Open? If so What With

[eagles123]

first seat MPS red/red

 

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sjt94hkqjt652dt4c]133|100[/hv]

[billw55]

3♥ for me. With 7 solid hearts, I think the chance that spades is a better contract is pretty small.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&n=sjt94hkqjt652dt4c]133|100|

 

first seat MPS red/red

[/hv]

IMO 3♥ = 10, 4♥ = 9, 2♥ = 6, 1♥ = 5, Pass = 4.

[Endymion77]

The problem with your spade holding is not so much that a spade contract might play better than hearts (partner needs 5+ spades for that, with 4 and a singleton heart hearts are still better), but that opps might have a spade fit and still not be able to make much of anything. For those reasons, I think in first seat red 2♥ has some merit - you don't need to preempt the opps as much as you would with x KQJ10xxx J109x x for example). It also gives chance to partner to bid a forcing 2♠ if he has a good hand with spades, which would be much harder over 3♥. :)

[ahydra]

Put me down for 3H as well.

 

ahydra

[PhilG007]

first seat MPS red/red

 

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sjt94hkqjt652dt4c]133|100[/hv]

 

3♥ following the Rule of 2 and 3. The hand has 7 playing tricks

the requisite number for a vulnerable pre empt

[RSClyde]

I tend to go with 4M on 7-4 hands.

[Zelandakh]

3♥ following the Rule of 2 and 3. The hand has 7 playing tricks

the requisite number for a vulnerable pre empt

While I have nothing against 3♥ here at Game All, could I suggest that you go to Bridge with Dan and page down to "More Stuff" to find Partnership Bidding in Bridge by Robson and Segal. I think you would find this well-known and highly regarded work something of an eye-opener and it would help you to advance beyond the Culbertson stage to absorb some of the concepts within it, even if you do not choose to adopt all of them.

[wyman]

Maybe I'm too imp-minded, but my gut reaction was 4H.

 

I can totally understand 3H at MP, but I am more afraid of missing 4M our way than I am of getting doubled off for being too high. This hand is way, way better than a usual 3H bid. I think partner will have no sane way to judge whether or not to raise to 4 on this hand.

 

I'd love to be able to open this hand 1H (and prefer it to 3H, though I understand that we cannot have an agreement, explicit or otherwise, to do so), and on the right day I might do just that.

[ArtK78]

I was tempted to open 4♥ when I saw the hand, but then I read the conditions - MPs, red vs. red. In that case, 3♥ is sufficient.

 

Besides, maybe the opps will play the hand in spades.

[ggwhiz]

I REALLY want to bid 4♥ but just because I was taught to play mp's like it was imps and hope for the best when I started. I'm growing out of that a bit but it is a new trick and I am an old dog.

 

It's not a bad way to play ie. in club games if your partnership has imp event ambitions.

[Vampyr]

I'd love to be able to open this hand 1H (and prefer it to 3H, though I understand that we cannot have an agreement, explicit or otherwise, to do so), and on the right day I might do just that.

 

The English regulation is so weird -- you can't have an "agreement" to do it, but you can do it. However, if partner is shown the hand and says "I would open it too" then you are deemed to have an agreement.

 

Although perhaps the Blue Book has done something to add some sense to this regulation; I really hope so.

 

I think that just going with "8 points or the Rule of 18" is simplest.

 

EDIT: had mistakenly typed "9 points"

[Wackojack]

Give partner only 9 points ♠ KQx and ♥Ax and 4♥ is an excellent contract and opps might go down in 5m. More likely you wont have these right cards but normally if I am 1 off in 4♥ then opps can make 4 or 5m. The most likley number of total tricks is 19. So if we can only make 7 tricks in the extreme then opps can make 12 in a minor. So make them guess and open 4♥.

[mycroft]

Well, the benefit of 4♥, even at matchpoints, is that Zia Transfer Accepted is where I want to play...

 

I don't like the void (and I think even Goren talked about side voids and opposite 4-card Majors in his "rule of 2 and 3"). I don't like the 4-card spade suit, because it's less likely I have to try to preempt them out of spades (not, as is usual, because spades may play better than hearts). But even with those issues, it's too pure not to be boring.

[RSClyde]

I REALLY want to bid 4♥ but just because I was taught to play mp's like it was imps and hope for the best when I started. I'm growing out of that a bit but it is a new trick and I am an old dog.

 

It's not a bad way to play ie. in club games if your partnership has imp event ambitions.

My partner tries to modify too much, in my opinion, of our game to fit the scoring system and it serves as a distraction. We played in a 2 day IMP pairs game once, the only time we had ever played such a scoring system, I swear if we had thought we were playing matchpoints we'd have been 40 IMPs higher. I get that some situations are very obvious modifications, but with most, the risk/reward ratio changes only slightly and usually you didn't really have hard numbers supporting your action anyway.

 

Ex. should I overcall 1♠ at IMP's and at matchpoints with X hand? I'll give you there's a difference, but if this is a clear "no" at IMP's then it's probably, at best, a very marginal "yes" at matchpoints. But if partner is used to your style at one form of scoring, now you can lack calibration. Pairs who plays different forms of scoring regularly can have detailed adjustments, but if you aren't experience with a scoring system, I think you're better off to just play "bridge".

 

BTW I really want to bid 4♥ as well. I try to never question that little voice inside my head that says "preempt to X level", opting instead for X-1 level.

[mgoetze]

Preemption is so often a mater of style - here, it depends in my mind on what partner will expect me to have for a first seat vulnerable 3♥. If I could have a much worse hand, I had better bid 4♥ with this one. But if I am very solid and will never have a considerably worse heart suit, then the extra shape is not enough to take the risk as I will do well enough by opening 3♥.

[Fluffy]

I would open 4♥ at favourable, and also if the 4 card suit was a minor, but with spades I don't think it is too important to prempt agressively and 3♥ is enough.

[the hog]

4H, Burgess' Law

[neilkaz]

I voted 4♥ but flipped a coin between 3♥ and 4♥

[PhilG007]

While I have nothing against 3♥ here at Game All, could I suggest that you go to Bridge with Dan and page down to "More Stuff" to find Partnership Bidding in Bridge by Robson and Segal. I think you would find this well-known and highly regarded work something of an eye-opener and it would help you to advance beyond the Culbertson stage to absorb some of the concepts within it, even if you do not choose to adopt all of them.

 

It may surprise you to learn that many people still play Culbertson for the simple reason it suits their

style. The fact it's now regarded as a 'dinosaur' system is wholly irrelevant.

[MrAce]

I voted 4♥ but flipped a coin between 3♥ and 4♥

 

I voted 4♥ but i did not flip a coin, 3♥ just didn't come to my mind...i am not kidding.

[suleiman22]

This hand is a classic preempt. Solid heart tricks with most of a limited amount of points in the heart suit and a void! 3♥ all the way. :D

[Zelandakh]

This hand is a classic preempt. Solid heart tricks with most of a limited amount of points in the heart suit and a void! 3♥ all the way. :D

The void (and 7-4 shape) points towards 4♥ and the 4 spades are a flaw that argue against it. I think the majority would indeed open 4♥ if the 4 card suit were a minor. It is not the case that the void is a plus indicator for 3♥.