What do u open?

[badderzboy]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=shxxdkq986542ckjx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

I had this hand in a teaching session and was torn between the options?

 

What would u open and what do u think of the alternatives?

 

Steve

[Fluffy]

Anything can work, neither option looks wrong to me, I would be more agressive against strong opponents, 4♦ looks right if avaible althou diamonds are a bit too good.

[jtfanclub]

Cool...we have four votes, one each for 1♦, 3♦, 4♦, and 5♦.

[jdonn]

I'm a bit torn between 1 and 4 so I didn't vote. Call me a waffler.

 

3 is the only choice that I find clearly wrong, this hand has way too much playing strength.

[han]

4D is my first choice, 5D my second, 1D my third. 3D I don't understand.

[Echognome]

I'm pretty sure I'd open 5 at the table. It could easily be wrong.

[Free]

Depends on the teaching level imo. If you're teaching beginners, an 8 card suit is usually 4♦ so I'd do that. Otherwise it's very difficult to decide imo

[gwnn]

I like 4♦ but somehow this time I'd just go for 5♦. good hand for the Burges agreement "don't raise my 5 level preempts without 4 aces"

[Gerben42]

This is not a good hand for teaching sessions. If you were playing "random" hands, teach the rule of 2 and 3.

 

In this case this means: 5 losers --> open 5♦.

[Cascade]

One or four for me. I voted for 4♦.

 

Our requirements for a five-level pre-empt are stronger than this.

[whereagles]

Seems like a textbook 4♦. 8 cards, no aces, very short on majors...

[Codo]

You are growing up Nuno. A year ago your choice had been between 5 and 6 Diamonds.

 

I bid 5 ♦ with convidence and await relaxed any further development.

Maybe my emotions will shift when I write down the - 800 in the score sheet and the tears in pds eyes are dropping to the floor, but such is life. Nobody forced him to play with me.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

5D

 

#1 1D depends on your agreements, but will only

delay the decision

 

#2 I dont think that 3D is a serious suggestion.

 

#3 4D is ok, playing MP 5Dx-3 is worse than their

game, and it is quite easy for them to go for blood

against 5D, but I usually bid at MP the same as I

would playing IMPs, and playing IMPs I dont care

about -500 vs. -420

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

This is not a good hand for teaching sessions. If you were playing "random" hands, teach the rule of 2 and 3.

 

In this case this means: 5 losers --> open 5♦.

I never understood that rule.

 

First, the vulnerability of opps should be taken into account also.

 

Second, it is the difference between the offensive and defensive strength of the hand that determines the safety level, not the offensive strength per se.

 

Roughly, at equal vul you need O-D=7 to open at the 5-level since we need 9 tricks if opps have game but not slam. This is based on the somewhat dubious assumptions that

1) Opps will always make the right decision

2) P has O-D=0

 

I suppose assumption 1) is a little too conservative (only a little because part of it is that they would also make the right decision if we opened at a lower level, which is actually an aggressive assumption). OTOH the second assumption is too aggressive, especially because if p has positive O-D he would probably increase our preempt anyway. OTOH opening 5 has more preemptive effect than 4 raised to 5.

 

Maybe all in all the above rule is a little too aggressive so one should require O-D=7.5 for an equal-vul 5-level opening.

 

With one defensive trick and 7-7.5 offensive tricks I voted 4♦.

[whereagles]

You are growing up Nuno. A year ago your choice had been between 5 and 6 Diamonds.

I learned that 4m preempts can be far more bothersome than 5m. Opps usually just double 5m, whereas they usually bid over 4m and may very well end up in a hopeless game (sometimes doubled by pard :))

[skjaeran]

4♦. 5♦ more attractive at IMPs.

[Guest Jlall]

Wow, very impressed with whereagles! He actually said everything I think about this hand.

[jillybean]

1♦, I still have a partner.

[mikeh]

1♦, I still have a partner.

Sorry, Kathryn, but opening 1♦ is the worst thing to do to a partner.

 

Partner will expect an entirely different hand, whether the opps bid or stay silent. No way will partner ever be able to evaluate accurately if you open 1♦.. even if you robotically rebid the minimum number of diamonds every time.

 

It is, in part, because you have a partner that you should, in my view and that of the majority of posters so far, open some large number of diamonds.

 

I'd open 5♦ at white v red. I open 3N at other vulnerabilities because I use 4♣/♦ for other purposes, and we can't reach 3N if I open a natural 4minor, but, given we play 4minor natural and preemptive, I echo whereagles' comments (wow, this may be a first: justin and me both endorsing whereagles' posts. I'm not sure who is more surprised.. me or whereagles :) I hope for more in the future!)

[kenrexford]

1♦, I still have a partner.

Sorry, Kathryn, but opening 1♦ is the worst thing to do to a partner.

