Is there any merit to this call?

[Fluffy]

4♥ must be bid with a very wide range of hands or else opponents knwo to bid 4♠ over it as a double shot.

 

I don't do it on weak fields since I feel superior to both the field and my opponents, but if things are even or opponents are better than me there is a lot to say about it.

[Phil]

Phil, what is your problem? Your comment is completely out of line. If you have a problem with my comment, you can address me directly. But since you did this publicly, I am responding publicly.

 

Justin said "It (4♥) is awful". A preponderance of prior responses from posters qualified to post in this forum already gave substantial reasons for why it is not an acceptable call.

 

Yet, you choose to press on with (emphasis added):

 

OK. I don't disagree with you. Others have at least some sympathy for the 4♥ opening, even to the point of providing a detailed history of the success or failure of opening 1♥ vs. opening 4♥ in high-level competition (no pun intended). So, while it would never have occurred to me to open 4♥ on this hand, the issue does not appear to be free from doubt.

 

You asked a question, and you got some clear answers. You decide to press on by being a Devil's Advocate for 4♥. Within this forum, its annoying, sorry.

 

Don't take it personally.

[ArtK78]

Phil, perhaps you misread my posts.

 

I have a lot of respect for my partner who made the bid, but I still thought the bid was awful. The reason for my initial post was to find out if anyone disagreed with that conclusion. Some do.

 

And it is hard not to read a comment "Perhaps you could be a little more trollish" in any way but personal.

[gnasher]

I didn't know what "This is awful" referred to. I could understand it being any of the 4♥ opening, the original question, or the thread as a whole.

[sathyab]

Or we just answered the question that was asked. If there is any argument in favour of opening 4♥, that means it has some merit.

 

IMHO, asking a question like this which obviously can work some of the time, invariably gets you the mix of responses you see here. People rarely follow the sage advice they dispense to others. Probably more productive to search play records of top events and look for hands that're a close approximation to your problem hand.

 

Ask someone here if they'd overcall 3♦ BOTH Vul, when RHO deals and opens a multi-2♦ holding ♠Q ♥AT ♦KT9xxx ♣K8xx. Chances are most people would not recommend it. But look up the play records of the final two segments of World Mind Sports and you'll see someone did :)

[mfa1010]

If I opened 4♥, the objective would be to encourage the opponents to misjudge by taking away their bidding space, rather than specifically to keep them out of 4♠. If they get to 4♠, it doesn't mean they have done the right thing - they may go for 800, or maybe neither game makes.

 

The opening obviously has some merit, because it may succeed in this objective. But I think it's also a bad bid, because it has too much slam potential, and more defence than partner will expect.

If we did open 4♥ I think we would have to follow up with X'ing a 4♠ overcall ourselves. Of course this requires that we play a style where X would show values and not something fancy like a strong suggestion to bid 5♥.

[JLOGIC]

my initial comment was unclear, sorry

[JLOGIC]

IMHO, asking a question like this which obviously can work some of the time, invariably gets you the mix of responses you see here. People rarely follow the sage advice they dispense to others. Probably more productive to search play records of top events and look for hands that're a close approximation to your problem hand.

 

Ask someone here if they'd overcall 3♦ BOTH Vul, when RHO deals and opens a multi-2♦ holding ♠Q ♥AT ♦KT9xxx ♣K8xx. Chances are most people would not recommend it. But look up the play records of the final two segments of World Mind Sports and you'll see someone did :)

 

Opening 4H in first seat with 15 points is hardly comparable to a marginal decision like opening a 5-5 10 count overcalling a bad 6-4 12 count, etc. On top of that, as has been said we then have to hammer 4S which may work great or may work horribly. Just seems like an awful style of bridge to me.

 

I also disagree with your theory that people would recommend on paper to pass with the 6-4 hand over multi but would do it irl. There is huge risk of passing hoping to balance that you will just get blown out by LHO when it is your hand, we are 2-1 in the majors after all. Obviously we might get hammered if we overcall but I don't see why people would do something irl than they would on the forums on a hand like that, at the end of the day its just a marginal decision either way.

[Finch]

There's no discrepancy between saying a bid is awful and saying it has some merit.

Any bid that might work has some merit, as gnasher observes. It can still be an awful bid.

[JLOGIC]

There's no discrepancy between saying a bid is awful and saying it has some merit.

Any bid that might work has some merit, as gnasher observes. It can still be an awful bid.

 

True of course, but basically every single bid has some merit, so answering whether a bid has any merit at all is not likely to give any useful information and is probably just being too literal. Generally even if someone asked if a bid had any merit, wouldn't you think they at least really meant how much merit does it have, if not whether it is a good bid or not?

