Alternate Uses for High Level Openings

[Cascade]

3NT specific ace ask

 

4NT both minors at least 5=6

 

5m - about 9 tricks.

 

I play almost all preempts reasonably constructive except at favourable vulnerability.

[neilkaz]

3NT specific ace ask

 

I like this and want some PD's to play it for the rare hand where nothing else matters. Are there any special responses and how do you then ask for kings and is there room to ask for a specific queen needed for a grand or to assure 7NT rather than 7m?

 

.. thx... neilkaz ..

[Cascade]

I like this and want some PD's to play it for the rare hand where nothing else matters. Are there any special responses and how do you then ask for kings and is there room to ask for a specific queen needed for a grand or to assure 7NT rather than 7m?

 

.. thx... neilkaz ..

 

There are various options, some are listed

 

i/ 4♣ none or none or clubs then relay with 4♦ to find out

 

ii/ 4NT any two or 4NT club ace with 5♣ etc showing two - perhaps colour, rank, odd

 

iii/ 4NT can be a specific king ask or you could always give up playing in the next higher step and use a 1-step relay for specific kings. With kings there is more chance of ambiguity when showing two but perhaps it is still worth the risk.

 

iv/ If you gave up the next step again you could always relay for queens.

 

4NT/5NT should always be free as a relay, however there don't seem to be many bad cases for relaying for kings and then queens.

[deannz]

My half a cents worth.

 

5m = preempt

4N = good preempt (doesn;t come up often but clarifies 5m) as per Preempts from A-Z.

3N = 5+/5+ majors weak.

 

Other option = 3NT = Kabel specific ace ask.

 

Dean./

[Zelandakh]

I like this and want some PD's to play it for the rare hand where nothing else matters. Are there any special responses and how do you then ask for kings and is there room to ask for a specific queen needed for a grand or to assure 7NT rather than 7m?

Simple would be:-

4♣ = no ace (then 4♦ asks for specific kings)

4♦♥♠ = ace of suit bid (then 4NT = specific kings)

4NT = ♣A (then 5NT = specific king ask)

5♣ = any 2 from ♦A, ♥A, ♠A (then 5NT = specific king ask)

5♦ = ♣A and a major suit ace (then 5NT = specific king ask)

5♥ = ♣A and ♦A (then 5NT = specific king ask)

 

Exclusion for the 2 ace responses is better than positive since it is less likely to mean getting overboard.

[Mbodell]

I like this and want some PD's to play it for the rare hand where nothing else matters. Are there any special responses and how do you then ask for kings and is there room to ask for a specific queen needed for a grand or to assure 7NT rather than 7m?

 

.. thx... neilkaz ..

 

When I play it (quite possibly not optimal):

 

4♣ - 0 A (4nt asks for specific K)

4♦/♥/♠ - specific A (4nt asks for specific K)

4nt - ♣A (5nt specific K ask)

5♣/♦/♥/♠ - This A and the one touching above it (5nt specific K ask)

5nt - two non-touching A

6♣ - 3A

 

Over 4nt specific K ask 5♣ is none, other 5 suits are that specific one, 5nt is ♣, 6 level show that suit and the one above, 6nt shows 2 non-touching.

Over 5nt specific K ask, 6♣ is none, other 6 level bids show one specific K, 6nt shows clubs, and there is no way to show more than one K.

 

I don't think you ever need specific Q, as specific A is rare enough, and if you need specific A and specific K, you needed too much to have a specific Q.

[32519]

After reading what others had to say in this thread, how about the following refinement?

1. 4♣/4♦/4/♥/4♠ all show a hand within 2 tricks of making vul and within 3 tricks nv.

2. Then channel all the stronger single suited GF hands through the 3NT bid. These would be all the hands expecting to make. The hand can be majors or minors (7-4 holding as suggested by hrothgar also possible; the defining element is that you expect the contract to make). After 3NT, 4♣ asks for the suit. Bid it if it is ♦/♥/♠. If ♣, then bid 4NT to confirm ♣. Whatever the response to the 4♣ asking bid is, partner either signs off in game or makes a slam try with the appropriate hand.

