just a few clubs

[eyhung]

What does partner expect for a vulnerable 4♣ opening preempt? A suit which will produce about 7 winners but expects a loser (often the ace) and very little, if any, defense.

You clearly have a different style -- when I open a 4-level preempt vulnerable, I am usually within 2 tricks of my bid, not 3. Preempting style is getting lighter and lighter, but I think my style is more standard than yours -- the 4-level is serious since it forecloses 3NT. My results show that the chance of 3NT making is at least 9% worse with AKJT-eighth and out than AKQ-seventh. So the question is how much of a gambler you are. Apparently, Justin and I have little gamble in us.

[eyhung]

[hv=n=sat9xhqjxxdqjxcxx&s=sxhxxxdxcakjtxxxx]133|200|[/hv]

 

Never say never.

Meanwhile, when partner has the expected AKQ-seventh and out:

 

[hv=n=sat9xhqjxxdqjxcxx&s=sxhxxxdxcakjtxxxx]133|200|[/hv]

 

 

you look very silly passing 3NT.

[ArtK78]

Deleted due to system problems while editing the post.

 

See below for a reproduced and edited version.

[eyhung]

You are down 1 in 3NT on any lead, not just a spade. Even if the opponents lead a red suit, they will find the spade switch since they can see that you have 7 clubs, the spade ace (but not the king), and no red-suit side winners.

 

4♣ does not make either, and will often go down more than 3NT, but I don't find this be particularly especially meaningful because if they unwisely choose to defend in a scenario when clubs goes down more, they are sometimes missing a game in 4♠. Yes, there are layouts where nothing makes. But this hand doesn't detract from my point that opening 3NT with 8 clubs and expecting the 8th card to matter for making the contract is not a good idea.

[jdonn]

But this hand doesn't detract from my point that opening 3NT with 8 clubs and expecting the 8th card to matter for making the contract is not a good idea.

In what way does a perfectly valid counter-example not detract from your point? :)

 

Anyway how about a hand where the 9th trick is a finesse (like add the spade queen to the example) but now you no longer have to take it?

[ArtK78]

[hv=n=sat9xhqjxxdqjxcxx&s=sxhxxxdxcakjtxxxx  

 

never say never.

meanwhile, when partner has the expected akq-seventh and out:

 

dealer: ????? vul: ???? scoring: unknown

♠ at9x ♥ qjxx ♦ qjx ♣ xx ♠ x ♥ xxx ♦ xx ♣ akqxxxx]133|200|[/hv]     you look very silly passing 3NT. Reprinted and edited due to system problems while editing my prior post.   I am down one assuming that the opponents don't screw up royally and give me a red trick prior to playing a spade.   How do you do in 4♣?

[eyhung]

Anyway how about a hand where the 9th trick is a finesse (like add the spade queen to the example) but now you no longer have to take it?

All right, that one is good -- now I can see partner passing with this hand, since the QJs should have enough annoyance value to give us a chance to get in and try a spade finesse for a roughly 50% game (sometimes clubs don't break). So the 8th club doesn't "never" help, but it's "unlikely" to help. OK?

[ArtK78]

Anyway how about a hand where the 9th trick is a finesse (like add the spade queen to the example) but now you no longer have to take it?

All right, that one is good -- now I can see partner passing with this hand, since the QJs should have enough annoyance value to give us a chance to get in and try a spade finesse for a roughly 50% game (sometimes clubs don't break). So the 8th club doesn't "never" help, but it's "unlikely" to help. OK?

You can say "unlikely," just not never.

 

:)

[pooltuna]

You are down 1 in 3NT on any lead, not just a spade. Even if the opponents lead a red suit, they will find the spade switch since they can see that you have 7 clubs, the spade ace (but not the king), and no red-suit side winners.

 

4♣ does not make either, and will often go down more than 3NT, but I don't find this be particularly especially meaningful because if they unwisely choose to defend in a scenario when clubs goes down more, they are sometimes missing a game in 4♠. Yes, there are layouts where nothing makes. But this hand doesn't detract from my point that opening 3NT with 8 clubs and expecting the 8th card to matter for making the contract is not a good idea.

So if I understand this correctly, you only want to play 3NT (regardless of how you get there) with the 7 card ♣ suit headed by the AKQ and never play 3NT with the 8 card ♣ suit headed by the AKJT? Are you chiding us for wanting to play 3NT with both?

[aguahombre]

Nigel-K trumped all susequent discussion of the relative value of AKJT 8th vs. AKQ 7th, and it seemingly went unnoticed. He won't pass 3NT with XXX in diamonds and the stiff club Queen. Indeed, you will be converting diamonds to clubs at a higher level, maybe even six diamonds to seven clubs with AKXXX AKX XXXX Q

[ArtK78]

But this hand doesn't detract from my point that opening 3NT with 8 clubs and expecting the 8th card to matter for making the contract is not a good idea.

I don't believe anyone ever stated that they bid 3NT because of the eighth club, expecting the presence of the 8th club mattered in whether 3NT made or did not make.

 

In my opinion, the question is whether the hand with AKJTxxxx and out is essentially equivalent to a hand with AKQxxxx and out for purposes of opening a gambling 3NT. I think it is. Others disagree.

 

Some say that the question is different than the one I set forth above, choosing to open 4♣ because they believe it is a better description of the hand and acknowledging that they are deliberately giving up their chance to bid and make 3NT.

[eyhung]

So if I understand this correctly, you only want to play 3NT (regardless of how you get there) with the 7 card ♣ suit headed by the AKQ and never play 3NT with the 8 card ♣ suit headed by the AKJT? Are you chiding us for wanting to play 3NT with both?

Pooltuna, you do not understand me correctly. Please reread what I wrote in my first post to this thread for my position. I simulated to quantify how much AKJT-eighth is worse than AKQ-seventh from a pure suit standpoint. Whether that lower percentage is enough to not open 3NT is up to you. For me, the lower percentage, PLUS the other factors (such as misdescribing club length for other contracts) cause me to now prefer 4♣. I'm not saying 3NT is a horrible call with no upside. I'm saying I prefer to bid 4♣.

 

And ArtK, my point about the 8th club trick was directed to billw. He was saying that the 8th club influences things. My answer to that is, not very much. In general responder is not playing you for 8 club tricks but 7, so the 8th club trick is unlikely to be relevant (as the 9th trick).

[jdonn]

I agree the 8th club being the 9th trick in 3NT is possible but unlikely. Just like a hand that makes 5♣ where partner will bid it over 4♣ but not over 3NT is possible (let's say) but unlikely. Any one factor probably won't make much difference so examining it to death may not help much, although it's still interesting.