[pilowsky]

In order to see if I'm improving, I play challenges against Stars. So far they are beating me comprehensively. This hand just came up.

---

I have exactly 8.5 tricks. What to bid?

I only have 15 HCP and I'm in 2nd seat. If I bid 2♣ and ops start interfering I might miss my chance. If I bid 4♠ I might go too far, or I might miss a slam. There are 6 spades out. They should split 1,2,3. There are 25 HCP out they should split 8, 8, 9 or thereabouts. All things considered, the odds are good that I'll have an 8 card fit with 25+ HCP. And, I'm not vulnerable.
In the end, Both of us opted for the same bid.
Here is the .LIN file.
What do you think?
As usual, the Star beat me. (5/44). But = on this board.
The reason I'm posting this hand is that I think it illustrates the many different ways that people handle the "in-between" boards. A similar, albeit slightly stronger, hand came up today in a tournament and was opened 2♦. It looked like this:

---

This hand rates at 20.1 on the K&R scale - a bit more than the other hand which comes in at 19.15.
This hand also made 4♠ because I made the wrong lead against it.
Here's the .LIN file.

[TylerE]

Namyats 4♦ opening. Shows a single suited hand with 8.5ish playing tricks. 4♣=♥ 4♦=♠

Would rather 2♣ than 1♠ though. Too much chance of 1♠-AP for my liking, and there's so much random rubbish partner can have where 4!S is just cold.

I would also suggest that any evaluation method that says your second hand is STRONGER than the first is not just bad but unplayable.

[nige1]

pilowsky "In order to see if I'm improving, I play challenges against Stars. So far they are beating me comprehensively. This hand just came up. I have exactly 8.5 tricks. What to bid? I only have 15 HCP and I'm in 2nd seat. If I bid 2♣ and ops start interfering I might miss my chance. If I bid 4♠ I might go too far, or I might miss a slam. There are 6 spades out. They should split 1,2,3. There are 25 HCP out they should split 8, 8, 9 or thereabouts. All things considered, the odds are good that I'll have an 8 card fit with 25+ HCP. And, I'm not vulnerable. In the end, Both of us opted for the same bid. What do you think?As usual, the Star beat me. (5/44). But = on this board.The reason I'm posting this hand is that I think it illustrates the many different ways that people handle the "in-between" boards."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I rank
1. 1♠ = NAT. Intending to rebid 4♣ = SPL.
2. 3N or 4♦ = ART 8-9 tricks in M. But less room to explore degree of ft,
3. 2♣ = ART Overbid but room to explore.

---

pilowsky "A similar, albeit slightly stronger, hand came up today in a tournament and was opened 2♦. It looked like this:This hand rates at 20.1 on the K&R scale - a bit more than the other hand which comes in at 19.15. This hand also made 4♠ because I made the wrong lead against it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
I rank
1. 1♠ = NAT. Intending to show enthusiasm on the next round.
2. 2N = BAL 20-21. Assuming 5-card Stayman.
3. 2♣ = ART. Gross overbid.

---

[paulg]

I think a major difference between intermediates and expert players is their definition and treatment of these 'in-between' hands.

In essence, experts do not like opening a strong two clubs unless they can see a clear way to control the auction. This means that they'll open many strong two- and three-suited hands at the one level and hope to describe their hand better in the subsequent auction. Experience has shown them that very few one-level openings get passed out these days - either the opposition bid or partner scrapes up a response.

This hand is similar: with only fifteen high-card points and a void in clubs, do you really think that one spade will be passed out?

The other major advantage that the expert has over the intermediate is an understanding of forcing and non-forcing bids in the subsequent auction. So often intermediates make a jump bid because they are afraid that their partner will pass the non-jump bid: while the expert uses the space to make a more descriptive choice.

Challenging stars is an excellent way to see some of these differences and improve your game. For my club players I am a relative star and often play challenges against them; I think it is very useful learning and improvement tool.

