Rate your Eight

[Phil]

MPs, Vul vs NV. As dealer you hold:

 

void, xx, KQJ98xxx, AJx

 

Please rate 1♦, 4♦ and 5♦ on a scale of 1 to 10 please.

 

Thanks.

[heyrocky]

MPs, Vul vs NV. As dealer you hold:

 

void, xx, KQJ98xxx, AJx

 

Please rate 1♦, 4♦ and 5♦ on a scale of 1 to 10 please.

 

Thanks.

 

I didn't mean to be the first to vote, but if I held the hand, I would open 1D. What's the rush to preempt? The auction will certainly not go 1D - All Pass... If I did decide a preempt were appropriate, I understand 5D, but not 4D.

[gwnn]

1♦ 10

4♦ 0

5♦ 1

[Cyberyeti]

At this vul would open 1♦(10).

 

I would consider 4♦(7) as it gives partner a chance if he has a good hand.

 

I wouldn't consider 5♦(0), too much danger of -500 against game or possibly nothing.

[mikeh]

I'd open 1♦ but don't feel fanatical about it.....5♦ is not an awful call, imo. Yes, of course 5♦ can go for 500 or 800 against air or a nv game, but if you always assume the worst, why bother playing the game? In the meantime, we don't have very many major suit cards, and we all know what we are supposed to call an 8 card suit.

 

4♦, otoh, strikes me as a godawful call that does nothing. I gave it a 1 only because it could work...I'd only give a call a zero if I felt that there was no possible upside compared to alternatives, and 4♦ could work on a small subset of hands.

[mr1303]

I don't think any of the three calls are dreadful. 5 seems a little much at this vul but I wouldn't fault partner if he bid it.

[jonottawa]

mikeh gave his first choice 6/10. :) I must be getting soft in my middle-age, I generously gave 4♦ 3/10.

 

Sounds like many others on the same page. 1D slightly best but 5D might work, 4D a shot in the dark.

[semeai]

Am I rating my ♦8 or my 8 ♦'s?

 

I prefer 1♦, but think the others aren't terrible. I think 4♦ is not as bad compared to 5♦ as some suggest: we're vul and can be expected to have very good playing strength, so partner will give us the bump often enough. The real problem is when the opponents get to 4M over it and we guess wrong or have already lost (including when the opponents would've incorrectly bid 5M over 5♦ but won't now). To counter that, there's the upside of playing 4♦ making or going down less than 5♦. This is matchpoints, so we're just looking for frequency.

[mikestar13]

The real question is to preempt or not. The choice between 4♦ and 5♦ seems easy: the purity of the hand (beyond excellent trumps, no trace of defense besides ♣A) argue for the higher preempt. If partner has a good hand, do you really think we can make 3NT? if he has a great hand, 6♦ might be in view, but I think that's unlikely. If partner's hand is weak, we are still not unlikely to have a paying sacrifice against 4M. And if partner is worthless, they are cold for slam. So 5♦ seems to have more ways to win than lose. Opening 1♦ will work if they miss game (unlikely), but I will still want to bid 5♦ over 4M, so my choice is to bid it now.

[jmcw]

Sure looks like a 1♦ opener to me. I'm prepared to bid 4 or 5♦ at my 2nd turn if we have reached that level.

But I see little need to get there in a hurry.

[aguahombre]

I wonder if the voting would have been different if 5m were a closely defined bid in the style of the voters and this hand fit that close definition.

 

Almost a rhetorical question, IMO.

 

For us, the different ways (NAMYATS) of showing a 4M jump, and an opening 5m bid, are closely defined. Hands outside the definition are one-bids.

[MrAce]

I gave 4♦ a zero.

 

1♦ or 5♦ was challenging for me. I normally open 1♦ with side Ace so it is definetely one of my choice but i would probably open 5♦ at the table for strategical reasons. Yes i know we may miss slam or we may go down dbled, but looking at my majors i don't wanna slow bid this hand.

 

1♦=8

5♦=9

[whereagles]

5D = 9

4D = 7

1D = 5

 

No 10/10 because who knows what's best? B-)

 

Anyway, this is MPs so by opening 5D we're catering for some possibilities like opps having 3/4M.

 

Opening 4D still leaves them to play 4M, which might be good or bad (pard will let us know if he passes/dbl lol).

 

Opening 1D is... huh... let's say tame.