 

Partner will expect an entirely different hand, whether the opps bid or stay silent. No way will partner ever be able to evaluate accurately if you open 1♦.. even if you robotically rebid the minimum number of diamonds every time.

 

It is, in part, because you have a partner that you should, in my view and that of the majority of posters so far, open some large number of diamonds.

 

I'd open 5♦ at white v red. I open 3N at other vulnerabilities because I use 4♣/♦ for other purposes, and we can't reach 3N if I open a natural 4minor, but, given we play 4minor natural and preemptive, I echo whereagles' comments (wow, this may be a first: justin and me both endorsing whereagles' posts. I'm not sure who is more surprised.. me or whereagles :) I hope for more in the future!)

The use of the modifier "still" suggests a knowledge of the imminent loss. :)

[Cascade]

1♦, I still have a partner.

Sorry, Kathryn, but opening 1♦ is the worst thing to do to a partner.

This just depends on how strict your requirements are for various pre-empts.

 

When the vulnerability is slightly different we open many hands at the one-level that look more like good pre-empts since our favourable vulnerable pre-empts are quite wide ranging and we find that the best compromise is to open the very best hands that we might otherwise pre-empt at the one-level.

 

Nil vulnerability there are some hands that fit into this category. A similar hand to the one given with say two aces among its 9 hcp we would probably open 1♦. We might even do that vulnerable but for a different reason - Axxxxxxx is not a great suit to pre-empt. Alternatively we might downgrade that suit to 3♦ vulnerable.

 

My experience is that it is very good to have your pre-empts well defined. Our rules at nil vulnerable first seat are:

 

3♦ around 6-9 and within about 3-4 tricks of the contract

 

4♦ similar to 3♦ but with more diamonds or more distribution say 7=4 - yes we would open 4minor with a side four-card major (but not always)

 

5♦ around 9 tricks but not strong in high cards and/or very short in the majors - at this level our range is not so dependent on vulnerability as for our 3-level pre-empts. Our 3-level pre-empts might vary between within 1-trick and within 5-tricks of the contract depending on vulnerability. Whereas our 5-level pre-empts might rarely stretch down to only 8 tricks favourable and up to 10 tricks unfavourable - more like 8-9 favourable 9.5-10 unfavourable.

 

When we have a hand near the top end hcp-wise that does not quite fit one of these bids we will consider opening 1♦.

[mikeh]

1♦, I still have a partner.

Sorry, Kathryn, but opening 1♦ is the worst thing to do to a partner.

This just depends on how strict your requirements are for various pre-empts.

 

I was partway through a long post on this, but it was even more boring than most of my longer posts, so I quit. However, I think you are mistaken in this test. Don't make a decision about whether to open at the one level by considering your rules on preempting. Consider, instead, your far more important rules on 1-bid openings.

 

1-level openings are primarily constructive. Preempts are (largely) destructive. I could go on but I will spare all of us :(

[Cascade]

1♦, I still have a partner.

Sorry, Kathryn, but opening 1♦ is the worst thing to do to a partner.

This just depends on how strict your requirements are for various pre-empts.

 

I was partway through a long post on this, but it was even more boring than most of my longer posts, so I quit. However, I think you are mistaken in this test. Don't make a decision about whether to open at the one level by considering your rules on preempting. Consider, instead, your far more important rules on 1-bid openings.

 

1-level openings are primarily constructive. Preempts are (largely) destructive. I could go on but I will spare all of us :(

That is fine if you have some gap between your one-level bids and your pre-empts.

 

I don't like that style.

 

For me if a hand is too good for a pre-empt then I open it one and vice-versa. Occasionally there is a hand that is too flawed for a pre-empt that I will pass but that is distinct from being too good for a pre-empt.

 

Basically we define our opening bids: one-level; pre-empts; and passes. Then we try and fit a finely graduated range of hands into our bids. At times, for example when the vulnerability is favourable we pre-empt more freely by lowering our bottom limit - I am not 100% convinced this is best but this is what we and most others do. As a consequence we find that we need to shift the top end of the pre-empt range a little downwards. When we do this some otherwise maximum pre-empts slip into our one-level openings. Sure this is not idea for the one-level bids but overall it forms a style with which we are comfortable.

[helene_t]

That is fine if you have some gap between your one-level bids and your pre-empts.

 

I don't like that style.

Same here. The point range around 10 is the most frequent especially for unbalanced hands, so it is impractical to have to pass those hands that are between opening strength and preempt strength. If there is a gap, I would remove it by playing slightly sounder preempts.

 

Anyway, with an 8-card it can hardly be an issue, if it's too strong for 3♦ I can just open 4♦ or 5♦ or 3NT or whatever my system allows for.

[the hog]

Would if I could, but can't open 4D as that is Namyats. 5D for me.

Disagree strongly with Wayne - I believe pre empts should be wide ranging, not so strictly defined. It makes you too predicatable.