[lesh]

---

[nige1]

lesh, on 2014-June-15, 10:38, said:

---

IMO a close decision: Pass = 10, 3♦ = 9, Double = 8.

[MrAce]

3♦

I replied the same in the past. I know I am minority but I strongly believe the hands that would not even overcall at 2 level over a 1 level opening (such as 5332 12 hcp) should overcall over a weak 2. This hand has flaws but it costed me so many times that perhaps i am being biased due to my coincidental losses for not bidding at this spot with borderline values, so I bid.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2014-June-15, 11:53, said:

3♦

I replied the same in the past. I know I am minority but I strongly believe the hands that would not even overcall at 2 level over a 1 level opening (such as 5332 12 hcp) should overcall over a weak 2. This hand has flaws but it costed me so many times that perhaps i am being biased due to my coincidental losses for not bidding at this spot with borderline values, so I bid.

I do not mind action, but the money is in my opinion in hearts.
3♦ is more dangerous and at the same time has less to gain. LHO will often raise after which it will be tough to uncover hearts.
For me it is a close decision between double and pass, but if I act I double.

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

Pass in a heartbeat.

I don't understand how anyone can claim to be able to bid intelligently and reliably when we overcall with crap. Sometimes, indeed quite often, when an opp makes a weak bid and we have weakness ourselves, partner has values. How can he be expected to bid accurately opposite our overcalls when we overcall a hand that wouldn't open at the 1 level?

Anyone who thinks this is a 12 count needs to learn hand valuation, especially with the 2♠ opening, and I appreciate that this may well be the companion to the other hand.

Edit: to be clear, I know Timo isn't a point counter, so this post wasn't aimed at him

[the hog]

I would pass. This hand is rubbish.

[rhm]

the hog, on 2014-June-15, 22:38, said:

I would pass. This hand is rubbish.

mikeh, on 2014-June-15, 20:28, said:

Pass in a heartbeat.

I don't understand how anyone can claim to be able to bid intelligently and reliably when we overcall with crap. Sometimes, indeed quite often, when an opp makes a weak bid and we have weakness ourselves, partner has values. How can he be expected to bid accurately opposite our overcalls when we overcall a hand that wouldn't open at the 1 level?

Anyone who thinks this is a 12 count needs to learn hand valuation, especially with the 2♠ opening, and I appreciate that this may well be the companion to the other hand.

Trouble with hand evaluation is that people either ignore it or adjust too much for positive and negative factors.
That is why few seem to be able to master hand evaluation.

Considering this hand it is not hard to see that we have a lot of lower honors in our short suits, which diminishes the overall offensive value of the hand.
Nevertheless we do have a 6421 distribution with shortage in opponents suit.

A hand evaluator, which is reasonably good for trump contracts and which puts a lot of importance whether your honors are in short or long suits is the Rubens-Kaplan evaluator.
Rubens-Kaplan assesses the total worth of the black suit honors at less than 2 HCP, surely a rather pessimistic view.
Nevertheless it puts the overall value of the hand still at 11.7 (!)
Another evaluator, derived from computer simulations, puts the value of the black suit honors in a suit contract at 3 points and comes to an overall value of the hand at 14 point (calibrated to 25 points needed for a major suit game to be 50%).
How bad can it be then to assess the value of the hand as a 12 count?

There are other considerations, like when in doubt the hand, which is short in opponent suit, should act.
In total this is a borderline hand, but acting is not insane and has probably more to gain than to lose.

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

3♦. Pard probably has some spades, so he may not find a bid if 2♠ is passed to him.

[Fluffy]

Bidding 5♥ looks obvious

[gszes]

This (opening bid?) beckons like a bright light to a moth to those that
cant wait to bid when it is their turn. I do not claim to know what they
will choose the 3d with the (for once) not overly gross dia suit / x with
a hand horrifically short in defensive values and none too happy with a
3c bid from p (or the prospect of having to bid 3c over 2n leb and getting
stuck playing the hand == or bidding something else entirely but I will bet
few will think of the rather small target they are trying to hit. They need
p to have a hand that cannot act over 2s p p p OR have a hand that is very
good yet unable to conjure up anything over 2s p 4s. Bidding here no matter
what choice is made carries significant risk (we really hate that at imps)
and yet only a small % of partners possible hands will benefit from any action
we take now. This hand is miserable and deserves the quick and merciless use
of the

PASS

card (at least for this round of the bidding).

[ArtK78]

It would occur to me to bid on these cards, but I would hope that I could suppress that urge and pass like a rational human being.

As has been mentioned, it is questionable whether this hand is worth a 2 level overcall of a 1♠ opening bid. The idea that it is worth a 3 level overcall of a 2♠ opening bid is beyond consideration.

[mikeh]

rhm, on 2014-June-16, 06:08, said:

Trouble with hand evaluation is that people either ignore it or adjust too much for positive and negative factors.
That is why few seem to be able to master hand evaluation.

Considering this hand it is not hard to see that we have a lot of lower honors in our short suits, which diminishes the overall offensive value of the hand.
Nevertheless we do have a 6421 distribution with shortage in opponents suit.

A hand evaluator, which is reasonably good for trump contracts and which puts a lot of importance whether your honors are in short or long suits is the Rubens-Kaplan evaluator.
Rubens-Kaplan assesses the total worth of the black suit honors at less than 2 HCP, surely a rather pessimistic view.
Nevertheless it puts the overall value of the hand still at 11.7 (!)
Another evaluator, derived from computer simulations, puts the value of the black suit honors in a suit contract at 3 points and comes to an overall value of the hand at 14 point (calibrated to 25 points needed for a major suit game to be 50%).
How bad can it be then to assess the value of the hand as a 12 count?

