3H preempt ?

[benlessard]

Wich hands would you discard as a 3H preempt

Wvs W 1st seat Imps

standard agressive opening bids

 

Are these hand weak 3H ?

 

 

 

"J974","AKJT742","4","4",

 

"86","QT98765","AT","87"

 

KQ93","KT76532","2","Q",

 

"953","AK9872","3","QT6"

 

"985","AJT975","983","A"

 

K","KQJT762","52","J76"

 

"9","KQJ974","J8","T962"

 

"7","QT97543","K6","K98"

 

"J64","JT98543","KT","5"

 

"4","AQ7653","T2","K832"

 

"J7","QT95432","Q","732"

 

"2","AKT7543","98","J74"

 

"942","AQT742","9","A94"

 

"Q76","AKT863","J","T92"

 

"7","KQT6543","KT","964"

 

"K97","AJ98432","87","Q"

 

"K","AQJT83","T8","8765"

 

"T84","KJT972","","A653"

 

"62","KQT8642","42","64"

 

"975","AJ9854","","KQ83"

 

"Void","Q986532","93","A742"

 

"AK6","QJT754","9","642"

 

"87","QJT9853","75","A3"

 

"J","KQJ9854","82","K75"

 

"75","KQJ643","3","KT85"

 

"T","AKJ764","753","Q42"

 

"VOID","KJT8643","86","Q765"

 

"953","AKJT87","6","943"

 

"J5","AT98643","7","K62"

[gnasher]

I'd discard these:

 

J974","AKJT742","4","4",

 

"86","QT98765","AT","87"

 

KQ93","KT76532","2","Q",

 

"953","AK9872","3","QT6"

 

"985","AJT975","983","A"

 

K","KQJT762","52","J76"

 

"7","QT97543","K6","K98"

 

"4","AQ7653","T2","K832"

 

"942","AQT742","9","A94"

 

"Q76","AKT863","J","T92"

 

"K97","AJ98432","87","Q"

 

"K","AQJT83","T8","8765"

 

"T84","KJT972","","A653"

 

"975","AJ9854","","KQ83"

 

"Void","Q986532","93","A742"

 

"AK6","QJT754","9","642"

 

"87","QJT9853","75","A3"

 

"J","KQJ9854","82","K75"

 

"75","KQJ643","3","KT85"

 

"T","AKJ764","753","Q42"

 

"VOID","KJT8643","86","Q765"

 

"953","AKJT87","6","943"

 

I can't say that I'm enthralled by the ones I retained, either.

Edited June 6, 2008 by gnasher

[han]

Hmm, looks like you picked the ones where you would open 3H rather than those you would like to discard gnasher?

[gnasher]

Hmm, looks like you picked the ones where you would open 3H rather than those you would like to discard gnasher?

Blx, didn't read the instructions properly. Fixed now - thanks.

[Apollo81]

I'd open 3♥ on all of the hands with 7♥s except

"J974","AKJT742","4","4" (too good)

"KQ93","KT76532","2","Q", (don't want to miss spades)

"K97","AJ98432","87","Q" (too much defense, not enough offense, spades may play better)

"J5","AT98643","7","K62" (too much defense, not enough offense)

 

I would not open 3♥ on any of the other hands except

"75","KQJ643","3","KT85" (offensive value is more characteristic of 3 than 2)

 

I don't think I would pass any of these; if I'm not opening 3 I would either open 1 or 2.

[han]

What do you guys do with the first hand?

[gnasher]

I'd open 3♥ on all of the hands with 7♥s except ...

So none of them look like 4♥ openers?

[gnasher]

What do you guys do with the first hand?

4♥. Six-four: bid more. Seven-four: even more.

 

Edit: I don't mind 1♥ with this either. I think 3♥ is too likely to miss a game.

[Apollo81]

I'd open 3♥ on all of the hands with 7♥s except ...

So none of them look like 4♥ openers?

Not really, there's one that's close: x KQJ98xx xx Kxx or some such. At favorable several of these would be 4♥ openers but it's all white.

[Apollo81]

What do you guys do with the first hand?

open 1♥ since it's the best way to get to spades when it's right

[pclayton]

I would have included some eight baggers too - and some 6-5's.

 

 

J974","AKJT742","4","4",- Too strong - this is a one bid. 4 is OK too, but never 3.

 

"86","QT98765","AT","87" - Looks like a weak 2 to me.

 

KQ93","KT76532","2","Q", - No - side major is too good.

 

"953","AK9872","3","QT6" - Weak 2.

 

"985","AJT975","983","A" - Ditto

 

"K","KQJT762","52","J76" - Fine

 

"9","KQJ974","J8","T962" - Fine

 

"7","QT97543","K6","K98" - Could go either way

 

"J64","JT98543","KT","5" - Puke!

"4","AQ7653","T2","K832" - Probably a Weak 2 but I dont feel strongly about this.

