What's your plan?

[awm]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saqjt965h2da8c873]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

You're the dealer at IMPs. What's your opening bid? If you open 1♠, partner responds 1NT (forcing): what's your plan from there?

[jillybean]

I voted open 1, rebid 4 but I often overbid.

[Echognome]

Seems a 4♠ opening bid to me.

[gwnn]

To me too.

[sceptic]

I voted 1 and then 3 spades, you are preempting partner with a direct 4 bid, you have a better hand than that (IMHO)

 

and given that both opps have passed to enable the contract to be bid 1S 1NT "your choice" I think it is right not to preempt

[Guest Jlall]

Not my style to open 4 with such a good hand. After opening 1 I think rebidding 3 is clear, 2 is too little and 4 is too much.

[skjaeran]

With my regular partner (or a few other playing the same method) I open 1♠ and rebid 2♥, showing a very good 2♠ rebid. We use 3♠ as slammish here.

 

Playing with others I open 1♠ and rebid 3♠ for the same reasons Justin gave in the post above.

[Fluffy]

I'd try 1♠+3♠, but 4♠ opening soudns also appealing.

[kgr]

Not my style to open 4 with such a good hand. After opening 1 I think rebidding 3 is clear, 2 is too little and 4 is too much.

Agree with this, but I said open 1 rebid 4 because this is showing a hand with around an opening and long spades while rebidding 3 rather shows a hand with 6 card S and more points. Or is this not important (probability that opps still intervene is low anyway)?

[kenrexford]

If forced to choose a call without gadgets, I'd elect 1...3, but this is because I don't want to risk playing five when four is the limit.

 

With many partners, I'd bid 1...4, but only because this is IMPs and because I have a bazillion ways to force game.

 

In the style I would be using, 1♠-P-1NT!-P-2NT! is a strong relay to 3♣, GF. Not a true relay, as there are options, but that's not important now.

 

After partner bids the usual 3♣, I could bid 3♠ and then perhaps insist on spades, or I could bid 4♠ immediately. Or, I could make a solo-splinter of 4♦/4♥.

 

Or, I could have initially use a 4♠ opening or a 4♦ Namyats.

 

Or, I could make a 1♠...solo splinter start, as well.

 

If I had no stiff, I would fit into the non-solo category, which includes:

 

4♠ immediately (too strong)

Namyats (too weak)

1♠...2NT...4♠ (too weak)

1♠...2NT...3♠...4♠ (too weak)

1♠...4♠ (about right)

 

This hand has a stiff, but I'm too weak for the direct solo or the delay solo, so I'll elect the direct game bid. I'm close to a direct solo, though (1♠...4♥), but only because I have the possibility of a delayed solo.

 

Actually, the more I think about this, the more I like 1♠...4♥.

[pbleighton]

Opening 4 is clear in my style.

 

With my regular partner (or a few other playing the same method) I open 1♠ and rebid 2♥, showing a very good 2♠ rebid. We use 3♠ as slammish here.

 

Curious, what do you do with5S4+H hands?

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

Opening 4 is clear in my style.

 

With my regular partner (or a few other playing the same method) I open 1♠ and rebid 2♥, showing a very good 2♠ rebid. We use 3♠ as slammish here.

 

Curious, what do you do with5S4+H hands?

 

Peter

I'll venture the obvious guess -- transfer rebids, so 2♦. Right?

[helene_t]

1♠ followed by 3♠. I think this is a clear 3♠ rebid, maybe slightly closer to 2♠ than to 4♠. A 4♠ opening is ok with me, too, but I prefer an 8-card or 7+4 and no side ace for that bid.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1S followed by 2S, I can live with 4S and my bid it, although

my partner does not like preempts with two Aces, and hence

my partnership forbids an preemptive opening, I slowly learn

to comply.

 

1S follwoed by 3S should show a stronger hand, if I dont open

4S, I plan to have a controlled auction to 4S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[foo]

South,None,IMP,

AQJT965, 2, A8, 873

 

You're the dealer at IMPs. What's your opening bid? If you open 1♠, partner responds 1N (forcing): what's your plan from there?

