do you open?

[xcurt]

red/red random BBO cross-IMPs, in second chair you have

 

T, 9, KQTx, A9xxxxx

 

RHO passes. Do you open?

 

If you open, the auction goes

 

P - 1C - 1H - 1S

2H- P - P - Dbl

P - ?

 

Do you agree with your second round pass? What now?

 

Curt

[ArtK78]

Yes.

 

Yes.

 

3♣.

[mike777]

1) if partner expects me to bid one club ok

2) if random pickup I pass

[Codo]

1. no

2. Luckily I hadn`t been there, but yes

3. 2 NT, cause my actual partner knows that this shows Clubs with shorter diamonds.

With anybody else I have a little agreement, I bid 2 NT lebenolish

With a pick up, I bid 3 Club.

[inquiry]

yes i open 1♣.

 

I agree with the pass on round two

 

Over the double, i would like to bid 2NT to show long clubs and four diamonds, with a pickup partner i would not risk it, and would now bid 3♣. I do have 7 clubs and only 4 diamonds after all.

[pclayton]

No I don't open this. If I did I would now bid 3♣. One less club and I would bid 2N (scrambling).

[Guest Jlall]

I don't even agree with 2N with 4-6, I could easily bid this way with 4-4 (though 4-5 would be "the norm"). I think partner is supposed to correct with 1 more diamond than club. Bidding 2N with 3 card disparity is just asking to get to the wrong suit though.

 

edit: didn't see that we have denied 3 spades already, so 4-4 is not really possible since we'd bid 2S. In that case I'm on board with 2N on 4-6 but 3C still with 4-7.

[jtfanclub]

5 losers, all red, no voids, no outside aces, 7 card suit.

 

Nobody opens this 4♣?

[jdonn]

5 losers, all red, no voids, no outside aces, 7 card suit.

 

Nobody opens this 4♣?

A9xxxxx vul?

[awm]

I would've opened 3♣. Second seat vulnerable this hand is not "too good." I've found that it is often good to preempt on hands with ten or more minor suit cards.

 

On the given auction, 3♣ over the double seems clear. But given how things have proceeded, doesn't it seem that I might've gotten a better result just opening 3♣? We have reached 3♣ anyway, so if they have some awful break opponents can still double (in fact it's easier for them to double because now they have communicated some information about their hands).

[neilkaz]

5 losers, all red, no voids, no outside aces, 7 card suit.

 

Nobody opens this 4♣?

I have a rule I follow and it says basically NEVER open a preemptive 4m in 2nd seat and especially red. When you open 4♣ here you deserve to miss a cold 3NT with OT or even a ♦ slam.

 

OK I'll open 4♣ with xx,x,xx KQT9xxxx in 2nd seat but the hand given here is far far from that. And I'm prepared to appoligize if 4♣ leads to a bad result !

 

I also pass the hand given here (just not good enough for me and most PD's) and if I open I bid 3♣ the 3rd time.

 

I don't preempt the given hand 3♣ in 2nd seat either, but would likely in first seat consider 3♣

 

Give me the same good 4♦ and same 6 mediocre ♣ and I'd be inclined to scramble 2NT if PD plays.

[jtfanclub]

5 losers, all red, no voids, no outside aces, 7 card suit.

 

Nobody opens this 4♣?

A9xxxxx vul?

Yeah, well, maybe that's pushing it.

 

I guess I meant that I'd be more likely to open this hand as a pre-empt than at the one level. I'm not excitied by the idea of playing it in diamonds.

[neilkaz]

5 losers, all red, no voids, no outside aces, 7 card suit.

 

Nobody opens this 4♣?

A9xxxxx vul?

Yeah, well, maybe that's pushing it.

 

I guess I meant that I'd be more likely to open this hand as a pre-empt than at the one level. I'm not excitied by the idea of playing it in diamonds.

You can open 3♣ but 2nd seat is the worst seat for a marginal preempt as one opp has allready passed and you may be preempting your side out of its best contract. However, if it is you hand, 3♣ may allow you to get to 3NT or ♦ is either is right.

 

I consider this a marginal 3♣ preempt as A9xxxxx could lead to trouble Red, and we have KQJx in another suit which while is almost certainly present a real blood bath in 3♣x we have decent defence vs opp contracts and good chances if PD holds ♦ if we pass.

[andy_h]

1) No, I won't open this.