[gnasher]

Generally even if someone asked if a bid had any merit, wouldn't you think they at least really meant how much merit does it have, if not whether it is a good bid or not?

I think Art was hoping that we'd say it had no merit at all.

[SteveMoe]

Absent agreements, even awful is too kind. Too much defense. Too wide ranging. Too undisciplined.

 

However, playing Reverse Namyats this is a max for 4♥ - 4 losers and solid suit. Partner should count 12 tricks so slam will not be missed.

 

The problem with 4♥ on this hand? This bid is now too wide ranging. How can partner double 4♠ with confidence holding only 2-3 defensive tricks? Partner will never expect 2-3 defensive tricks in opener's hand...

 

Do singleton ♠s scare us that much?

[Mbodell]

In my experience, when a good player makes a big preempt intending to make, if the opponents bid over it opener will double to indicate that the preempt was bid on power and not solely on distribution, and then partner makes the decision whether to bid on or defend. The double has nothing to do with trump, and not strictly speaking with defensive tricks - it merely states that the opening bid was made expecting to make and not just as an obstruction bid.

So, on this hand, if the opps had bid 4♠ (or anything else for that matter) and it came back to opener, he would double.

 

I would have expected opening preemptor's double to mean extra distribution and a desire to bid on one more level.

[medtor]

I am not going to ask you what you would open with this hand. I suspect that 99% of you would open 1♥. But the question is: Is there any merit to this call?

 

First seat, all vul. Matchpoints. You hold:

 

x

AKQTxxx

QT9

Ax

 

My partner, a good player, opened 4♥. On account of his opening, we missed an easy slam, as I held:

 

AKxxx

xxxx

Ax

xx

 

When I asked him about his opening bid, he said he was trying to shut the opps out of a spade contract.

 

So I ask you, is there any merit to the opening 4♥ call?

[medtor]

Partner may be a good player but bidding needs some work! This hand is too strong..yes shuts out opponents but shuts you out too!!

[rhm]

On top of that, as has been said we then have to hammer 4S which may work great or may work horribly. Just seems like an awful style of bridge to me.

In my mind there is no "awful" style, only styles which may or may not suit your temperament and which may be more or less successful in the long term.

I would not open 4♥, but mainly because a 4♥ bid contradicts standard wisdom and I have no strong feelings here.

However, many actions taken today routinely would have contradicted standard wisdom 30 years ago.

For example just look into old books like "profits from preempts". It is laughable by today standards.

 

With the actual hand the only question is will a 4♥ preempt loose more often than it will gain.

Franky I am not sure, I simply do not know.

But none of the harsh critics brought forward has convincingly shown that to be the case.

The problem of any first seat preempt is that it may backfire if you preempt your partner.

 

What I am convinced of is that many experienced players put far too much emphasis on constructive aspects of bidding and neglect tactical aspects.

 

Take a recent example from Bridge winner (IMPS Knockout):

 

What to bid with

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqjt75h3dacat874&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1d]133|200[/hv]

 

For me it is glaringly obvious to bid 4♠ and I have little doubt that the big winners in this game would favor this bid.

It is unlikely that you belong in any other strain nor that you will be able to stop below 4♠ by any other route and with any degree of confidence.

And yes, you may miss slam on a very sunny day or (worse) you may get forced in 4♠ on a rainy day, but the tactical advantages of an immediate 4♠ bid far outweigh the risks of a slower approach.

What surprised me was that only 29% voted for an immediate 4♠ bid. The popular action was a simple 1♠ overcall.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Lurpoa]

This is awful

 

YES,

 

THIS is awful

 

♥ ♥ ♥

[dake50]

Mirrors my thinking. With Hearts there is some value

to putting their likely Spades to a guess.

In contrast, Spades can just keep overbidding at

the same level as opponents fit.

Much more tactical chance to score well - thus to

deviate when opponents may have Spades.

How high into slam-maybe hands SHOULD you go?

If partner could have the perfect two cards? 3 cards?

Perfect 2 of 3? Perfect fitting short?

Pay your entry fee. Take your chance.

If this is allowed 4H, doesn't partner have to move

with AK+A? Any 2 aces?

[Lurpoa]

Could you be a little more trollish?

 

 

INDEED,

 

COULD YOU ?

[han]

In my mind there is no "awful" style, only styles which may or may not suit your temperament and which may be more or less successful in the long term.

