0076

[bd71]

[hv=pc=n&s=shdk976543ca97543]133|100|IMPs[/hv]

 

This happened yesterday in a BBO ACBL Speedball tourney. Diamond openers ranged from 1♦ through 6♦.

 

Secondary question for comments...what would you think are the 3 most-frequent opening calls?

[wyman]

If I played 4N = minors at these colors, I'd do that. Otherwise I'd pass and come in on the next round.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=shdk976543ca97543]133|100|IMPs[/hv]

 

This happened yesterday in a BBO ACBL Speedball tourney. Diamond openers ranged from 1♦ through 6♦.

 

Secondary question for comments...what would you think are the 3 most-frequent opening calls?

1♦, 2♦. 3♦

[pooltuna]

I have a serious failing as a bridge player I actually like to hold slightly more than an average number of HCP when I open at the 1 level. Since this hand fails that test I will start with 3♦ planning on a 5♣ rebid over the opps presumed major suit game call.

[aguahombre]

1♦..If some authority has a thing about 8 HCP in its regs, I will pass. Wouldn't want to be banned from Bridge for deliberately violating the rules.

[wyman]

1N is tempting too if pard has a sense of humor :P

[han]

I like 2D.

[Fluffy]

ugh I have the minors, I don´t want to push the opponents to their making contract in a major, I better pass all the bidding.

 

Seriously, if I have 4NT avaible I use it, passing is also an option.

[mikeh]

I doubt that anyone has had enough experience with these hand-types to 'know' what works best, and a simulation would be virtually impossible, because one would have to determine what the other hands would do over various initial actions.

 

I'm torn between passing and opening 3♦. I used to pass in analogous situations (tho I've never been 0=0=7=6 before), but I think that is a losing strategy. It's all well and good to argue that by passing and then taking an unusual action, we describe our hand more accurately than by any initial action, but not only are we informing the opps, as much as our partner, but in the meantime the opps have had an unobstructed round of bidding or our partner may have made a major suit preempt of some kind. Of course, maybe we'll be even better positioned after they bid, but the odds are against it.

 

Since I don't have the majors, and the majors usually win these battles, and I don't have the high cards, and the high cards usually win as well, I'm gonna mix it up right now: 3♦

[ggwhiz]

I'm declaring this hand period. A 1♦ opener should keep them from bidding a grand.

[neilkaz]

This looks like a preempt to me. I voted 4♦ and will bid 5♣ over opps 4M.

[mikeh]

I'm declaring this hand period. A 1♦ opener should keep them from bidding a grand.

I really think this is an overbid (the reasoning, as well as the call).

 

If we open 1♦, we are always going to be reluctant to sit for a penalty double because we have nowhere near the defensive values that partner will assume. At the same time, if they bid 5M over our 5♣, it may well be right to sit.

 

By opening a preempt, even if we don't get to bid clubs in time, we can far more happily sit for a double since we won't have overstated our hand...and should we get to bid clubs, showing a true freak, then we should be delighted if partner doubles.

 

To state that we are always declaring this hand just has to be wrong, imo...altho I recognize that some hyperbole was probably involved in the post :D

[aguahombre]

To state that we are always declaring this hand just has to be wrong, imo...altho I recognize that some hyperbole was probably involved in the post :D

Ya think? I was wondering about vs their 7-level bid :rolleyes:

[AlexJonson]

I passed with the intention of coming into the auction later.

 

Maybe 'later' is after oppos have had a brilliant exclusion sequence and got to 7M making.

 

But I think that's against the odds.

[aguahombre]

I passed with the intention of coming into the auction later.

 

Maybe 'later' is after oppos have had a brilliant exclusion sequence and got to 7M making.

 

But I think that's against the odds.

Or after they found a good vulnernable sac for minus 500 against our non-vul grand with the right seven count. I invented the vulnerability and the hand, of course. But it is possible, and opening the bidding with a non-preempt might be the fortunate way of getting to our par.

 

I dunno.

[Cascade]

I'm declaring this hand period. A 1♦ opener should keep them from bidding a grand.

 

So 7NT over the eventual 7Major?

[Cascade]

I usually have 4NT available for both minors. I might do that although it typically shows longer clubs rather than longer diamonds. I might start with 4NT but a diamond preempt followed by a free club bid could work better.

[bd71]

Like in our poll, pass, 1♦, and 3♦ were the most frequent calls in real play (in that order).

 

I admit to being surprised by 3♦ instead of 4 or 5; if you decide that a pre-empt is best with this hand, it seems to me the extreme shape argues for more than 3.

[han]

The more I think about it, the more I like either 2D or 3D.

 

Whether your first call is pass, 1D, 2D, 3D or 4D, it must be right to bid clubs next if the opponents bid a major at a not-too-high level. I think that the suits are too bad to bid 6C next unless something favorable happens, but 5C I would certainly bid unless something unfavorable happens (like partner doubling their 4M).

 

If you bid 4D and then 5C, partner is not going to get the relative suit lengths right. He'll think you are 7-5 most likely, with 7 stronger diamonds.

 

If you pass or open 1D, you make it easier for the opponents to exchange information on the first round, and depending on the auction your next bid may not actually show the minors. For example if the auction goes p - 1S - 2H - 4S, then I don't know what 4NT shows but probably not 7-6 in the minors.

 

The best chance to describe my hand is to open preemptively in diamonds and then *jump* to 5C on my next call. That option may actually occur if I open 2D. For instance, the auction might go

 

2D - (2S) - p - (3D)

5C

 

That's the clearest description I can make of my hand, and the opponents haven't exchanged too much information yet.

 

Playing Dutch standard (where 2C is strong or weak with diamonds) I'd never open 2C because a later bid would show a strong hand. So I'd open 3D. This makes it a little harder for the opponents to bid on the first round, but if they both bid then their calls are more descriptive, and I'd describe my hand less well than in the above auction. Still, I view 3D as a good alternative.

 

I also agree that nobody knows what is "right" on such hands. Opening 5D could often be a winner but I would never do it on this hand.

[gwnn]

Long minor suits is one case when I'm OK with passing with a super distributional hand (to bid UNT on some level, 4 or even 5). I am not sure what 3♦ then 5♣ or 2♦ then 6♣ or something like this shows. Maybe 2♦ then 5♣ really does show 7-6 (or 6-6?), but at the moment I don't understand why.

[wyman]

Long minor suits is one case when I'm OK with passing with a super distributional hand (to bid UNT on some level, 4 or even 5). I am not sure what 3♦ then 5♣ or 2♦ then 6♣ or something like this shows. Maybe 2♦ then 5♣ really does show 7-6 (or 6-6?), but at the moment I don't understand why.

 

You can always preempt diamonds and rebid 4N to show more disparate suit lengths.

[whereagles]

I usually play 4NT as minors. Lacking that 3D + 5C seems more or less equivalent :)

[Phil]

4N is perfect with this hand, if its minors and not specific aces. If 4N is specific Aces, I would hope that we play 3N as the minors.

 

While Han's strategy of opening 2 or 3♦ and bidding 5♣ may express our suit lengths well, I'd rather not give the opponents the 2 or 3 levels to figure out whats going on.