2-4-v-7

[Cascade]

(For what its worth, I didn't invent this theory... I've always heard it called Burgess's Rule: If you get dealt a Swan, you open it at the game level)

 

BTW, I have tried to extend the same concept to 7-5 hands. It doesn't seem to work well at all....

Stephen Burgess does extend these to 7-5 hands. He is willing to open at even higher levels with more distribution.

 

There are several stories about his six-level openings. He told me that he had a rule that partner (think client) was not allowed to raise his six-level openings unless he held four aces. I recall vaguely some hand where partner raised inappropriately and he needed some brilliancy (obsure squeeze) to pull the contract in.

 

He also told me a story about playing US at a world championships with US NPC kibitzing on his side of the screen - Dan Morse I think. Stephen opened 6♦ with some 7-5-1-0 with five hearts on the side. The NPC could not control himself and blurted out for all to hear "Is THAT the opening bid?"

[gerry]

For what its worth, what I found when I plugged this hand into my favorite software was (just looking at the hands with the help of a double dummy analyser) a good rate of success, certainly better than even money. Obviously one needs to make some guesstimates about what might happen at the table on any given hand but nevertheless I found the experiment quite interesting.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, what I found when I plugged this hand into my favorite software was (just looking at the hands with the help of a double dummy analyser) a good rate of success, certainly better than even money. Obviously one needs to make some guesstimates about what might happen at the table on any given hand but nevertheless I found the experiment quite interesting.

????

 

What were you measuring?

[han]

Indeed.

[matmat]

Indeed.

I agree with Han

[the hog]

For what its worth, what I found when I plugged this hand into my favorite software was (just looking at the hands with the help of a double dummy analyser) a good rate of success, certainly better than even money.  Obviously one needs to make some guesstimates about what might happen at the table on any given hand but nevertheless I found the experiment quite interesting.

????

 

What were you measuring?

Inflation rate?

[Finch]

I don't feel there is any controversy about 4♣. It is clearly forcing and clearly natural as far as I'm concerned. To me the bottom line is this hand is far too good to worry about the opponents, and far too complicated to needlessly guess both strain and level.

Maybe this is just my limit bidding hat again, but I don't think 4C is totally forcing. But it honestly doesn't matter if it is forcing or not, it describes our hand. By opening 1C, bidding 3H then bidding 4C we said "I have a powerful hand with 4 hearts and 7 clubs*" I said this earlier, but if partner passes 4C I don't expect to miss game.

 

On the actual hand, if partner's SK were the Ace I would certainly have expected him to raise 4C to 5C, for example.

 

*You have to be 4-7. With 5 hearts you would bid 4H now; with 3 spades you would raise spades, with 2416 you would have doubled 3D.

[jdonn]

I don't feel there is any controversy about 4♣. It is clearly forcing and clearly natural as far as I'm concerned. To me the bottom line is this hand is far too good to worry about the opponents, and far too complicated to needlessly guess both strain and level.

Maybe this is just my limit bidding hat again

It is :D

[hrothgar]

(For what its worth, I didn't invent this theory...  I've always heard it called Burgess's Rule:  If you get dealt a Swan, you open it at the game level)

 

BTW, I have tried to extend the same concept to 7-5 hands.  It doesn't seem to work well at all....

Stephen Burgess does extend these to 7-5 hands. He is willing to open at even higher levels with more distribution.

 

There are several stories about his six-level openings. He told me that he had a rule that partner (think client) was not allowed to raise his six-level openings unless he held four aces. I recall vaguely some hand where partner raised inappropriately and he needed some brilliancy (obsure squeeze) to pull the contract in.

 

He also told me a story about playing US at a world championships with US NPC kibitzing on his side of the screen - Dan Morse I think. Stephen opened 6♦ with some 7-5-1-0 with five hearts on the side. The NPC could not control himself and blurted out for all to hear "Is THAT the opening bid?"

If you ever get the chance, ask him what he'd open with

 

♠ KQ963

♥ 7

♦ Q876532

♣ Void

 

I tried a 5♦ opening. It didn't fare too well...

 

Partner tabled

 

♠ AT852

♥ T643

♦ A

♣ T73

 

The other table was allowed to declare 4♠

[helene_t]

Lol Richard, what about this preempt structure:

2D: 5/5 including spades

2H/S: Natural

2N: 5+ minor, 5 hearts

3x: Natural

3N: 6m, 5 spades

4c: 6/5 majors

4d: Major single suiter

4h/s: 6-card + 5-card minor

4N: 6/5 minors

 

This will allow you to open at the appropriate level (except that you would have to open a timid 2N with 5H+6m) and still be able to find the batter fit with the 6/5 hands (except that responder must guess over the 4N opening). You could obviously replace the 4d/H/S part with

4d: bad 4M opening

4M: Sound

if my 4d opening is not GCC legal or if you just don't feel the need for my 4d/4M distinction.

[hrothgar]

Lol Richard, what about this preempt structure:

2D: 5/5 including spades

2H/S: Natural

2N: 5+ minor, 5 hearts

3x: Natural

3N: 6m, 5 spades

4c: 6/5 majors

4d: Major single suiter

4h/s: 6-card + 5-card minor

4N: 6/5 minors

 

This will allow you to open at the appropriate level (except that you would have to open a timid 2N with 5H+6m) and still be able to find the batter fit with the 6/5 hands (except that responder must guess over the 4N opening). You could obviously replace the 4d/H/S part with

4d: bad 4M opening

4M: Sound

if my 4d opening is not GCC legal or if you just don't feel the need for my 4d/4M distinction.

Regretfully, almost none of these openings are GCC legal

 

Left to my own druthers, I prefer

 

2♦ = 4+ Diamonds and a 4+ card major

2♥ = 4+ hearts and either 4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs

2♠ = 6+ Spades or (4+ Spades and 5+ Clubs)

2N = Bad three level preempt in either minor

3♣ = Constructive club preempt

3♦ = Constructive Diamond preempt

3♥ = 6+ hearts

3♠ = 6+ Spades

3N = Good 4 level preempt in either major

4♣ = Natural

4♦ = Natural

4♥ = Natural (usually weak, could be a good 7-4)

4♠ = Natural (usually weak, could be a good 7-4)

4N = Good 5 level minor preempt

5♣ = Natural (usually weak, could be a good 7-4)

5♦ \= Natural (Natural (usually weak, could be a good 7-4)

[Yogeshdg]

I would have opened 5♣ in first seat...

Naah, not at these colors. I might open 5♣ at favorable.

Open 5♣? What should your pd respond with [hv=s=sakxxxhqxdxxxxcjx]133|100|[/hv].

[the hog]

I would have opened 5♣ in first seat...

Naah, not at these colors. I might open 5♣ at favorable.

Open 5♣? What should your pd respond with [hv=s=sakxxxhqxdxxxxcjx]133|100|[/hv].

You or partner should call the director as soon as dummy hits. There are 2 Q of H in the deck!

 

Btw had you read Richard's posts you would be well aware that he KNOWS opening 5C MAY be a problem for his side, but feels it is more likely to cause grief to the opps.

[whereagles]

I'd definitely try a 5♣ opener some of the time. But I'm ok with other openings.