[shyams]

 pilowsky, on 2020-July-18, 20:44, said:

This hand just came up.

---

I have exactly 8.5 tricks. What to bid?

I would have bid the same as you did. Open 1♠, then jump to 4♠ over partner's 1NT response.

 pilowsky, on 2020-July-18, 20:44, said:

A similar, albeit slightly stronger, hand came up today in a tournament and was opened 2♦. It looked like this:

---

The 2♦ opening of your opponent was conventional; not something familiar to me. I would simply open 1♠.

After reading the post by nige1, I must say I never considered opening 2NT and I don't think I would ever open this hand with a 2NT.

[Vampyr]

 shyams, on 2020-July-19, 03:16, said:

The 2♦ opening of your opponent was conventional; not something familiar to me. I would simply open 1♠.

After reading the post by nige1, I must say I never considered opening 2NT and I don't think I would ever open this hand with a 2NT.

I am also not familiar with a Mexican two diamond opening, but one important aspect is that you cannot rebid a natural 2NT with 18-19.

[pilowsky]

 Vampyr, on 2020-July-19, 08:20, said:

I am also not familiar with a Mexican two diamond opening, but one important aspect is that you cannot rebid a natural 2NT with 18-19.

Thank you. at the time, it was alerted as 18-19 HCP so I took as a sort of inverted Benji 2 where the 2♦ was like 2♣ - a sort of omnibus bid for hard to handle hands. Which is why I bid over it.

[Vampyr]

 pilowsky, on 2020-July-19, 15:13, said:

Thank you. at the time, it was alerted as 18-19 HCP so I took as a sort of inverted Benji 2 where the 2♦ was like 2♣ - a sort of omnibus bid for hard to handle hands. Which is why I bid over it.

If they are playing Mexican they should explain that it is balanced or at least semi-balanced.

[TylerE]

 paulg, on 2020-July-19, 03:16, said:

Experience has shown them that very few one-level openings get passed out these days

He's playing against bots, nots actual humans. Bots are quite happy to pass out a 1-bid.

[mycroft]

I have to admit that I save my NAMYATS calls for very specific hands, and this one doesn't qualify. It has the tricks, and if I squint, I can see it as "one-loser opposite small stiff", but partner is not going to play me for three tricks if they compete, and we could be in 6♠ with 14 tricks after they take their two spades.

I hate opening 2♣ with "just tricks", but I find this closer to my rules. I want 4 defensive tricks, but AQJ AKJ, especially when it could easily be 7222 around the table, is close enough for government work. If they bid game, and partner doubles with a flat Yarborough, we could still easily set it. I have an option to bid 4♠ on my own over 4♥, but I don't have to. I have the spades, so I'm not concerned about 2♣-2x-X(ultra-neg)-4x (or even 2♣-2x-P(GF)-4x) or any other way to get to the 4 level before I get to bid.

But I'm opening 1♠ and see what happens. I've gone +230 before, I'm sure I will again.

[mikeh]

Both hands are routine 1S bids. If one were to rank choices as does the BW MSC, I’d give 1S 100 on both.

On the first, I’d give 4D, namyats (if being played) maybe 60.id give 2C maybe 10,if feeling generous.

On the second, I can’t think of any call, other than 1S, that makes even the slightest sense.

Btw, a very useful gadget, on hand 1, is Jeff’s magic elixir.

If partner responds 1N, and the opps are passing, a jump to 3C is one of: gf with 5+ spades and precisely 4 hearts, or gf with both blacks, or a monster one-suiter in spades, again gf.

Responder usually bids 3D over 3C, artificial.

Opener bids 3H with 4, 3S with a monster one-suiter, 3N with both blacks but willingness to play 3N (will have red suit values) and 4C with an extreme two-suiter.

