is this an opening?

[kenrexford]

[random gibberish]

Wow. You must not double much.

 

"What if LHO has two voids and a running side suit where the double hook is on?"

 

"What if RHO accidentally passed a 20-count and my partner psyched?"

 

"What if I accidentally pulled out the cards from Board Two?"

 

If you cannot see the difference between a leap to 6♦ immediately over an opening bid by partner and a sequence where partner passes throughout but the opponents open, use Blackwood, hear an answer, and then bid slam, then I cannot help you.

 

But, it gets worse. You say that the person could have made slam in his own hand, which is inaccurate on any lead if his dummy does not include the club Queen or on a trump lead if the club Queen had been stiff with a stiff diamond in dummy (down two in that event).

 

Then you suggest the wildest hand I could imagine as a typical 6♦ bid. I'm not sure who has discussed the standard treatment for 1♣-6♦ overcalls, but that seems a bit pessimistic.

[ArtK78]

Ken:

 

You really should read what I posted. I said that declarer COULD have slam in his own hand, but he did not in this particular case. Still, it made.

 

I gave you an example of a hand that would leap to 6♦ over an opponent's one bid. You don't have to like it, but it is a reasonable example.

 

I admit, I do not double slam bids that often. Only when I know that they are not being bid to make.

 

When is the last time someone leapt to slam against you over your partner's opening one bid or as an opening bid and it was meant as a sacrifice?

[kenrexford]

When is the last time someone leapt to slam against you over your partner's opening one bid or as an opening bid and it was meant as a sacrifice?

The bid does not have to be made as a sacrifice.

 

Case in point -- the actual hand. The guy has two club losers to deal with, a major-suit loser, and a need for diamonds to be 2-2-2 around the world. He got a 2-2-2 diamond split, an entry in clubs, and a successful finesse against partner's club Jack.

 

If on this actual deal, from my position, I think we set this thing WAY more than not.

[1eyedjack]

I think in general if someone punts a slam fast, where there is bidding space available to investigate it slowly then it is likely to result from one or more of 4 features.

1) He may have a hand that lacks decent methods to investigate slam intelligently more slowly,

2) He may have a hand that fears a particular opening lead, and a slow route would telegraph the problem lead where the lead is "blind" against the punt, or

3) He may fear a sacrifice, and bidding it fast reduces their capacity to identify and evaluate their fits.

4) He may be advance-sac'ing

 

With the possible exception of item 4, each of these factors tends to indicate extreme distributional features in the hand of the punter. That in turn argues against counting on Aces and Kings in side suits necessarily scoring tricks in defence. If partner has shown values that increase your side's total high card values, all that that knowledge serves to indicate is that the opponent has that much more by way of distribution to compensate.

[ArtK78]

3) He may fear a sacrifice, and bidding it fast reduces their capacity to identify and evaluate their fits.

This point is probably the best reason for blasting to a slam.

 

Consider the hand that I suggested for a 6♦ call over 1♣. It has voids in both major suits. Certainly there is a good chance that the opponents have a very good fit in one of the majors (of course, every time I make that assumption, it turns out that my partner is 6-6 in the majors). So, even though there is a fair chance that 13 tricks are available, if one bids the hand slowly one may find the opponents can locate a good sacrifice even at the 7 level. Bidding and making 6♦ with an overtrick is better than beating 7 of a major by 3 tricks. And if the opponents choose to double 6♦, all the better.

[foo]

♠AKJ ♥9752 ♦QJ ♣J973

The goal of Bridge is to score well. To do that, you have to play the odds and either try to declare or try to defend based on which is more likely to get you a better score.

 

This hand is a flawed 9 loser 12 count that may be worth as little as a 9 count if neither the DQ nor the DJ can take a trick. Robson and Segel would say this hand has a low ODR. IOW, it's a =defensive= hand.

 

I'd pass this in 1st or 2nd playing any natural system with either a weak or strong NT. Or even playing Precision.

 

Nor is this a good hand to open in 3rd or 4th as explained by all the reasons already mentioned by Frances.

[1eyedjack]

I don't think that opening 1NT expresses to partner any statement of your ODR. That evaluation becomes relevant later in the contested auction.

Would you decide NOT to open INT with a 14/15 point (whatever is in range) just because it has a low ODR?

[foo]

I don't think that opening 1N expresses to partner any statement of your ODR. That evaluation becomes relevant later in the contested auction.

Would you decide NOT to open INT with a 14/15 point (whatever is in range) just because it has a low ODR?

Danny Kleinman wrote an excellent book called _The NT Zone_.

 

In it there is a good discussion on what hands to downgrade into or below your 1N opening range. It mirrored my thoughts and experiences very well on this.

 

Yes, there are definitely hands I downgrade to below my 1N range as well as hands that have more HCP than my 1N range that I downgrade into 1N openings.

(There are also hands I upgrade into or out of my 1N range.)

 

This applies whether I am playing a strong or weak NT. It does not apply to the Kamikaze AKA "mini" NT.

 

Hands with higher than expected loser count for their HCP;

or lower than expected Quick Tricks / Controls for the HCP;

or that have flawed holdings like K, QJ, Qx, Jxx;

or that have too many points in short suits rather than long suits (AK_xxxxxx_QJx_QJx)

simply do not rate to be as useful for declaring as their HCP would usually imply.