I see 4 Logical Alternatives. Which is best depends on who I'm playing with.

1S-1N;4H!

I'd prefer a 5- loser hand for a self-splinter, but this hand is =so= close given that ♠ suit...

 

1S-1N;3N

If we had a hand that had a m suit of AQJT9xx and some side controls, we'd have bid 1m-1N;3N to show it. Well...

 

1S-1N;3S

Many pd's would consider my hand too good for 2S and not good enough for 3S. So...

 

1S-1N;2S

Yep. I've got pd's who would insist on 15+ playing points for a 3S rebid and this hand has only 14...

 

 

How many of us have discussed the above auctions and the related ones with our pd's so that we can be sure that our bids describe the hand type(s) we want them to?

[skjaeran]

Opening 4 is clear in my style.

 

With my regular partner (or a few other playing the same method) I open 1♠ and rebid 2♥, showing a very good 2♠ rebid. We use 3♠ as slammish here.

 

Curious, what do you do with5S4+H hands?

 

Peter

Depends on strenght. But most of the time we rebid 2♦, transfer.

The "problem" hand for the method is 5♠-4♣ (we open minimum 5-5 black 1♣) since 2♣ is transfer to ♦'s. You could use a 2-level opening to show 11-15 with 5♠4♣ (we don't). Or just live with having to pass 1NT with 11-14 and 5-4 in the black suits.

[skjaeran]

Opening 4 is clear in my style.

 

With my regular partner (or a few other playing the same method) I open 1♠ and rebid 2♥, showing a very good 2♠ rebid. We use 3♠ as slammish here.

 

Curious, what do you do with5S4+H hands?

 

Peter

Depends on strenght. But most of the time we rebid 2♦, transfer.

The "problem" hand for the method is 5♠-4♣ (we open minimum 5-5 black 1♣) since 2♣ is transfer to ♦'s. You could use a 2-level opening to show 11-15 with 5♠4♣ (we don't). Or just live with having to pass 1NT with 11-14 and 5-4 in the black suits. (I didn't see Ken's reply.)

[hrothgar]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saqjt965h2da8c873]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

You're the dealer at IMPs. What's your opening bid? If you open 1♠, partner responds 1NT (forcing): what's your plan from there?

Looks like a 1♠ opening to me

 

1. The hand is too strong for 4♠ playing a NAMYATS style. (If I'm not playing NAMYATS, 4♠ still doesn't call to me, though its harder to articulate why)

 

2. A NAMYATS style 3N or 4♦ is right out (The Spade suit isn't strong enough)

 

3. 2♠ and 3♠ are complete misrepresentations

 

this leaves us with a 1♠ opening

[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

 

I think I have 2 defensive tricks and thus would not make a hi-level pre-empt. 1♠ opening and then rebid 3♠.

[Echognome]

2. A NAMYATS style 3N or 4♦ is right out (The Spade suit isn't strong enough)

LOL?

 

I don't know of anyone that plays the requirement to be completely solid spades.

[hrothgar]

2.  A NAMYATS style 3N or 4♦ is right out (The Spade suit isn't strong enough)

LOL?

 

I don't know of anyone that plays the requirement to be completely solid spades.

Where did I say that I require a completely solid suit for a NAYMATS opening?

 

To me, the critical requirement for a NAMYATs opening is the number of winners that the trump suit can be expected to produce opposite a stiff. I want the hand to produce 7+ trumps tricks.

 

♠ AKQ5432 is fine, as is

♠ AQJ65432, or, for that matter

♠ KQJT5432

 

The hand in question will (typically) only produce six trump tricks opposite a stiff. You'll lose a trick any time the King is offside, as well as a number of hands where its onside and you can't pick it up.

 

I don't think that the treatment that I suggest is far removed from the mainstream

[Echognome]

2.  A NAMYATS style 3N or 4♦ is right out (The Spade suit isn't strong enough)

LOL?