To me, the second hand is borderline for a gf, and I would prefer to rebid 2C. It is fairly common, and certainly we do this in my serious partnerships, for 2C to be on as few as 2 cards, allowing 2D to show 4. We also play forms of BART, which is another powerful tool, allowing responder to show various hand types over 2C. It is possible, but rare, to end up in 2C, but if so partner has a terrible hand, and game may well not make.

One factor that differentiates experts from less-skilled players is hand evaluation. Hand two has a weak second suit, a stiff Ace, and no texture. Given that the modern style, for most players, is to respond very light, calling this a gf is, imo, a slight stretch. Were it AKJxx x AQx Axxx, I’d reluctantly jumpshift. Make it AKJxx x Axx AQxx I’d happily jumpshift (but with no confidence we’ll go plus).

Any valuation approach that sees those 3 layouts as pretty much the same is horrible😀

[pilowsky]

Another thing that differentiates scientists from non-scientists is that we use actual data when presenting examples.

I understand that when you substitute 'x' in your examples Mike, you are indicating a range, but the range extends from 2-9 in your cases. In a previous post, you that you recently removed, you abjured us to be specific when replying.
I believe that it is bad Bridge, bad logic, and a bit silly, to discuss mathematical problems by throwing up xxx all the time and then saying "horrible". The smiley emoticon doesn't help .

While I agree in general with your point, your examples, when I run them through the various hand evaluation calculators come within the range of 21-23 +/- 1 (there are no 'units' for these numbers) what makes these hands 'difficult' as you well know is that the shape and strength mean that different people and partnerships have different bidding options available to them.

Once in the contract, the play is then commonly difficult also.

Ultimately the result depends not just on how well you play, but on how well everyone else plays.

It is the score that defines the result.

This is also critical in deciding what contract to place your partner in during FTF competition.

A good player knows the quality of themselves, their opponent, their partner and the entire field.

It is not enough to simply evaluate the 13 cards in front of your eyes. Experts will understand what I am talking about.

It's a strange thing but learning turns out to be similar in every field.

In the end, everything is composed of one's and zero's.

There is no God in the machine if there was we would need to give the robots 'agency' and then lawyers really would have work for life!

[dokoko]

 pilowsky, on 2020-July-20, 21:58, said:

Another thing that differentiates scientists from non-scientists is that we use actual data when presenting examples.
...

Another difference between non-scientists and scientists is that the latter know to distinguish "samples" from "examples". An example is a singular bridge hand which is presented for analysis (it has all the low cards specified and goes with a vulnerability and a form of scoring). A sample represents a set of similar hands and replaces terms like "five spades to the king ...". So using xxx is appropriate in some context but not another.

[pilowsky]

That is correct - well done. It makes no difference to the point made.

[umaranade]

As per my knowledge of a definition of opening bid and the multiple variations available this hand fits in the category only ONE SPADE..However,replace the HJ by HQ and it becomes eligible for A 2Club bid.The hand is not good for a 4D opening as though it has 8winners there is OVERCONCENTRATION of strength in a single outside suit .
PS.I have been taught to play a 2C opening as promising at least 9 winners in single Major suited hand ,10 winners in a Minor suited hand and 22 good/ 23plus balancedHCP.

[AL78]

With the first hand, it depends who I';m playing with.

Either (depending on what tools I have available):

Namyats 4♦
Tartan 2♠ followed by 3♠ showing a strong two in spades.
Benji 2♣ followed by 3♠, showing a strong two with a self supporting suit.
1♠ followed by 4♠ if partner can find a response other than supporting spades.

The second hand is weaker in playing strength than the first and is not a strong two, so I would open 1♠ and stretch a 3♣ bid if partner responds a 6-9 HCP 1NT. If partner can respond at the two level, 3♣ is easy. If partner responds 2♣ (not playing 2/1), I'm not sure. It is awkward holding a maximum 1 opener and partner bids your second suit at the two level, there is sometimes no good forcing bid available which doesn't go past 3NT.