Which is pretty much the strongest hand I have ever seen. He opened
2C, as even I would do, and his partner responded 2D. He rebid 2H and
his partner bid 2S. He bid 3D got a 3H preference and bid seven.
His partner put down KQJXX JXX X XXXX and declarer won the Club lead,
pulled a couple of trumps, ruffed his small Diamond, which was not
necessary as the suit broke 4-3, ruffed a Spade to his hand and
claimed, finishing the trumps.
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> My LHO in first seat in a pairs game had:
> VOID AKQTXX AKQJX AK
> Which is pretty much the strongest hand I have ever seen. He opened
> 2C, as even I would do, and his partner responded 2D. He rebid 2H and
> his partner bid 2S. He bid 3D got a 3H preference and bid seven.
> His partner put down KQJXX JXX X XXXX and declarer won the Club lead,
> pulled a couple of trumps, ruffed his small Diamond, which was not
> necessary as the suit broke 4-3, ruffed a Spade to his hand and
> claimed, finishing the trumps.
On Feb 8, 2:29 pm, Adam Lea <lea...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 08/02/12 18:28, Phil Sugar wrote:
> > Traveler:
> > 8H -1 -50
He made that traveler up. It has been impossible to bid eight-odd
since at least before the Fifties. However, that traveler does look
weirdly similar to some I have seen.
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > My LHO in first seat in a pairs game had:
> > VOID AKQTXX AKQJX AK
> > Which is pretty much the strongest hand I have ever seen. He opened
> > 2C, as even I would do, and his partner responded 2D. He rebid 2H and
> > his partner bid 2S. He bid 3D got a 3H preference and bid seven.
> > His partner put down KQJXX JXX X XXXX and declarer won the Club lead,
> > pulled a couple of trumps, ruffed his small Diamond, which was not
> > necessary as the suit broke 4-3, ruffed a Spade to his hand and
> > claimed, finishing the trumps.
> And how many pairs didn't bid the grand?
I don't know the results from the other tables. I waited around long
enough to find out we had won, breaking our string of second-place
finishes, but left before any other results were visible from where I
was standing. In that club, we may have gotten a zero on that board.
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> My LHO in first seat in a pairs game had:
> VOID AKQTXX AKQJX AK
> Which is pretty much the strongest hand I have ever seen. He opened
> 2C, as even I would do, and his partner responded 2D. He rebid 2H and
> his partner bid 2S. He bid 3D got a 3H preference and bid seven.
> His partner put down KQJXX JXX X XXXX and declarer won the Club lead,
> pulled a couple of trumps, ruffed his small Diamond, which was not
> necessary as the suit broke 4-3, ruffed a Spade to his hand and
> claimed, finishing the trumps.
> --
> Will in New Haven
With a hand like this, that has more than one possible suit to play
in, it seems clear to open with 2C. At what point in distribution
would you just cut loose and open 7, or would you never do that?
9-4-0-0- or 8-5-0-0 with zero losers?
The problem with just cutting loose and opening
seven hearts is that a opponent might just
believe your bidding. The hand
- AKQJT9x AKQ AKQ
is obviously cold for 7H unless the opponents
have a ruff. Yet, I think I'd open 2C so
there will be some bidding to give the
opponents some hope of an error or misjudgement.
The obvious downside of 2C is that it gives the
opponents some room to get toegether in spades.
The next time I'm dealt the hand, I'll let you
know how it comes out.
It could happen. Kibbitzers have been known to
stack the deck in our rubber game. I once
played
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > My LHO in first seat in a pairs game had:
> > VOID AKQTXX AKQJX AK
> > Which is pretty much the strongest hand I have ever seen. He opened
> > 2C, as even I would do, and his partner responded 2D. He rebid 2H and
> > his partner bid 2S. He bid 3D got a 3H preference and bid seven.
> > His partner put down KQJXX JXX X XXXX and declarer won the Club lead,
> > pulled a couple of trumps, ruffed his small Diamond, which was not
> > necessary as the suit broke 4-3, ruffed a Spade to his hand and
> > claimed, finishing the trumps.
> With a hand like this, that has more than one possible suit to play
> in, it seems clear to open with 2C. At what point in distribution
> would you just cut loose and open 7, or would you never do that?
> 9-4-0-0- or 8-5-0-0 with zero losers?
I think 8-5-0-0 with zero losers is worth opening at the 7 level
purely for the sake of being able to say you've done it.
> The problem with just cutting loose and opening
> seven hearts is that a opponent might just
> believe your bidding. The hand
> - AKQJT9x AKQ AKQ
> is obviously cold for 7H unless the opponents
> have a ruff. Yet, I think I'd open 2C so
> there will be some bidding to give the
> opponents some hope of an error or misjudgement.