 

What kind of empty talk is this?! Surely opening 6H on the given hand will be extremely unsuccesful in the long term, even if it suits your temperament. And that's exactly what we all mean by calling a call awful: that it will be a big loser in the long run. It is the only thing that we care about, whether you can expect to win or lose with some call in the long run. Justin thinks opening 4H will be a big loser in the long run, even though of course it may do well at any given time. While it will be hard to prove such claims, his post should certainly be of interest to mediocre bridge players like you and me.

[JLOGIC]

Rainer, overcalling 4M or opening 4M in third seat with a goodish hand is not some weird thing (as evidenced by your poll that 29 % of people would overcall 4S with that hand, fwiw I would also). You are far less likely to have a slam when partner is a passed hand or when RHO has opened. Those things are not exactly comparable on the weirdness scale, I mean do we have any evidence of any top player ever opening a hand like this 4H in first seat?

 

Looking at the pavlicek link where 1 hand opened 4H and one hand opened 1H we have:

 

--- AKJT9xx Txxx QJ. That is an 11 count that includes QJ doubleton, hardly comparable to this hand.

x KQJTxx x AT9xx. A 10 count with 6 hearts.

--- AJ98xxx Jx A9xx, a 10 count including Jx.

x AKQJTxxx x Jxxx, an 11 count with no defense red against white

Kx KQJxxxx x K98, a 12 count with some defense, certainly the weirdest hand so far but it had no aces and it is still like an ace worse than the hand in the OP

JT AKTxxx J98xx --- a 9 count

x KQJ9xxx QTx Qx, a soft 11 count

xx AKQJxxxx xx x, a 10 count with no defense

x KT8xxxx --- AQxxx a 9 count

QT AJ98xxxx Axx --- an 11 count red/white

xx AQJTxxxx xx K a 10 count red/white

 

Have to board my flight, you can keep going but filtering for first seat preempts nothing is even remotely close to this hand. I am pretty confident that it would be a fringe view to open 4H with this, and IMO it is awful. Some styles are in fact awful. I cannot prove that it is awful to do so with this hand but that is just my opinion, and even in this pavlicek thing we see nothing close to someone opening 4H in first seat with this hand, and that probably includes all states of the matches etc.

[sathyab]

What kind of empty talk is this?! Surely opening 6H on the given hand will be extremely unsuccesful in the long term, even if it suits your temperament. And that's exactly what we all mean by calling a call awful: that it will be a big loser in the long run. It is the only thing that we care about, whether you can expect to win or lose with some call in the long run. Justin thinks opening 4H will be a big loser in the long run, even though of course it may do well at any given time. While it will be hard to prove such claims, his post should certainly be of interest to mediocre bridge players like you and me.

Good point. But it's easy enough for almost anyone to see that 6♥ is likely to be a losing bid, but can't say the same of 4♥. If it's obvious to so many that 4♥ is a bad bid, why is it so hard to prove ? Or is that only simulation can prove or disprove such claims ? I am reminded of another area where proving the obvious is non-trivial. Engineers who are reasonably good at Applied Mathematics find pure Mathematics quite hard. One of the hardest parts of Pure Math is 'proving the obvious in the abstract' something you never worry about in Applied Math.

[cloa513]

I am honestly not convinced. Here is an interesting link:

http://www.rpbridge.net/9x16.htm

 

Small sample to be sure but something to think about.

 

 

 

I surely hope he did, that's the whole idea of this style imo.

None of those hands have as much defence and slam potential (ace and queen) as the OP partner's hand so the comparison isn't right.

[aguahombre]

Those who reference NAMYATS (reverse or otherwise), where the stronger of the two ways of showing a 4M preempt contains an 8-trick hand, are still incorrect to use it with the OP hand.

 

The toy should be used for pure 8-trick hands...8 solid, or 7 in the trump suit with only one outside trick. What takes this hand out of the NAMYATS set is the delightful potential of the Diamond QT9 combo for either offense or defense.

[rduran1216]

I think the issue here is what is the point of opening 4H. I generally am more inclined to believe you preempt on hands where you want to coax the opponents into a tough spot and make a poor decision. Otherwise, you should not preempt in a position where things will be made worse for your side by doing so. For example, on this hand, opening 4H is terrible IMO. When partner holds the right 10 count, slam is laydown, and when partner is broke and you reopen with a double, all you are doing is making things easier for the opponents to judge when partner pulls back to 5H (which is getting hit.) The range of possibilities on this hand make preempting a horrible partnership decision. Just open 1H and go from there. In 3rd chair, I think 4H would be almost unanimous.