7-5 come alive?

[helene_t]

x-KQJT98x-JT9xx-void

 

P is intermediate, opps unknown. This is the second board in a 12-board BBO tourney. On the first board against the same opps we bid a ridiculous game but opps defended even more ridiculously and let it make.

 

A 2♥ opening showing 5 hearts and a 5-card in a 2nd suit is available but the details have not been discussed.

 

If you open 4♥, RHO will balance with 4♠.

[gwnn]

4♥ for sure, but 5♦ would be asking for it imho.

 

7-5 are 1 suiters, unless significant discrepancy between the qualities of the suits (something I learned on the forums :) ). 5♥ would be even more asking for it. Pd could have a 4333 16 count for all we know. Pass pass pass.

[jtfanclub]

So how did you end up all vulnerable in the 2nd board of an online tourney, anyways?

 

I want to bid 3♥ It's the right number of losers, and the right suit length. I usually have at least a little defense when I open 4♥, though I may be weird that way. Is there a reason that it isn't an option?

[helene_t]

Oh sorry, maybe I should have added 3♥. I thought this hand was waaayyyy too strong for that, but OK, that's just my humble opinion.

 

All vul 2nd board, is that impossible? Maybe it was the third board. Thinking more about, it probably was. On the second board we went for 800 in a phantom sac. In total I think we won 80 IMPs and lost 55 or something like that.

[neilkaz]

4♥ then I don't relish defending 4♠ so 5♦ for me and as we have that bicolor 2♥ available, PD hopefully knows that I have more ♥ than ♦

[Halo]

4H and then pass. I usually preempt to try and make the opponents guess.

[Fluffy]

What Halo said.

[pclayton]

4♥. At white / red I'd take another call over 4♠, but I'll pass if it comes back to me.

[jtfanclub]

As the only person to not bid 4♥ I have to ask...why?

 

What is the point, exactly?

 

Do you expect to buy the contract at 4♥? You have 12 cards in the red suits, and you're bidding the lowest suit game. I seriously doubt you're going to keep them out of game. Heck, I think you're more likely to keep them out with a pass than a 4♥ bid.

 

Keeping them out of slam? Maybe. But if partner has the right 11 hcp, you likely have slam yourselves, while if he has the wrong 21 hcp you don't. I think you're more likely to keep your side out of slam than the opponents.

 

Is it to give partner enough information for him to decide whether to pass, bid 5♥, or double? Well, I may be unusual here, but I would never expect partner, bidding 4♥ vulnerable, to have a hand like this. I don't think bidding 4♥ here helps him make that decision.

 

I mean, I understand the argument that 'this is a 4♥ hand, therefore, I bid 4♥'. I just don't think that accomplishes much. Take a lot at the actual (and unsurprising) auction.

 

4♥ P P 4♠

-P- P

 

Are you happy about this auction? Do you think the opponents are poorly placed? Are you confident your partner will make the right decision?

[han]

The less room you give them, the less they are likely to get it right.

[jdonn]

4♥ is obvious, I can't imagine anything else. When rho bids 4♠ a pass is obvious (though I can imagine doing something else, it would be pretty silly.)

 

I don't understand the mentality that if the opponents bid 4♠ over my 4♥ we automatically lose. Maybe they are missing slam, which happens a LOT on that auction. Maybe they are getting creamed in game (possibly to be doubled by partner). Maybe we get creamed at the 5 level. Maybe partner can use the info of the 4♠ bid to correctly bid 5♥. Maybe 4♠ is just the normal result. Of course I'm nowhere near 100% sure I'm glad when the auction goes that way. But please show me the auction with this hand that makes me 100% sure I'm glad it went that way (or even close to 100%). At least I have made them guess as best I can.

[han]

4♥ is obvious, I can't imagine anything else. When rho bids 4♠ a pass is obvious (though I can imagine doing something else, it would be pretty silly.)

Agree.

[pclayton]

As the only person to not bid 4♥ I have to ask...why?

 

What is the point, exactly?

 

Do you expect to buy the contract at 4♥? You have 12 cards in the red suits, and you're bidding the lowest suit game. I seriously doubt you're going to keep them out of game. Heck, I think you're more likely to keep them out with a pass than a 4♥ bid.

 

Keeping them out of slam? Maybe. But if partner has the right 11 hcp, you likely have slam yourselves, while if he has the wrong 21 hcp you don't. I think you're more likely to keep your side out of slam than the opponents.

 

Is it to give partner enough information for him to decide whether to pass, bid 5♥, or double? Well, I may be unusual here, but I would never expect partner, bidding 4♥ vulnerable, to have a hand like this. I don't think bidding 4♥ here helps him make that decision.