[aguahombre]

Assigning a number to 4♦ was the most difficult. We do not have it available, but I have seen enough 4D openings over the years to know that it probably doesn't show anything particular other than a desire to bid 4D.

 

So, between 1D and 5D, the thinking was: 5♦ looks like an 8-bagger and 8 tricks ---seven of them coming from the diamond suit. 1♦ suggests an opening bid, but otherwise fairly wide ranging as to size and shape.

[rduran1216]

I have an opening hand. At matchpoints 3NT is gold, how does partner get to 3NT holding AQ(xxx) KQ(xxx) x Q(xxxx) if we open 4 or 5D? Anything but 1D is a view.

[whereagles]

At MPs sometimes you have to take views.

 

Plus, the long suit hasn't got the ace. That makes 3NT way less likely.

[rduran1216]

At MPs sometimes you have to take views.

 

Plus, the long suit hasn't got the ace. That makes 3NT way less likely.

 

while i agree its unlikely, how about Kxx Kxxx Ax xxxx from partner. 4D is just way off imo. at IMPS I can see other choices. At matchpoints 1D is very clear.

[Phil]

Personally I think 5♦ is awful at MPs. 5 of a minor gets doubled a lot and -500 is going to be a zero most of the time. You might escape for -200 against their game, but a slower approach achieves the same result. Much of the time, 5♦ will just drift off 2 or 3 without much fanfare against their part score which also rates to be bad. Any diamond preempt also makes it trickier to find slam, although I think we are deluding ourselves that we can conduct a real intelligent scientific auction after 1♦ - 1M. Any diamond preempt also precludes 3N. Its hard to judge if this is realistic or not, since many hands with the ♦A and side stoppers also make 6♦ and other hands without the ♦A need pretty good major stoppers too.

 

I think the posters are being unduly harsh on 4♦. If we judge that 3N isn't that likely, 4♦ has to be superior to 5♦. It has a lot of added safety, but is still very preemptive. It involves partner who will be able to make an intelligent decision since our range at these colors is very limited.

 

Yesterday when I discussed this hand with my partner, I pegged it:

 

1♦ - 10

4♦ - 8

5♦ - 3

[sathyab]

Personally I think 5♦ is awful at MPs. 5 of a minor gets doubled a lot and -500 is going to be a zero most of the time. You might escape for -200 against their game, but a slower approach achieves the same result. Much of the time, 5♦ will just drift off 2 or 3 without much fanfare against their part score which also rates to be bad. Any diamond preempt also makes it trickier to find slam, although I think we are deluding ourselves that we can conduct a real intelligent scientific auction after 1♦ - 1M. Any diamond preempt also precludes 3N. Its hard to judge if this is realistic or not, since many hands with the ♦A and side stoppers also make 6♦ and other hands without the ♦A need pretty good major stoppers too.

 

I think the posters are being unduly harsh on 4♦. If we judge that 3N isn't that likely, 4♦ has to be superior to 5♦. It has a lot of added safety, but is still very preemptive. It involves partner who will be able to make an intelligent decision since our range at these colors is very limited.

 

Yesterday when I discussed this hand with my partner, I pegged it:

 

1♦ - 10

4♦ - 8

5♦ - 3

 

If the deal is a competitive one, opening 1♦ is close to hopeless. If opponents compete to 3M, you would be hard pressed to bid 4♦ even when it was making. Worse yet, if 4♦ was down 1, it's best to open 4♦ rather than compete to that level and get doubled for -200. If you open 1♦ you might get to 3nt, 5♦ or 6♦, but the one contract you'll never be to get to is 4♦. Yes, in retrospect I might be persuaded that 5♦ might be excessive at MP, but I'd rather be guilty of an excess that has some chance of working than making a safe, non-controversial bid that has little chance of doing anything useful.

[Phil]

By the way, the current tally is:

 

1♦ = 8.4

4♦ = 2.7

5♦ = 5.5

[pooltuna]

1♦=10

5♦=8

4♦=5

[han]

1D, 4D and 5D will all work out best on a fair number of hands, giving one of these calls 0 or 1 seems odd. I certainly don't know what's best here.

[MrAce]

1D, 4D and 5D will all work out best on a fair number of hands, giving one of these calls 0 or 1 seems odd. I certainly don't know what's best here.

 

I gave 4♦ a zero because OP did not make it available to give any minus score. :P Mikeh gave it a 1 because he believes zero only goes to bids that has no possible good outcome. I think different, imo even opening 7♦ can work in some hands, but that doesnt make it worth a point for me.