2) Yes

3) 3C

[kenrexford]

I agree with the opening and the initial pass.

 

I also agree with the idea to bid clubs with 7-4 but 2NT with 6-4.

 

The problem that I am having is how I can bid this player so weakly. I feel like I should bid 4♣ now. This would seem to be a strange move, identifying a powerhouse player with long clubs. But, long clubs is not enough or I would have bid 3♣ last time. This also does not seem to be showing clubs with a spade frag, so similar reasons and because I did not make a support double. So, 4♣ seems to show a hand like this.

 

So, 4♣ at my third call.

 

I'm hesitant to admit this, but I feel that 5♣ might even be right.

[hrothgar]

I'd probably open 5♣ at the table

 

I don't expect anyone to agree with this scheme

[inquiry]

I'd probably open 5♣ at the table

 

I don't expect anyone to agree with this scheme

I expect not only will almost everyone disagree with opening 5♣, I "expect" most to strongly disagree with it. At least I do. :P

[P_Marlowe]

#1 I would pass the first round.

#2 If a direct 3C bid instead of pass would be weak,

I would bid it, if not you have to pass.

#3 Being not able to bid a weak 3C the round before,

I do it now.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Guest Jlall]

I'd probably open 5♣ at the table

 

I don't expect anyone to agree with this scheme

Richard, I really don't understand how someone as smart as you can believe in a rule like this. You really think it's just right to open game with 7-4's regardless of suit quality and often regardless of hand strength and often regardless of vulnerability? It's not like you have to adopt this strategy on an all or nothing basis. I'm totally with you for opening 4M on 7-4 hands, even if it might sometimes risk missing a slam, or if it might go down 1 too many. I get that. But opening 5C on A9xxxxx vulnerable in second seat... I just cannot see that being a winning strategy. You are forcing them to double you when you just have no safety at all, you are risking missing diamonds when you might well be able to find them otherwise (and this is the type of hand where 7-4 could play better in the 4 esp for slam purposes).

 

Sorry I guess this is a rant but I think you should add more judgement into your scheme. More specifically suit quality, hand quality, vulnerability, and position. You have often posted that you cannot be a very good bridge player or something, but I think you could improve a lot if you stopped doing things like this. It really is so odd to me because you are an analytical person and I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that opening 5C on this hand is correct.

 

BTW hopefully this post didnt sound like I was attacking you I honestly meant this as constructive advice.

[pclayton]

I'd probably open 5♣ at the table

 

I don't expect anyone to agree with this scheme

Richard I think you do this to prove a point about the benefits of mixed strategy, but this is really taking things to extremes. I'd like to think you are a paper tiger, but I've seen you make calls like this at the table too.

 

Varying your bids is a good idea, but not to this unhealthy extreme.

[xcurt]

Thanks to all who responded. I was trying to figure out if we could get this hand right. I think it's just too hard. Partner had AJxxx, AQxx, AJxx, --. 5D is cold. We were allowed to make 3NT on a defensive error (I bid 3C, partner bid 3NT, I guessed to pass).

 

Here is the complete deal.

 

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sajxxxhaqxxdajxxc&w=sxxhkjtxxdxxxckxx&e=skq9xxhxxxdxxcqjx&s=sth9dkqtxca9xxxxx]399|300|Scoring: XIMP[/hv]

 

Yes I know the opponents didn't really have their calls. 2Hx gets crushed for 1100 double-dummy.

[TimG]

Richard would have survived in 5C...

[kenrexford]

Well, over my late 4♣ or even 5♣ call, 5♦ seems obvious my North. Unfortunately, 7♦ is cold. I'd be tickled to be in 6♦.

[jtfanclub]

Never mind. Misunderstood.

[xcurt]

Well, over my late 4♣ or even 5♣ call, 5♦ seems obvious my North.  Unfortunately, 7♦ is cold.  I'd be tickled to be in 6♦.

Cold in practice but not good of course -- on the normal non-club lead it needs both minors to break. Thats about 23% ignoring the correlation between the diamond and club breaks and the information from the opposing bids. Actually, the opposing bids suggest that something isn't breaking since they are bidding red on random garbage. Since 6D also depends on establishing the club suit there's little difference between 6D and 7D -- although in 6D we have an option to take the H finesse for our 4th trick and then try to separate all the trumps as long as the opponents don't lead trumps.