 

I mean, I understand the argument that 'this is a 4♥ hand, therefore, I bid 4♥'. I just don't think that accomplishes much. Take a lot at the actual (and unsurprising) auction.

 

4♥ P P 4♠

-P- P

 

Are you happy about this auction? Do you think the opponents are poorly placed? Are you confident your partner will make the right decision?

I don't see the point of this post.

 

JT is criticizing 4♥. Fine. Then what is the alternative and why is it better than 4♥? 3♥? 5♥? Pass? I don't get it.

 

I don't know about the others, but when I open 4 of a major, I normally have an 8 card suit vulnerable. I'll make an exception for a 7-4, and I definitely will with a 7-5. I won't have more than one trick of outside defense, and I usually won't have 2 aces. This hand seems to fit well within the limits. The side suit makes further competition possible, but at these colors, I'm happy to get them to make their decision at a high level.

 

Preemption is supposed to make life hard on the opponents. If pard will occasionally misjudge how high to go, thats life. We'll give up plenty of -800's and -790's but we will get many more +800's and +790's.

[jtfanclub]

I don't see the point of this post.

 

JT is criticizing 4♥. Fine. Then what is the alternative and why is it better than 4♥? 3♥? 5♥? Pass?

I believe it's 3♥.

 

You have a 7 card hearts suit headed by a couple of honors, 7 hcp, and no defense. If I asked you what you'd expect from a 3♥ opening 1st hand, wouldn't you describe something like that? While it's absolutely true that the hand has more offense than a typical 3♥ bid due to the 5 diamonds, I would never expect a 7 count 4♥ call from my partner vulnerable. Maybe I just learned it wrong.

 

I think that short of opening 5♥, they're always going to bid a black suit game. The "last guess", unfortunately, is going to be my partner's. Pass, 5♥, and X could all be right. So I want my call to be based not on placing the contract, but what I think will best describe my hand so that partner can place the contract. And I think that call is 3♥.

 

There are few situations I like being put in less than a vulnerable:

 

4♥-P-P-4♠

-P-P

 

 

It always ends up being some sort of thought like...

 

"Well, if the A♥ cashes and partner has one other defensive trick, then they're down for sure, probably down 2 or 3. If he has one or the other, then they're probably down. On the other hand, if partner has a good hand for his bid then we make 5♥. Should I bid 5♥ to make? Should I bid it as a sacrifice? Are they going to make it? I think 4♥ was going to make. Are most people going to be bidding 4♠? Do I need to X 4♠ in order to keep this from being a disaster?"

 

And so on and so forth. 4♥ is often so vague that this is little more than a guess.

 

So to me, 4♥ vulnerable should be as close to the ideal as possible:

 

-8 or 9 hearts, headed by the ace, with at most one loser across a singleton.

-one outside defensive trick.

-8 tricks

 

If I picture partner with that hand, I can place the contract. All vulnerable:

0 tricks - pass

1 trick - 5♥ sacrifice

2 tricks - pass in IMPs, pass or X in MPs

3 tricks - 5♥ to make

4 tricks - Try for slam before they try for game.

 

Yes, I know it's not usually this simple, but the point is, if partner's hand is even remotely close to the ideal, I can made a rational decision decision about what to do next.

 

(Interesting, before I wrote it out, I didn't realize it would rarely be right for the opponents to X 4♠. No wonder 4♥ openings end up being transfer bids)

 

But that doesn't work with a hand like this. Sure, the hand has 8 tricks. But it doesn't go up right. If partner has the AK of clubs, it still has 8 tricks. If partner has the AK in both black suits, it only has 9 or 10 tricks.

 

There are other advantages and disadvantages to opening 3♥, of course. Opening 3♥ makes it easier for them to find slam. It also makes it easier for your partner to try for slam without going over 4♥. And the auction may go, for example, 3♥-P-P-X, allowing you to bid 4♦ and give partner the most detail possible.

 

If that's not what you expect from your partner's 4♥ vulnerable, then I guess you'll come to a different conclusion. Maybe you expect less, so 4♥ is right for you.

 

But, this is what I expect. So, that's the point of the post.

[han]

So my previous quote in this thread was from Justin's blog, I think he calls it the golden rule. Or maybe silver, not sure. Anyway, especially fot jt I'll also quote the famous McCallum-rule:

 

Open 4♥ whenever that is an option.

 

Not to confuse with Hamman's rule, which is not about opening bids and not about 4♥.