There are other considerations, like when in doubt the hand, which is short in opponent suit, should act.
In total this is a borderline hand, but acting is not insane and has probably more to gain than to lose.

Rainer Herrmann

Does the R-K method take into account the opening bid that, surely, lessens the value of the spade K? If not, then no good player would use the method here.

[rhm]

mikeh, on 2014-June-16, 07:36, said:

Does the R-K method take into account the opening bid that, surely, lessens the value of the spade K? If not, then no good player would use the method here.

Since the K-R method attaches to the singleton King less than the value of a jack already (to be precise it just gives 0.80 HCP for the singleton king), and even a singleton king has some value on average there is not much left to be reduced any further.
As I already indicated the K-R method likely overshoots in the negative direction.
Also the fact that the "opening bid" shows a hand with probably less than average HCP value, tends to leave more for partner not less.
I am not claiming that bidding is clear, but the risk getting shut out when we have a high level contract is very real.
Passing can be more risky than bidding and most players underestimate the risk of passing here.

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-16, 07:32, said:

It would occur to me to bid on these cards, but I would hope that I could suppress that urge and pass like a rational human being.

As has been mentioned, it is questionable whether this hand is worth a 2 level overcall of a 1♠ opening bid. The idea that it is worth a 3 level overcall of a 2♠ opening bid is beyond consideration.

Come on, you got all the intermediates in diamonds. LHO won't have the guts to dbl you unless he has ♦KQJx.

[the hog]

lesh, on 2014-June-15, 10:38, said:

---

Rainer makes some interesting and valid points about hand evaluation. One thing that I find of interest - I wonder how many posters realise that
x
Qxxx
AT9xxx
QJ

is in fact a better hand than the original? Think about it!! I suspect not many and that is one reason why answers to questions on hand evaluation vary so greatly on these fora.

[nige1]

the hog, on 2014-June-16, 16:37, said:

Rainer makes some interesting and valid points about hand evaluation. One thing that I find of interest - I wonder how many posters realise that
x
Qxxx
AT9xxx
QJ
is in fact a better hand than the original? Think about it!! I suspect not many and that is one reason why answers to questions on hand evaluation vary so greatly on these fora.

The mind boggles Please would rhm or theHog, or MrAce (who upvoted this post) explain in a way comprehensible to us ordinary players how
♠ x ♥ Q x x x ♦ A T 9 x x x ♣ Q J is a better hand than
♠ K ♥ Q x x x ♦ A T 9 x x x ♣ Q J

[the hog]

Nigel, for a player who has been around as long as you have, I am totally amazed that you are asking this as a serious question.
If I do not have the K of S, it means that one of 3 other players has it. If opener, it means that opener is probably lacking a card elsewhere. If partner, it means that the K is almost certainly a stopper, if rho it means that he is short in S as he has not pre empted further. This latter point is good if we end up in a 3NT contract.
The stiff K of S in my hand may or may not be useless. I don't know. I do know that if pd has it it is a far better card than my holding it. Does that help you? I am serious when I say that I am amazed at your comment.

[johnu]

Pass - I have a good partner and don't want to end the partnership
3♦ - I'm tired of partner being a hand hog and I need some practice playing bad contracts
Double - Make partner declarer because I have to take a bathroom break
4♥ - If I bid like this enough times, I will eventually land in a makable contract

[rhm]

nige1, on 2014-June-16, 19:46, said:

The mind boggles Please would rhm or theHog, or MrAce (who upvoted this post) explain in a way comprehensible to us ordinary players in what way
♠ x ♥ Q x x x ♦ A T 9 x x x ♣ Q J is a better hand than
♠ K ♥ Q x x x ♦ A T 9 x x x ♣ Q J

This was not my view.
I agree that the ♠K has more defensive than offensive value, but I do not think its offensive value is negative.
This can happen in scenarios where opponents have shown values with upper and lower limits of their strength, which indirectly limits our combined strength.
Weak twos once had a close range, but nowadays at these colors RHO just tells you he has a five plus, maybe a six card spade suit and from around 3 HCP upwards to less than an opening bid.
There are not many restrictions nowadays on a spade preempt white versus red.
So I do not see that a ♠ king in my hand means opponents must have compensating values I will miss for my contract.
LHO (and partner) are totally undefined, meaning they can have anything from a yarborough to a powerhouse, from a fit to a misfit.
But a misfit is unlikely when you hold a singleton in their preempt suit.
The ♠K could be useful in a number of ways, for example if we belong in 3NT or as a trick opposite the queen or ace.
Of course the ♠K will often be useless in offense and partner might expect more when I bid.
That depends to some extent whether we share the same bidding philosophie here or not.

Rainer Herrmann

[hotShot]

Would you bid, with ♠ K ♥ Q x x x ♦ A T 9 x x x ♣ Q J

1♣ 2♠ ?
1♦ 2♠ ?
1♥ 2♠ ?

If you answer that with yes, why not bid now?
You know that partner will seldom hold ♠length and you know that partner is very likely to hold 11+ HCP.

Would you bid, with ♠ x ♥ Q x x x ♦ A T 9 x x x ♣ Q J

1♣ 2♠ ?
1♦ 2♠ ?
1♥ 2♠ ?

If you answer that with yes, why not bid now?
You know that partner will seldom hold ♠length and you know that partner is even more likely to hold 11+ HCP.