[jillybean]

---

[mike777]

1s seems fine.


5+ good spades, opening hand...

[Phil]

You have to bid 1♠ with this.

[rduran1216]

there's nothing here, if you aren't overcalling with this, when are you going to?

[Mbodell]

I don't hate 2♠ (making a wide ranging bid with a partner who passed), but 1♠ is the normal call.

[aguahombre]

Mbodell, on 2012-June-23, 21:34, said:

I don't hate 2♠ (making a wide ranging bid with a partner who passed), but 1♠ is the normal call.

Agree that 1S is normal, but mark me down with the 2♠ haters.

[straube]

I would bid 1S. I don't like 2S because partner doesn't necessarily have a bad hand and we can be on for 4S. Also, this hand has a poor suit for a vulnerable 2S call and too much defense (ODR is too low).

[chasetb]

2♠, because in this auction/vulnerability this is the type of hand that should be bid at the 2-level -> 10-14 HCP hands with a good 6 bagger. Of course, most people still play this as weak, so I will grudgingly bid 1♠.

[gwnn]

Now QJ9xxx is a good 6 bagger? How standards have fallen.. I don't like 2S whatever the range is (but don't quite hate it). I do hate pass.

[akhare]

1♠ -- hand seems way too balanced for 2♠...

[nige1]

IMO 1♠ = 10, 2♠ = 7, 3♠ = 5, Double = 4, Pass = 3.

[straube]

nige1, on 2012-June-24, 20:42, said:

IMO 1♠ = 10, 2♠ = 7, 3♠ = 5, Double = 4, Pass = 3.

I think you're way too generous with 3S, double and pass. If available, I'd give double a negative score.

[chasetb]

gwnn, on 2012-June-24, 04:30, said:

Now QJ9xxx is a good 6 bagger? How standards have fallen.. I don't like 2S whatever the range is (but don't quite hate it). I do hate pass.

Well, for a Weak 2 bid a 'good suit' is 2 of top 3 honors or 3 of top 5, so I use that criteria. I should technically have the 10 instead of the 9, but it's close enough (for government work anyways).

nige1, on 2012-June-24, 20:42, said:

IMO 1♠ = 10, 2♠ = 7, 3♠ = 5, Double = 4, Pass = 3.

I agree with Straube that 3♠, X, and Pass are all horrid.

[Phil]

nige1, on 2012-June-24, 20:42, said:

IMO 1♠ = 10, 2♠ = 7, 3♠ = 5, Double = 4, Pass = 3.

I don't understand this. I mean, I don't understand a lot of Nige1's posts. but how can you give points for a call like x?

[gwnn]

our hand=6223 11 count
x~4234 10+ count

Seems legit.

[Zelandakh]

rduran1216, on 2012-June-23, 20:49, said:

there's nothing here, if you aren't overcalling with this, when are you going to?

The decision is not between 1♠ and pass but rather between 1♠ and 2♠. This is an area where style matters; you decide what a 2 level jump overcall in this spot means for your partnership at unfavourable and stick with it. This hand either qualifies or not.

[gszes]

AT THESE COLORS where there is almost never a profitable sacrifice- It seems a
rather large waste to use a 2s bid as preemtive. I am strongly in favor of using 2s
in this type of auction as intermediate. A hand that is good enough for game if p
has like 10-11 balanced HCP and a couple of small spades. This is to keep us
from getting shut out of the bidding if p lho happens to bid 4h and p just cant do
much at these colors (if we happen to make a simple 1s overcall or pass). Having
said this I do not advocate a 2s bid with this hand because it falls about a Q short
of the needed requirements (or 1 extra spade). On this hand I choose to bid



1s

[nige1]

Phil, on 2012-June-25, 05:18, said:

I don't understand this. I mean, I don't understand a lot of Nige1's posts. but how can you give points for a call like x?

In future, I'll try to be clearer, Phil. In the past, I've explained that I give marks of 5 or less to bids that I consider but I think are unlikely to work. I'm no expert and I'm here to learn. I'm happy to change my views when persuaded by the arguments of others.

[straube]

nige1, on 2012-June-25, 20:36, said:

In future, I'll try to be clearer, Phil. In the past, I've explained that I give marks of 5 or less to bids that I consider but I think are unlikely to work. I'm no expert and I'm here to learn. I change my views when persuaded by the arguments of others.

I think you might revise your rating system. First, only rate bids that you think an expert would consider. I.e. if no expert would make that bid, don't include it...or give it a zero if you do so. Second, rate the bids based on what you think the likelihood of relative success is....ten being the highest.

I don't think any expert would consider pass or double with that hand. I don't believe an expert would make a 3S bid, but I've seen expert panels with an occasional real outlier.

So playing standard weak twos in this seat, you might rate them as...

1S-10
2S-7
3S-1

or more to my liking

1S-10
2S-7

Something like that.

[nige1]

straube, on 2012-June-25, 21:29, said:

I think you might revise your rating system. First, only rate bids that you think an expert would consider. I.e. if no expert would make that bid, don't include it...or give it a zero if you do so. Second, rate the bids based on what you think the likelihood of relative success is....ten being the highest. I don't think any expert would consider pass or double with that hand. I don't believe an expert would make a 3S bid, but I've seen expert panels with an occasional real outlier.

• I don't know what calls experts will consider. If I knew what call experts would make, I could award ten to that call and ignore alternatives. Unfortunately, they are rarely unanimous and often choose calls that I consider but reject
• Anyway, in a kind of way, I do try to emulate Straube's "expert panel": on an expert panel, world-champions sometimes choose "the only possible call" and deride all other choices as stupid and worthless. This sometmes occasions amusement when a long-term partner chooses a different call but expresses the same opinion about it
• Also treatments keep going in and out of fashion and it's hard to keep up. . e.g. Kamikaze pre-empts, over-reliance on cue-bids, esoteric/nebulous doubles, and fourth-suit forcing . A new trend, that I've noticed, is to Pass, claiming that some innocent-seeming auction has created a novel forcing-pass context
• Finally, IMO, a good Bridge-player shouldn't be too predictable. Games-theory suggests that even if he usually chooses one call, he should sometimes choose another