 

Any thoughts?

[hrothgar]

After reading what others had to say in this thread, how about the following refinement?

1. 4♣/4♦/4/♥/4♠ all show a hand within 2 tricks of making vul and within 3 tricks nv.

2. Then channel all the stronger single suited GF hands through the 3NT bid. These would be all the hands expecting to make. The hand can be majors or minors (7-4 holding as suggested by hrothgar also possible; the defining element is that you expect the contract to make). After 3NT, 4♣ asks for the suit. Bid it if it is ♦/♥/♠. If ♣, then bid 4NT to confirm ♣. Whatever the response to the 4♣ asking bid is, partner either signs off in game or makes a slam try with the appropriate hand.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I think that your 3NT bid is badly overloaded

 

I think that your 4♣ bid is un-necessary.

If you can't infer partner's suit, then you probably don't need to know it.

[Gerben42]

I’m looking for ideas from others for alternate uses for the following high level opening bids:

1. 2NT

2. 3NT

3. 4♣

4. 4♦

5. 4♥

6. 4♠

7. 4NT

8. 5♣

 

I'm not convinced that my current agreements make optimal use of these high level opening bids. By nature, all of them are pre-emptive. But what or how do others use them? Hopefully I will find something more effective than what I am currently doing.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

2NT I prefer as 20 - 22 NT :) If you don't need that (i.e. you play Strong ♣ or similar), you can play it as ♥ + minor (5 - 5).

 

3NT: Good 4♥/♠ opening

4 of a suit: Natural

4NT: Both minors

5m: Natural

5M: Two tricks better than 4M, one better than 3NT.

[32519]

After reading what others had to say in this thread, how about the following refinement?

1. 4♣/4♦/4/♥/4♠ all show a hand within 2 tricks of making vul and within 3 tricks nv.

2. Then channel all the stronger single suited GF hands through the 3NT bid. These would be all the hands expecting to make. The hand can be majors or minors (7-4 holding as suggested by hrothgar also possible; the defining element is that you expect the contract to make). After 3NT, 4♣ asks for the suit. Bid it if it is ♦/♥/♠. If ♣, then bid 4NT to confirm ♣. Whatever the response to the 4♣ asking bid is, partner either signs off in game or makes a slam try with the appropriate hand.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I think that your 4♣ bid is un-necessary. If you can't infer partner's suit, then you probably don't need to know it.

A further refinement (or better refinement?) of this could be something like this –

1. A direct bid of any suit other than 4♣ can be used to show the A and K in the suit bid with nothing to show anywhere else. The 3NT opener can use this information and bid game or slam directly now depending on whether the suit shown fits the rest of his hand e.g. AK opposite a void helps nothing. However AK opposite 2 small cards in the suit makes the slam easy.

2. A direct bid of 4NT can be used to show any two Aces and nothing else. Opener’s decision will now be to bid the small slam or the grand slam as the 3NT opening bid already showed a hand strong enough to bid game on its own.

3. The 4♣ bid would then show a hand with either, a) no slam potential wanting to signoff in game, or, b) a hand with an A and K in two different suits still leaving the door open for a slam try but able to signoff at the 5-level if necessary.

 

Any thoughts?

[32519]

I beg you not to keep us in suspense for too long.

Your anxious wait is over. Refer to my previous post in this thread to see what I will be using the 3NT bid for. Through constructive posting, I managed to figure out something that I intend experimenting with for the 3NT bid.

[32519]

This (not so) crazy idea may actually work. This completely random deal recently came up at the table. This was the actual hand and the bidding:

[hv=pc=n&s=s5hdakt75432ckq97&w=skq43haqt6d9ca543&n=sajt862hk98dj8c82&e=s97hj75432dq6cjt6&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1dd(Text%20book%20t/o%20double)1sp3dp3np5dppp]399|300[/hv]

12 tricks were made.