 

"J7","QT95432","Q","732" - 80/20 I wouldn't, but I might.

 

"2","AKT7543","98","J74" - Clear 3♥

 

"942","AQT742","9","A94" - 1♥

"Q76","AKT863","J","T92" - 2♥

 

"7","KQT6543","KT","964" - 3♥

 

"K97","AJ98432","87","Q" - 3♥ - might be the closest in the set.

 

"K","AQJT83","T8","8765" - 2♥

 

"T84","KJT972","","A653" - 3♥

 

"62","KQT8642","42","64"- 3♥

 

"975","AJ9854","","KQ83" - 1♥

 

"Void","Q986532","93","A742" - 3♥

 

"AK6","QJT754","9","642" - 1♥

 

"87","QJT9853","75","A3" - 3♥

 

"J","KQJ9854","82","K75" - 3 or 4, probably 4

 

"75","KQJ643","3","KT85" - 3♥

 

"T","AKJ764","753","Q42" - 3♥ because of the spade shortage

"VOID","KJT8643","86","Q765" 4♥

 

"953","AKJT87","6","943" 2♥

 

"J5","AT98643","7","K62" 3 probably OK.

[benlessard]

I would have included some eight baggers too - and some 6-5's.

Ive shuffle 150 hands where south has 6-8 hearts 4-10 pts (without 5S). West had at least 5D and 10 pts. Each hand where south wasnt close of a 3H bid or that west wasnt able to take action or had a no-brainer bid that would lead to the same result if you play NLM or not were discarded.

 

Since West had at least 5D no 6-5 and curiously no 8 carder qualified for the condition.

 

Many hands i wouldnt have bid 3H but felt they were close enough. Ive assumed no light opening bids.

 

J974","AKJT742","4","4",

KQ93","KT76532","2","Q"

AK6","QJT754","9","642

975","AJ9854","","KQ83"

 

So opening 1 with these isnt possible. Is 3H a reasonnable alternative ? I really dont like passing with those so that why i think 3H is not so bad.

 

942","AQT742","9","A94 with this one opening 1 is ok.

[skjaeran]

"J974","AKJT742","4","4", (1♥ or) 4♥

 

"86","QT98765","AT","87" 3♥

 

KQ93","KT76532","2","Q", pass or 1♥

 

"953","AK9872","3","QT6" 2♥

 

"985","AJT975","983","A" 2♥

 

K","KQJT762","52","J76" 3♥

 

"9","KQJ974","J8","T962" 3♥

 

"7","QT97543","K6","K98" 3♥

 

"J64","JT98543","KT","5" 3♥

 

"4","AQ7653","T2","K832" 2♥

 

"J7","QT95432","Q","732" 3♥

 

"2","AKT7543","98","J74" 3♥ (or even 4♥)

 

"942","AQT742","9","A94" 2♥

 

"Q76","AKT863","J","T92" 2♥

 

"7","KQT6543","KT","964" 3♥

 

"K97","AJ98432","87","Q" well, well

 

"K","AQJT83","T8","8765" 2♥

 

"T84","KJT972","","A653" 2♥

 

"62","KQT8642","42","64" 3♥

 

"975","AJ9854","","KQ83" 1♥, actually in range for 2♥, but too much playing strength

 

"Void","Q986532","93","A742" pass

 

"AK6","QJT754","9","642" 2♥

 

"87","QJT9853","75","A3" 3♥

 

"J","KQJ9854","82","K75" 3♥

 

"75","KQJ643","3","KT85" 2♥

 

"T","AKJ764","753","Q42" 2♥

 

"VOID","KJT8643","86","Q765" 4♥

 

"953","AKJT87","6","943" 2♥

 

"J5","AT98643","7","K62 3♥

[gnasher]

Ive assumed no light opening bids.

 

J974","AKJT742","4","4",

KQ93","KT76532","2","Q"

AK6","QJT754","9","642

975","AJ9854","","KQ83"

 

So opening 1 with these isnt possible.

I can understand that in some styles the first three aren't good enough for 1♥. Surely, though, 975 AJ9854 void KQ83 is an opening bid in anyone's book?

[benlessard]

Yep you are right the fact that you have 3S is a too big drawback. AKxxxx of spades will be enough to produce game.

[skjaeran]

Ive assumed no light opening bids.

 

J974","AKJT742","4","4",

KQ93","KT76532","2","Q"

AK6","QJT754","9","642

975","AJ9854","","KQ83"

 

So opening 1 with these isnt possible.

I can understand that in some styles the first three aren't good enough for 1♥. Surely, though, 975 AJ9854 void KQ83 is an opening bid in anyone's book?

Of course it's an opening bid.

 

But playing constructive weak two's, 8-11 and a 6-bagger, opening 2♥ is a better description. And it makes 1M..2M better defined, as the minimum for that would be stronger than for most people.