> The obvious downside of 2C is that it gives the
> opponents some room to get toegether in spades.
> The next time I'm dealt the hand, I'll let you
> know how it comes out.
> It could happen. Kibbitzers have been known to
> stack the deck in our rubber game. I once
> played
> - AKQJT98765432 - -
> in 5HX.
> Fred.
My interest in how to deal with "impossible at the table" hands comes
from my having to deal with them in a computer program that does hand
evaluation and bidding. I've finished up on Namyats and 4H/4S openers
and now I am looking at the weirdos, the phreaks.
I have no idea if 9-card suits are suitable for a Gambling 3NT or
Namyats, or should try a three level preempt, or open 5C/D, or open 1
and walk the dog.
Hands like yours above never appear at the table unless pre-arranged.
Folks love to plug that into a computer program, just to see if the
author did his homework (and finished it!) I'll likely bid your hand
7H and be done with it, so I can start on responses next week. Life is
short.
On Feb 9, 1:04 am, Carl <C...@CarlRitner.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I have no idea if 9-card suits are suitable for a Gambling 3NT or
> Namyats, or should try a three level preempt, or open 5C/D, or open 1
> and walk the dog.
Orthodox wisdom says not - the odds of partner having a void opposite
your 9-carder are too high, and with the no-outside-entries
requirement commonly associated with Gambling 3NT this means "What?
You mean I've got 9 useless cards and four small cards?". I'd be
inclined to start at 1, unless I felt opponents would preempt with a
spade fit (for example).
Carl <C...@CarlRitner.com> writes:
>On Feb 8, 11:55 am, Will in New Haven
><bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> My LHO in first seat in a pairs game had:
>> VOID AKQTXX AKQJX AK
>> Which is pretty much the strongest hand I have ever seen. He opened
>> 2C, as even I would do, and his partner responded 2D. He rebid 2H and
>> his partner bid 2S. He bid 3D got a 3H preference and bid seven.
>> His partner put down KQJXX JXX X XXXX and declarer won the Club lead,
>> pulled a couple of trumps, ruffed his small Diamond, which was not
>> necessary as the suit broke 4-3, ruffed a Spade to his hand and
>> claimed, finishing the trumps.
>> --
>> Will in New Haven
>With a hand like this, that has more than one possible suit to play
>in, it seems clear to open with 2C. At what point in distribution
>would you just cut loose and open 7, or would you never do that?
>9-4-0-0- or 8-5-0-0 with zero losers?
If I had the hand above, but with AKQJTx (ie with the J replacing one of
the small ones), I'd be tempted to open it 7H. The chance of one
opponent having six or more hearts is small enough to ignore IMO. I
suppose that if partner had the Ace of spades that could lead to playing
in 7H rather than 7NT though, which would matter at Pairs. (He/she might
be reluctant to convert just in case my distribution was so extreme that
I had two voids.) If we have a diamond loser in 7H then we must also
have one if playing in 7D, so hearts would definitely be the right
strain. As it's Pairs, there would be a case for opening 4NT, and
bidding 7NT if partner shows the Ace of spades. With the actual hand, I
think one has to open 2C, though.
-- John Hall
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
Which is pretty much the strongest hand I have ever seen. He opened
2C, as even I would do, and his partner responded 2D. He rebid 2H and
his partner bid 2S. He bid 3D got a 3H preference and bid seven.
His partner put down KQJXX JXX X XXXX and declarer won the Club lead,
pulled a couple of trumps, ruffed his small Diamond, which was not
necessary as the suit broke 4-3, ruffed a Spade to his hand and
claimed, finishing the trumps.
.............................
What is the best pairs bid over 3H?
Bidding 4N then 7N if partner has the spade ace wins if they lead a spade, or partner has a heart entry or partner has the 10D or diamonds split so I recon you should do that (obviously bidding 7H when he denies an ace).
On Feb 9, 2:57 am, Henry Lockwood <henry.lockw...@cantab.net> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:04 am, Carl <C...@CarlRitner.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I have no idea if 9-card suits are suitable for a Gambling 3NT or
> > Namyats, or should try a three level preempt, or open 5C/D, or open 1
> > and walk the dog.
> Orthodox wisdom says not - the odds of partner having a void opposite
> your 9-carder are too high, and with the no-outside-entries
> requirement commonly associated with Gambling 3NT this means "What?
> You mean I've got 9 useless cards and four small cards?". I'd be
> inclined to start at 1, unless I felt opponents would preempt with a
> spade fit (for example).
