine.

ahydra

[helene_t]

ahydra, on 2014-September-03, 05:04, said:

The gap you perceive in standards of bidding may be in part due to different system approaches given that nearly everyone in England uses a weak NT and most use 4cM. This has wide-ranging implications on many other sequences, as you can no doubt imagine.

What does it matter what nt range you play? What matters is the range of unbalanced hands that open at the 1-level. You can narrow that range by playing sound openings, or by opening semi-forcing hands at the 2-level.

The only relevance of weak NT and 4-card majors I can see is that you are forced to play
1M-1NT
2/3NT
as natural so you can't put any unlanced hands into those rebids. But most strong-nt'ers and/or 5-card-majorites play the 2NT rebid as natural and 3nt as specifically 6(322) so it doesn't affect the ranges for 6331, 7321 and such shapes.

[ahydra]

helene_t, on 2014-September-03, 06:17, said:

What does it matter what nt range you play? What matters is the range of unbalanced hands that open at the 1-level. You can narrow that range by playing sound openings, or by opening semi-forcing hands at the 2-level.

The only relevance of weak NT and 4-card majors I can see is that you are forced to play
1M-1NT
2/3NT
as natural so you can't put any unlanced hands into those rebids. But most strong-nt'ers and/or 5-card-majorites play the 2NT rebid as natural and 3nt as specifically 6(322) so it doesn't affect the ranges for 6331, 7321 and such shapes.

I was talking more generally, rather than just about this topic, sorry.

ahydra

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-03, 04:54, said:

2♣ would be a misdescription and in some jurisdictions would not even be allowed.

Well, a 2♣ opening bid can be almost anything you want it to be, as long as it is properly disclosed.

[Zelandakh]

Have they abandoned ER25 in England now then? it was certainly restricted before the last revision. Surely what a 2♣ opening can mean depends on where you are playing and at what level. In the ACBL (GCC) it has to be "strong" but what strong is is not defined (Ed will tell you it means whatever the person making the bid wants it to mean!). I guess AKQxxxxx and out would not qualify though as that is also less than "average".

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-04, 04:33, said:

Have they abandoned ER25 in England now then? it was certainly restricted before the last revision. Surely what a 2♣ opening can mean depends on where you are playing and at what level. In the ACBL (GCC) it has to be "strong" but what strong is is not defined (Ed will tell you it means whatever the person making the bid wants it to mean!). I guess AKQxxxxx and out would not qualify though as that is also less than "average".

From the blue book

Quote

5 C 3 Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any one or more of:
(a) any hand of at least 16 HCP, or
(b) any hand meeting the Rule of 25, or
© subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains at least the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks.

Clear cut tricks are tricks taken opposite a void with the second best break so AKQ 8th is 7 tricks, AKQJ 8th is 8. c) is argued about as to what the normal high card strength associated with a 1 level opening means, whether it's 9/10/11/12.

[blackshoe]

Ed will tell you that the ACBL says that "strong" means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means. Ed will also tell you that he thinks the ACBL is nuts.

The hand that bit me on this was ♠AKQJxxxx ♥Jxx ♦- ♣Jx. The director described it as "not quite a psych". I should have asked him what smallest change would make it a psych, but I didn't. I think this hand would be ruled within ER25 in England, now that I look at it with that rule in front of me.

[nige1]

katonka, on 2014-September-02, 09:34, said:

I am holding the top rundown in Hearts and eight of them, I have around 12 points. It seems that most open this with 4 Hearts. I also find that at least half of them go down when they discover that their pard has nothing. I am thinking that this should be opened 2 Clubs. This will hold the bidding down and give my pard a chance to respond and me to find out if she has anything to cover my loosers.When I tried this the other day, she did have points, no hearts, assumed I had 22 points and and the bidding went: 2 Clubs, 2 Diamonds, 2 Hearts, 4 NT, 5 Diamonds, 6 NT and it was not pretty.Should I just open 1 Heart, even if I only have 11 points, see what her response is and them go to 5 if it shows 10 points or so?

IMO 3N (=Good major) or 4♣ (SAT) = 11, 4♥ = 10, 1♥ = 8, 2♣ = 6.

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on 2014-September-04, 18:53, said:

IMO 3N (=Good major) or 4♣ (SAT) = 11, 4♥ = 10, 1♥ = 8, 2♣ = 6.

Don't you want to see a hand first? I would want to give different scores for ♠AJx ♥AKxxxxxx ♦x ♣x than for ♠J ♥AKQJxxxx ♦J ♣xxx but both match the OP description. For that matter, do you really like 2♣ enough for 6 points on either hand?!

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-04, 16:53, said:

Ed will tell you that the ACBL says that "strong" means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means. Ed will also tell you that he thinks the ACBL is nuts.

Because one occasionally works for the ACBL (but NEVER speaks for it, good time to remind everybody), one has no comment.

Quote

The hand that bit me on this was ♠AKQJxxxx ♥Jxx ♦- ♣Jx. The director described it as "not quite a psych". I should have asked him what smallest change would make it a psych, but I didn't. I think this hand would be ruled within ER25 in England, now that I look at it with that rule in front of me.

What annoys me about this - as I'm sure Ed knows and agrees - is that it wouldn't be a psych even if that "almost" happened, unless it's not what they actually play. It might be an illegal agreement; it might be an not-sufficiently-disclosed agreement (unfortunately, with the ACBL's Alerting rules, I am not sure it *can* be sufficiently disclosed without screens. I do know that most that play this way don't/can't understand why their disclosure is insufficient); but if it's their agreement, it can't be a psych, never mind that it would be for every other pair in the room.

I try to emphasise that, because otherwise I get told that opening 2♠ on 85432 AQ T84 J84 is a psych, when it is clearly not - passing *would* be, given our agreement!

[nige1]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-05, 01:45, said:

Don't you want to see a hand first? I would want to give different scores for ♠AJx ♥AKxxxxxx ♦x ♣x than for ♠J ♥AKQJxxxx ♦J ♣xxx but both match the OP description. For that matter, do you really like 2♣ enough for 6 points on either hand?!

Yes, I agree .
IMO ER25 should be binned. The emphasis should be on disclosure (which tends to be woeful) rather than system-regulation (which is annoying and ineffective).