1. West led the ♦9 to the King

2. ♠5 to the Ace

3. ♣2 to the Queen taken by the Ace.

As West is unable to draw the last trump on table, 12 tricks are there for the taking, even if a bit fortuitous.

 

Now if only I had a partner who was also bidding this new idea. Then the suggested auction would have gone something like this:

P-3NT-P-4♣

P-4♦-P-4♠

P-4NT-P-6♦

P-P-X-All Pass

 

3NT = a hand willing to bid game on its own

4♣ = What is your suit?

4♦ = My suit

4♠ = An Ace and a King in two different suits

4NT = I am worried about a bad ♦ break. Signoff in 5♦ with 0-1 ♦. Bid the slam with 2+♦

6♦ = I got 2+♦

[gwnn]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[manudude03]

This (not so) crazy idea may actually work. This completely random deal recently came up at the table. This was the actual hand and the bidding:

[hv=pc=n&s=s5hdakt75432ckq97&w=saq43hkqt6d9ca543&n=skjt862ha98dj8c82&e=s97hj75432dq6cjt6&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1dd(Text%20book%20t/o%20double)1sp3dp3np5dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Now if only I had a partner who was also bidding this new idea. Then the suggested auction would have gone something like this:

P-3NT-P-4♣

P-4♦-P-4♠

P-4NT-P-6♦

P-P-X-All Pass

 

3NT = a hand willing to bid game on its own

4♣ = What is your suit?

4♦ = My suit

4♠ = An Ace and a King in two different suits

4NT = I am worried about a bad ♦ break. Signoff in 5♦ with 0-1 ♦. Bid the slam with 2+♦

6♦ = I got 2+♦

 

Oops (btw what reason does East have for doubling 6D in your auction anyway?)

 

Also, one of the big things about 3N showing a good pre-empt is that it allows you to play 3N. Your scheme doesn't seem to allow that.

[antonylee]

I'd rather not be in 6♦ on that deal anyways :)

[32519]

This (not so) crazy idea may actually work. This completely random deal recently came up at the table. This was the actual hand and the bidding:[hv=pc=n&s=s5hdakt75432ckq97&w=saq43hkqt6d9ca543&n=skjt862ha98dj8c82&e=s97hj75432dq6cjt6&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1dd(Text%20book%20t/o%20double)1sp3dp3np5dppp]399|300[/hv]

Oops (btw what reason does East have for doubling 6D in your auction anyway?)

Nice! In your diagram you have flipped the SA and the HK and now you have fooled antonylee (maybe some others as well).

 

I'd rather not be in 6♦ on that deal anyways :)

Also, one of the big things about 3N showing a good pre-empt is that it allows you to play 3N. Your scheme doesn't seem to allow that.

Every partnership is free to agree on whatever they wish. Leaving 3NT in (the old Gambling 3NT) will be according to your bidding style. The big downside here is that 3NT more often than not gets played from the wrong side of the table. If the E/W hands were reversed as in the diagram below, 3NT fails by 3 tricks on the ♥J lead followed by the ♥2. I understand that these sorts of bad results were the main reason by many dumped the Gambling 3NT in favour of something else.

[hv=pc=n&s=s5hdakt76532ckq97&w=s97hj75432dq4cjt6&n=sajt862hk98dj8c82&e=skq43haqt6d9ca543]399|300[/hv]

[RunemPard]

Switch the ♥K with the ♥A and the ♠A with the ♠K and you just missed the usually better scoring 3NT game.

 

Not to mention that on the hand you gave, South does not even have a Gambling 3NT opening. (Not that Gambling is all that great anyways.)

[manudude03]

Nice! In your diagram you have flipped the SA and the HK and now you have fooled antonylee (maybe some others as well).