> HenryL
Thanks, Henry. All of that makes sense, but would not partner take me
to 4C for pass or correct with a minor suit void? From there the 4
level and the 5 level are available.
For my purposes, opening 1m eliminates a bunch of hands in the "don't
know what to do with" box. Now, what to do with the majors; same as 8-
baggers?
> On Feb 9, 2:57 am, Henry Lockwood <henry.lockw...@cantab.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 1:04 am, Carl <C...@CarlRitner.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > I have no idea if 9-card suits are suitable for a Gambling 3NT or
> > > Namyats, or should try a three level preempt, or open 5C/D, or open 1
> > > and walk the dog.
> > Orthodox wisdom says not - the odds of partner having a void opposite
> > your 9-carder are too high, and with the no-outside-entries
> > requirement commonly associated with Gambling 3NT this means "What?
> > You mean I've got 9 useless cards and four small cards?". I'd be
> > inclined to start at 1, unless I felt opponents would preempt with a
> > spade fit (for example).
> > HenryL
> Thanks, Henry. All of that makes sense, but would not partner take me
> to 4C for pass or correct with a minor suit void? From there the 4
> level and the 5 level are available.
> For my purposes, opening 1m eliminates a bunch of hands in the "don't
> know what to do with" box. Now, what to do with the majors; same as 8-
> baggers?
... To be honest, I'm not sure I can remember the reasoning for not
opening it with a 9-card suit. Your argument is sound; I think -
though I believe the counter-argument is "if it's that likely, I'm
better off opening 5m in the first place".
For 9-card major suits, if they're good ones, I open Namyats. Not
sure what everyone else does.
> On Feb 9, 2:45 pm, Carl <C...@CarlRitner.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 2:57 am, Henry Lockwood <henry.lockw...@cantab.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 9, 1:04 am, Carl <C...@CarlRitner.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > I have no idea if 9-card suits are suitable for a Gambling 3NT or
> > > > Namyats, or should try a three level preempt, or open 5C/D, or open 1
> > > > and walk the dog.
> > > Orthodox wisdom says not - the odds of partner having a void opposite
> > > your 9-carder are too high, and with the no-outside-entries
> > > requirement commonly associated with Gambling 3NT this means "What?
> > > You mean I've got 9 useless cards and four small cards?". I'd be
> > > inclined to start at 1, unless I felt opponents would preempt with a
> > > spade fit (for example).
> > > HenryL
> > Thanks, Henry. All of that makes sense, but would not partner take me
> > to 4C for pass or correct with a minor suit void? From there the 4
> > level and the 5 level are available.
> > For my purposes, opening 1m eliminates a bunch of hands in the "don't
> > know what to do with" box. Now, what to do with the majors; same as 8-
> > baggers?
> ... To be honest, I'm not sure I can remember the reasoning for not
> opening it with a 9-card suit. Your argument is sound; I think -
> though I believe the counter-argument is "if it's that likely, I'm
> better off opening 5m in the first place".
> For 9-card major suits, if they're good ones, I open Namyats. Not
> sure what everyone else does.
> HenryL
Somehow, I finished up the 9-carders, ran 1000 through the code, and
there were no passes. Namyats did wonders for the major suits. The
three level helped to clean up the minors. Some one level openers
remained, but hardly any majors. I used the 5H/5S opening where I
could, too.
Then I worked back from 13-0-0-0 because that had the fewest "ifs".
All that remains now are the 10-carders. It seems weird to still have
6 losers with stuff like this.
Didn't mean to hijack the thread, but Henry had some good observations
that got me "unstuck" twice. Thanks.
> On Feb 8, 2:29 pm, Adam Lea<lea...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 08/02/12 18:28, Phil Sugar wrote:
>>> Traveler:
>>> 8H -1 -50
> He made that traveler up. It has been impossible to bid eight-odd
> since at least before the Fifties. However, that traveler does look
> weirdly similar to some I have seen.
Curiously, the result sheet for the hands I played last night gives as the optimal result for one hand "NS 8Cx; -2000" (EW could make 7H vulnerable).
I agree with your approach to the computer program.
Spending more time on the issue has essentially zero
expected gain.
And, as far as I can tell, the only valid reason for
discussing the OP hand is to have some fun with it.
Otherwise, time spent on figuring out how to bid a
zero-loser hand is wasted even if one got dealt legitimately.
That's why I passed my 13 hearts. Reese recommended
5H, so I thought I'd see how the alternative worked out.
But, mostly I bid it to give the guy who stacked the deck
a fit. I thought I did OK to beat par which was 7SX the
other way, but that was pretty much irrelevant.