[Free]

Opening 3♥ is completely useless imo. 4♥ is cristal clear. What to do next? Pfff, one important rule is never to bid freely after you preempted. I usually get a bottom whenever I break that rule... :)

[helene_t]

Not to confuse with Hamman's rule, which is not about opening bids and not about 4♥.

And it doesn't rhyme, either.

[pclayton]

You have a 7 card hearts suit headed by a couple of honors, 7 hcp, and no defense.  If I asked you what you'd expect from a 3♥ opening 1st hand, wouldn't you describe something like that?  While it's absolutely true that the hand has more offense than a typical 3♥ bid due to the 5 diamonds, I would never expect a 7 count 4♥ call from my partner vulnerable.  Maybe I just learned it wrong.

JT: There's a wide spectrum of hands that fit your description. In 1st chair:

 

1. xx, KQJTxxx, xx, xx. Red / White, this is probably a 2♥ opening, but 3♥ otherwise.

 

2. x, KQJTxxx, xxx, xx. 3♥ most of the time, but I wouldn't criticize a 4♥ opening at green.

 

3. void, KQJTxxx, xxxx, xx. 4♥ every time, except red / white probably

 

4. The subject hand (x, KQJTxxxx, JTxxx, v) I would open 4♥ on all days that end in "y".

 

Its fine to set your own standards for preempts with your partner, but I think you are missing out on valuable opportunities for preempts if you woodenly stick to rules like :"A 3 level opening shows a 7 card suit, etc...".

 

One more thing, Helene didn't have 3♥ as an option ;). So it doesn't exist in her universe (nor mine B)).

[jtfanclub]

4. The subject hand (x, KQJTxxxx, JTxxx, v) I would open 4♥ on all days that end in "y".

How about...

 

x

AQJxxxxx

ATxx

---

 

Would you open that 4♥?

 

How is your partner supposed to know which one you have? I don't mind opening that 4♥ if you move a heart to a diamond OR change the heart ace to the king OR change the diamond ace to the jack. But all 3?

 

How about the other direction? Moving a diamond to a heart or changing the heart queen to the king or changing the diamond ten to the queen? How about all 3?

 

Its fine to set your own standards for preempts with your partner, but I think you are missing out on valuable opportunities for preempts if you woodenly stick to rules like :"A 3 level opening shows a 7 card suit, etc...".

 

Well, I'm obviously not smarter than the other posters on this thread. So the possibilities are:

 

1) They just spent 5 seconds thinking about it, and haven't looked deeper.

2) I'm not using the same standards for pre-empts as everybody else.

3) I'm missing something.

 

If the answers are 2 or 3, then I could learn something from this thread. If the answer is 1, then who knows, I might convince somebody to take a closer look.

 

One more thing, Helene didn't have 3♥ as an option ;). So it doesn't exist in her universe (nor mine B)).

 

In my universe, board 2 of BBO tournaments only have N/S vulnerable. B)

[helene_t]

x

AQJxxxxx

ATxx

---

It would never occur to me to open that hand 4♥. Oh well, maybe it would because I like to preempt, but it should not. Waaayyyy too strong. Again, that's just my style.

[matmat]

x

AQJxxxxx

ATxx

---

 

Would you open that 4♥?

no. i wouldn't. especially not opposite an unpassed p...

 

edited for content and to fit on your screen...

[pclayton]

How about...

 

x

AQJxxxxx

ATxx

---

 

Would you open that 4♥?

 

I'll make an exception for a 7-4, and I definitely will with a 7-5. I won't have more than one trick of outside defense, and I usually won't have 2 aces.

 

Seriously, you've gone from a 7 bagger to an 8 bagger and a hand with no aces to a hand with 2 aces. I hope you're not really comparing the 2?

 

FWIW, I think that if you added the ♦K, (x, KQJT9xx, KJTxx, v) that I might consider 4♥ but if I did, I'm not selling out to 4♠.

[pclayton]

n my universe, board 2 of BBO tournaments only have N/S vulnerable. tongue.gif

 

She did specify all vul. So she either has the board # wrong or the vulnerability wrong.

[helene_t]

oops, it was board 4.

[jtfanclub]

Seriously, you've gone from a 7 bagger to an 8 bagger and a hand with no aces to a hand with 2 aces. I hope you're not really comparing the 2?

Well, that is what I'm comparing, because the 8 bagger 2-ace hand is what I tend to have for a 4♥ bid 1st/2nd hand vulnerable and the other one isn't. And sadly enough, I thought that was standard. Must have grown up in a very conservative club.

 

So, sorry for wasting your time, but it wasn't a waste for me- now I know what to expect when my pick up partner opens 4♥!