Team Tactics--Opening Bid

[joker_gib]

1♣ still too much chance for 3NT

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1C

 

As always this is also a style issue,

do you open sound, do you open crap?

 

If you open sound in 1st, the hand may still belong

to you, i.e. why play lottery games

by opening 3/4/5 club

 

If you open crap in 1st seat, preempt as high as you

dare, but 5C will make it easier for them, because they

will Dbl and take their money.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Why would I wish to distort my bidding system and not communicate clearly with partner just because I'm 3rd seat, favorable. I still want partner in on the decision-making on this hand. Anything other than my normal opening at this point would, IMO, be taking a unilateral position. There is no law preventing P from having a reasonable hand with majors that still wasn't an opening bid. I lie (unintentionally) enough with my poor play and other bidding decisions. I don't wish to compound these felonies on purpose. Then I can't use ignorance as an excuse!

 

Way back when my P and I used to charge each other a quarter (big bucks, lol) when either one of us "took a view". I'll never forget the time one of us (won't say which one) took out a quarter, flipped it onto the table, and then made his bid. OK, so it's UI. This was a "good" club game, but we both had a good laugh.

[bTW: the bid/ view turned out poorly!]

 

DHL :rolleyes:

Hopefully he gave you the quarter and you did

invest it in beer.

 

Marlowe

[microcap]

For the precision players, I would agree with simple 2 club bid. However, for the rest of us it isn't so easy.

 

I felt that 3NT was the right tactical bid, especially at the colors. That is certainly our best chance in game, and creates the biggest problems for our opponents who are still heavy favorites to be playing the hand in spades (or even hearts). I did mislead partner, who was expecting a solid minor and nothing else---but since it was only Rex, who cares? :P :P :rolleyes:

 

LHO held [hv=d=n&v=e&s=sak8532hkdaj83ck9]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] He passed (not everyone's choice), Rex bid 4♣, pass pass, now LHO bid 4♠ pass pass back to me. I tossed in 5♣ , LHO bids 5♦, pass, 5♠ by RHO, dbl by me down two.

 

In the other room, my hand opened 5♣, which I think is silly, but LHO couldnt stand it and bid 5♠, doubled down two.

 

All that for a pushed board!!! But as the title indicates, I think tactical decisions create interesting problems. I do not at all agree with the simple 1♣ for that reason.

[bearmum]

You hold[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s4haj3d65caqj6432]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] It goes pass pass to you? What do you open and why?

AS I play Precision I will open it 3♣

[han]

I don't mind a little duplication, but twice the ace of clubs is too much.

 

I don't agree that opening 3NT followed by 5C over 4S is somehow better than opening 5C. On the contrary. I also don't think that partner should be pulling your 3rd seat 3NT openings.

[microcap]

Thanks Hannie!! lol I fixed LHO's hand

:rolleyes:

[mike777]

But as the title indicates, I think tactical decisions create interesting problems.  I  do not at all agree with the simple 1♣ for that reason.

Opening One club is a tactical bid, just as your 3nt was a tactical bid. Both openings bids lead to other tactical decisions down the road on this hand.

 

I agree that tactical decisions create interesting problems but to say one club is not a tactical bid is incorrect. BTW as you can see by all the responses you received opening 1 club was not a simple bid.

[coyot]

I'm a strong believer in adhering to certain rules, one of which is "never preempt with two aces". This hand offers the possibility to "steal" 3NT on the long clubs and 20HCP, so I don't really want to preempt.

 

If partner is broke, opps might still not have a slam there - and I can bid 5 clubs over 4 spades to show that I'm willing to sacrifice - and partner will know that my hand has long clubs, but is too good for direct preempt.

 

3rd seat preempts at favorable vulnerability should be saved for real garbage hands... the kind that you expect to go down 4 or down 5 with... 6-3-3-1 for 3♣, 7-3-2-1 or similar for 5♣...

[han]

I'm a strong believer in adhering to certain rules, one of which is "never preempt with two aces". This hand offers the possibility to "steal" 3NT on the long clubs and 20HCP, so I don't really want to preempt.

 

If partner is broke, opps might still not have a slam there - and I can bid 5 clubs over 4 spades to show that I'm willing to sacrifice - and partner will know that my hand has long clubs, but is too good for direct preempt.

 

3rd seat preempts at favorable vulnerability should be saved for real garbage hands... the kind that you expect to go down 4 or down 5 with... 6-3-3-1 for 3♣, 7-3-2-1 or similar for 5♣...

Although I also chose to open 1C I disagree with all that you said here.

 

I think it is very important to break rules like "never preempt with two aces" in third seat NV. If you only preempt in this situation with hands that you expect to go down 4 or 5 with then you make it far too easy for your opponents (that is, if you fully disclose this tendency).

 

I also really dislike opening 1C planning to bid 5C over 4S. Ever wondered why your opponents always make the right decisions?

[whereagles]

Shoot Rex. You don't remove a 3rd seat 3NT unless it's doubled :ph34r:

[coyot]

I'm a strong believer in adhering to certain rules, one of which is "never preempt with two aces". This hand offers the possibility to "steal" 3NT on the long clubs and 20HCP, so I don't really want to preempt.