 

I don't know of anyone that plays the requirement to be completely solid spades.

Where did I say that I require a completely solid suit for a NAYMATS opening?

 

To me, the critical requirement for a NAMYATs opening is the number of winners that the trump suit can be expected to produce opposite a stiff. I want the hand to produce 7+ trumps tricks.

 

♠ AKQ5432 is fine, as is

♠ AQJ65432, or, for that matter

♠ KQJT5432

 

The hand in question will (typically) only produce six trump tricks opposite a stiff. You'll lose a trick any time the King is offside, as well as a number of hands where its onside and you can't pick it up.

 

I don't think that the treatment that I suggest is far removed from the mainstream

Shrug. I don't think your views are very mainstream at all. Many might bid it on 8 trumps, but do not require additionally that the trump suit is that solid. Hands such as:

 

AQTxxxxx x xxx x

 

I'm not against opening this hand 1♠ as it has defensive as well as offensive values. But I cannot fathom not opening it 4♠ on the grounds that the spade suit is too weak!

 

However, you've explained your reasoning. I don't really see why the only consideration is the trump suit. I mean I'm all for having a good suit as a good suit = tricks. But when AQJT9 is not good enough, I feel like I'm in bizarro world.

[hrothgar]

Shrug.  I don't think your views are very mainstream at all.  Many might bid it on 8 trumps, but do not require additionally that the trump suit is that solid.  Hands such as:

 

AQTxxxxx x xxx x

 

I'm not against opening this hand 1♠ as it has defensive as well as offensive values.  But I cannot fathom not opening it 4♠ on the grounds that the spade suit is too weak!

"Preempts from A to Z" by Zenkel and Anderson provides the following suit quality requirements for a NAMYATS type opening.

 

"The Trump suit is always self sufficient. It never contains more than one loser. It is at least seven cards in length and frequently eight". They provide the provide the following examples of NAMYATS openings

 

1. AKJT8754

2. AKQT9654

3. KQJT875

4. AKQT93

 

I readily admit, the Spade suit is sufficient to qualify for a 4♠ preempt under A+Z's criteria. (The hand itself isn't strong enough. They would require more playing strength. Something like

 

♠ AQJT965

♥ Void

♦ xx

♣ KQT9

 

However, they'd never recommend a NAMYATS type preempt with a suit like AQTxxxxx)

 

I think that the main difference between my style and A+Z is my own idiosyncratic treatment of 7-4 patterns and the like. I prefer to bundle these into the direct 4♠. Accordingly, for me there aren't many hands that would only only produce six trump winners that offer enough playing strength for a NAMYATS opening.

 

For what its worth, I consider a NAMYATS opening on AQTxxxxx x xxx x complete incomprehensible.

[pbleighton]

But I cannot fathom not opening it 4♠ on the grounds that the spade suit is too weak!

 

You wouldn't open 4S in NAMYATS.

 

FWIW, when I played NAMYATS the requirement was that your suit was good enough to set trump and you had 8-8.5 playing tricks. This hand isn't quite good enough, by that (perhaps non-mainstream :P ) definition, but the suit is.

 

Peter

[mike777]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saqjt965h2da8c873]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

You're the dealer at IMPs. What's your opening bid? If you open 1♠, partner responds 1NT (forcing): what's your plan from there?

Another wonderful example of the type of hand I hope to see much more theory discussion on.

 

We have a minimum HCP hand with above average playing strength. We do not have game forcing playing strength.

 

If we agree, I repeat if we can agree, and we may not, that:

 

1s and 3s rebid shows this playing strength but more hcp

and

1s and 2s rebid shows this hcp but promises less playing strength

 

What should we do and why?

 

I lean towards 1s and 2s rebid buying into the argument that working hcp is just as important as playing strength so we should go more conservative rather than aggressive.

 

I hope to hear both sides of this discussion and any other important points brought up more fully.