 

You've missed the point. The bidding is likely to be the exact same (assuming you didn't make up the meanings to fit the hands). And now not only are you off 2 aces, you don't have any extra chances (other than the huge amount of luck needed in the original!) even if you get the spade away somehow.

[antonylee]

Actually I had the right hand (with the ♠A). Well it is still a pretty bad slam: you go down on a 3-0 break, on a 2=1 break with the ♣A offside, and even on a 1=2 break with the ♣A onside you will be in trouble (if East ducks the first club, you still have two club losers in hand). So at best half of the 2-1 breaks (and I may have missed other stuff), which is less than 50%.

[32519]

I can't agree with either of you. Not every slam bid has a 100% guarantee of making. A bad trump break or a crucial card in the wrong defenders hand has defeated many a slam. If every slam bid had a 100% guarantee of making, a lot fewer slams would be bid.

[RunemPard]

Just a random thought...

 

I typically play 2NT as minors or majors, weak...

 

Would using 2NT to show a poor 6+ card minor suit and 3♣/3♦ as a good suit be of any value? Or does it just say too much to the opponents...or invert the meanings to allow for a stop in 2NT.

Inverting the meanings would also have the benefit of opponents having no chance to double for investigating NT.

 

My thoughts are about making it more clear for partner about trying 3NT or the minor.

[manudude03]

I can't agree with either of you. Not every slam bid has a 100% guarantee of making. A bad trump break or a crucial card in the wrong defenders hand has defeated many a slam. If every slam bid had a 100% guarantee of making, a lot fewer slams would be bid.

 

No-one said anything about slams needing to be 100%. Your slam (before I modified it to be off 2 cashers) is about 8% I think... and probably lower.

 

Say you were vulnerable at imps, you would gain 13 if you bid and made it while losing 13 if the slam failed. So you would need the slam to be at least 50% before it has a positive EV.

[32519]

Flipping the ♠A and the ♥K as in your diagram changes the auction. Now slam won't even enter the picture. The auction will proceed like this:

3NT = any hand willing to bid game on its own

4♣ = what is your suit?

4♦ = ♦ is my suit

4♥ = Ace and King in two different suits (♥A)

5♦ = signoff, the ♥A helps me nothing, I have a void in the suit

[manudude03]

And what do you do with an ace, but no king (say AQJxx xxxx xx Jx?)

[32519]

OK, so I’ve been looking at the 4NT opening as well. What follows is an attempted summary of what others use the bid for (or suggest it be used for):

4NT Opening

An excellent eight or nine card minor

Sound playing values for the five-level (9+ playing tricks)

No more than one loser in any suit

(This certainly has merit. However I will choose to put this hand type through my 3NT bid even if it does go down).

 

4NT specific Aces

5NT 1-loser hand, void in both majors

And if truth be told, I need to confirm with my regular partner, but we probably play 5M as the old-fashioned looking for top honours.

4NT specific Aces I found this link. The probability of being dealt hands which meet this criteria are remote.

5NT 1-loser hand, void in both majors (Void in both majors is so rare that it doesn’t register a frequency % in BBOs deal generator, but no harm in having it as part of your agreements as I cannot think of any other use for the bid).

And if truth be told, I need to confirm with my regular partner, but we probably play 5M as the old-fashioned looking for top honours (This also makes sense as a corollary to the 4NT specific Ace ask. Now you have 11 tricks missing the top 2 honours in the suit bid asking partner if he has them. 6M = I got 1, 7M = I got both).

 

The 4NT opening is another one that gets discussed to death on BBF. There have also been numerous threads on this in the last year. The traditional meaning is a specific ace ask. Several top pairs use ot as some kind of extreme 2-suiter. I have not seen hrothgar's idea before but it seems to make sense as an alternative.

 

4NT both minors at least 5=6

The probability of being dealt a hand which meets this criteria is 0.29%.

 

4N = good preempt (doesn;t come up often but clarifies 5m) as per Preempts from A-Z.