 

If partner is broke, opps might still not have a slam there - and I can bid 5 clubs over 4 spades to show that I'm willing to sacrifice - and partner will know that my hand has long clubs, but is too good for direct preempt.

 

3rd seat preempts at favorable vulnerability should be saved for real garbage hands... the kind that you expect to go down 4 or down 5 with... 6-3-3-1 for 3♣, 7-3-2-1 or similar for 5♣...

Although I also chose to open 1C I disagree with all that you said here.

 

I think it is very important to break rules like "never preempt with two aces" in third seat NV. If you only preempt in this situation with hands that you expect to go down 4 or 5 with then you make it far too easy for your opponents (that is, if you fully disclose this tendency).

 

I also really dislike opening 1C planning to bid 5C over 4S. Ever wondered why your opponents always make the right decisions?

Hmm... if you break rules, partner will be the one making wrong decisions most of the time. How will you look him in the eye when you go down from 7♣ doubled saving against a slam that lacks two aces?

 

Besides, I'm using the 5332 rule, but that does not mean I cannot open 5♣ when I expect to go down 3 in favorable vulnerability... So my 5♣ in green vs. red does NOT mean "double me for 1100".

 

Opening 1♣ with this hand with intent to defend 4♠ by 5♣ seems OK to me - because I tell my partner that my hand was too good for a straight preempt (and he won't make a phantom save).

Of course it will help the opponents, too - but how often? And how often will it help my partner to reliably know what my preempt is like?

[pclayton]

I'm a strong believer in adhering to certain rules, one of which is "never preempt with two aces". This hand offers the possibility to "steal" 3NT on the long clubs and 20HCP, so I don't really want to preempt.

 

If partner is broke, opps might still not have a slam there - and I can bid 5 clubs over 4 spades to show that I'm willing to sacrifice - and partner will know that my hand has long clubs, but is too good for direct preempt.

 

3rd seat preempts at favorable vulnerability should be saved for real garbage hands... the kind that you expect to go down 4 or down 5 with... 6-3-3-1 for 3♣, 7-3-2-1 or similar for 5♣...

Although I also chose to open 1C I disagree with all that you said here.

 

I think it is very important to break rules like "never preempt with two aces" in third seat NV. If you only preempt in this situation with hands that you expect to go down 4 or 5 with then you make it far too easy for your opponents (that is, if you fully disclose this tendency).

 

I also really dislike opening 1C planning to bid 5C over 4S. Ever wondered why your opponents always make the right decisions?

Hmm... if you break rules, partner will be the one making wrong decisions most of the time. How will you look him in the eye when you go down from 7♣ doubled saving against a slam that lacks two aces?

 

Besides, I'm using the 5332 rule, but that does not mean I cannot open 5♣ when I expect to go down 3 in favorable vulnerability... So my 5♣ in green vs. red does NOT mean "double me for 1100".

 

Opening 1♣ with this hand with intent to defend 4♠ by 5♣ seems OK to me - because I tell my partner that my hand was too good for a straight preempt (and he won't make a phantom save).

Of course it will help the opponents, too - but how often? And how often will it help my partner to reliably know what my preempt is like?

Good partners will give you plenty of latitude opposite a 3rd seat preempt. The only real downside of preempring here is you will occasionally miss out on a nice penalty against 4♠ when pard has a fair stack, club shortness and some soft values in the red suits.

 

Worrying about partner sac-ing against 6 here because we have 2 bullets is gripping the steering wheel a little too tight.

[MickyB]

Yeah, like, what you said

 

But I'd open 3♣ on Jxxxxx in a weak hand, which messes up pard's decision on when to compete.

[WrecksVee]

Well here is Rex's side of the issue. This was interesting as it shows Jay and I are unsure of our agreement about 3NT openers. I thought we were playing it as always descriptive: 7 or 8 card solid suit, a major is possible, without side stoppers. From Jay's comments he thinks it is descriptive if opposite an unpassed hand but tactical after partner passes. That is, despite being a preempt, if partner is a passed hand Opener is the captain since Responder has only a vague idea what hand Opener may hold.

 

My hand ♠JT9x ♥xxx ♦QT9xx ♣x

 

Based on Jay's understanding I should pass and leave partner do whatever he feels is right.

 

Based on what I thought the agreement was partner has either ♣ or ♥ and the Opps have the AK of the three suits he does not hold. Getting out of NT is right as I think it makes it harder for the Opps to find the right strain. If I was sure partner had ♣ I would preempt to 5♣. But if he has ♥ we might still have a game (=1=8=1=3) so I think 4♣ is the right bid. And as we are white vs. red maybe I should have done that despite the slim game chance I mention.

 

To Jay: my memory is we were playing the method suggested on Feiler's web site. You seem to think we are playing Washington Standard's treatment. So we have a decision to make. :-)

[microcap]

I want to be clear that I think Rex did the right thing absolutely by pulling 3NT. So when Rex refers to his "side" of the argument, he really means that his partner is an unpredictable lunatic !!! :) :P

 

I am also willing to lean against the significant majority and say that opening 1♣ is a losing proposition in the long haul. Bidding one club just begs opponents to find their major (and it could be♥ despite my AJx holding) and they could easily make 4 on 20 HCP with a good fit. Any pre-empt is better than 1♣ IMO-- :P But the discussion has been very interesting and as always I thank all for their input.