[Phil]

MPs - all vul

ATxxx xxx KQJx x

Pass* - (pass) - 2♠ - (pass)
?

Unfortunately, it is not your style to open hands like this with this partner - at least vulnerable.

[Hanoi5]

4♠.

[madongjun]

2NT(ogust).
If partner answered 3♣ or 3♦,you bid 3♠;
If partner answered 3♥ or 3♦,you bid 4♠.

[the_clown]

I would bid game unless partner is known to be extremely aggressive.

[wyman]

3♠. Hopefully partner is understanding when we miss a game because opps had clear bids but didn't make them. At least it's MP?

I don't want them to balance cheaply, but I'm not loving our chances in 4♠. After all, partner's marked with hearts on the (opps' non-)bidding. I just think it's too much to ask that partner can cover 2 out of our 5 outside losers AND have the spade cards he's ostensibly got. I mean all the guy did was make a 3rd seat 2S call...

[ArtK78]

 wyman, on 2013-June-25, 08:54, said:

3♠. Hopefully partner is understanding when we miss a game because opps had clear bids but didn't make them. At least it's MP?

I don't want them to balance cheaply, but I'm not loving our chances in 4♠. After all, partner's marked with hearts on the (opps' non-)bidding. I just think it's too much to ask that partner can cover 2 out of our 5 outside losers AND have the spade cards he's ostensibly got. I mean all the guy did was make a 3rd seat 2S call...

I don't think you should take the opponents' failure to bid as marking partner with hearts. You have 10 HCP and partner does not have to have trash for his 2♠ bid (he is vulnerable). So the opps may just not have enough to compete over 2♠ (LHO doesn't have an opening bid, and RHO, facing a passed partner, doesn't have enough to compete over 2♠ vul).

I would bid 4♠ and hope that partner's hand fits mine.

[wyman]

I mean even if partner has 2 hearts, we still have 4 losers the vast majority of the time.

[MrAce]

 Phil, on 2013-June-24, 21:13, said:

Unfortunately, it is not your style to open hands like this with this partner - at least vulnerable.

It is very debatable whether it is a matter of style or judgement when it comes to open this hand or not. Personally i do not see this one as a matter of "style" I would prefer to have this hand over many 5332 11-12 hcp hands.

There are also things that i can mention about the opening decisions and vulnerability. Basically stating that vulnerability should have ZERO effect on your 1 level openings. However what i argue would make more sense if it was IMPS. At MP i can understand your concerns.

[nige1]

 Phil, on 2013-June-24, 21:13, said:

MPs - all vul ♠ A T x x x ♥ x x x ♦ K Q J x ♣ x
Pass* - (pass) - 2♠ - (pass)
?
Unfortunately, it is not your style to open hands like this with this partner - at least vulnerable.

IMO 4♠ = 10, 4♦ = 8 Pass = 5, 3♠ = 4. Judging by opponent's silence, partner has a bit extra for his 3rd in hand opener. Nevertheless, game may be on for both sides.

[Phil]

 MrAce, on 2013-June-25, 18:40, said:

It is very debatable whether it is a matter of style or judgement when it comes to open this hand or not. Personally i do not see this one as a matter of "style" I would prefer to have this hand over many 5332 11-12 hcp hands.

There are also things that i can mention about the opening decisions and vulnerability. Basically stating that vulnerability should have ZERO effect on your 1 level openings. However what i argue would make more sense if it was IMPS. At MP i can understand your concerns.

On some days we do as partner wants, not as we would otherwise do.

[Zelandakh]

What would 2NT and 3 level responses mean for you Phil? As a passed hand, it feels like we should have some extra asks available, since we no longer need these to show constructive hands. On the surface it looks like we need the opps to have misbid for game to be a good bet but perhaps we can move the odds in our favour a little bit with some system.

[rhm]

 MrAce, on 2013-June-25, 18:40, said:

It is very debatable whether it is a matter of style or judgement when it comes to open this hand or not. Personally i do not see this one as a matter of "style" I would prefer to have this hand over many 5332 11-12 hcp hands.

There are also things that i can mention about the opening decisions and vulnerability. Basically stating that vulnerability should have ZERO effect on your 1 level openings. However what i argue would make more sense if it was IMPS. At MP i can understand your concerns.

Would you open

♠JT643, ♥KT7, ♦7, ♣ AQ74

and which hand would you consider better?

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

 rhm, on 2013-June-26, 03:30, said:

Would you open

♠JT643, ♥KT7, ♦7, ♣ AQ74

and which hand would you consider better?

Rainer Herrmann

Am i suppose to assume from the second question that the correct answer is yes ? But no i would not, this also answers your second question.

[Lord Molyb]

My partnership opens pretty aggressively here, so pass.

[Phil]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-26, 03:12, said:

What would 2NT and 3 level responses mean for you Phil? As a passed hand, it feels like we should have some extra asks available, since we no longer need these to show constructive hands. On the surface it looks like we need the opps to have misbid for game to be a good bet but perhaps we can move the odds in our favour a little bit with some system.

Systems on so Ogust. I've played 2N asks for shortness by a passed hand however.

[han]

I'd bid 4S, partner will not have a bust.

[HeartA]

4S, WTP?