Opening bid required

[Gerben47]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sxhkjt9xxxdaxxcqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

2nd seat unfavorable in a Team match against weaker opponents. Your bid?

[inquiry]

To no one's surprise, I open 1♥

[whereagles]

I open 3♥. Perhaps not a good strategy against weakish opposition, but I like to make pressure bids as often as I can and this hand qualifies.

[cherdano]

I open 3♥. Perhaps not a good strategy against weakish opposition, but I like to make pressure bids as often as I can and this hand qualifies.

Wow. Even in second seat and vulnerable vs not? No thanks, for me it is a choice between pass and 1♥.

 

If I would be playing with you, Gerben, I would probably pass, as it's clear from your posts that you expect good defensive strength for an opening bid. Otherwise, I open 1♥ without much thought.

 

Kieran Dyke gave a good rule on RGG about opening light distributional borderline hands: Open whenever you would go to game opposite a limit raise (and you are too strong to preempt). I think this hand just about qualifies.

[Free]

Aren't we allowed to bid something else, like 4♥, or perhaps even 1♠? :D

 

Anyway, for once I won't chose the non-existing "OTHER"-option, but I chose for 1♥.

[mila85]

2♦: multi

It's solid in first two seats.

[Gerben47]

@mila: If you choose Multi please vote 2♥. Multi is not part of the system for this hand.

 

@Free: If someone wants to vote "other" (s)he is in my humble opinion "crazy", that's why there is no "other" category. I made the list and checked it twice, and found no reasonable bid missing.

 

@cherdano: I like to open light but not on junk, which is conservative compared with some frequent posters :) Unless, of course, I am playing a system that is taylormade for weak opening bids. In the league in 2004 I played Magic Diamond and in that system I would have opened ALL the Zar-hands, but not in a standard approach.

[pclayton]

1♥. I prefer my 2nd seat weak 2's to be 2/3 honors.

 

So it finally happened....there exists a hand that is TOO weak for a weak 2, but can be opened with ONE. :)

[mr1303]

1H without even thinking about it.

 

1) 2H is dreadful, as you have a 7 card suit. Partner will not expect this, and as a result misjudge the auction

 

2) This is a rule of 20 opening. Hence this isn't light: this is a full opening bid.

 

Incidently I wouldn't consider a 4H opening crazy. Hence I think that should be considered as an option. I wouldn't make it, but in a poll like this it should be an option.

[cherdano]

@cherdano: I like to open light but not on junk, which is conservative compared with some frequent posters :) Unless, of course, I am playing a system that is taylormade for weak opening bids.

Yes, I understand. So did I guess right that you would just about pass this hand?

[MickyB]

Yes, I'm not sure why 4♥ is considered more crazy than 2♥.

[Free]

Yes, I'm not sure why 4♥ is considered more crazy than 2♥.

agree...

[inquiry]

Yes, I'm not sure why 4♥ is considered more crazy than 2♥.

agree...

Well... my second choice is 2♥... but like Phil, at this vul, this hand is too weak for 2♥ but not too weak for 1♥. An opening bid of 3♥ is, imho at this color and at imps, wacky... there is not a term for how insane an opening bid of 4♥ at this vul is.....

 

You should be able to take at least 9 tricks for such a bid at this vul. Here yoiu have 5 "sure" hearts (you could end up winning only 4 but that would be REALLY unlucky, 1Diamond. That is six. You are a full three tricks short.

[whereagles]

Ben, why do you require 9 tricks to open 4♥ at 'red'? I thought the idea of preemption was to take out the enemy single-handedly, not to bid 1 trick below what you think you can make.

 

Looking at this hand and RHO having passed, chances are points split something like 9-10(you)-11-10 or similar. So statistically you're looking at a part-score deal, with some chances for major suit game if there's a fit. Don't you think there's a real risk of it going

 

pass..1♥...1♠...2/3♥

3♠.....4♥...4♠ <--- it might make!

 

or

 

pass..1♥...2♠...4♥

4♠ <--- probably goes down, but 5♥ might make

 

or

 

pass..1♥...1♠...dbl

2♠.....3♥...3♠..pass

pass <--- and now? Pard can have many hands.. ones that fit nice, others that don't

 

All this will become

 

pass..3/4♥..pass..pass

pass

 

if you skip "constructive" bidding in favor of a bid that inhibits intervention while conveying a decent amout of information. The point here is you have hearts and they rate to have spades. If it were the other way around, a 1♠ would be much more attractive.

[cherdano]

Ben, why do you require 9 tricks to open 4♥ at 'red'? I thought the idea of preemption was to take out the enemy single-handedly, not to bid 1 trick below what you think you can make.

I am sure Ben was only talking about red vs white.

Looking at this hand and RHO having passed, chances are points split something like 9-10(you)-11-10 or similar. So statistically you're looking at a part-score deal, with some chances for major suit game if there's a fit. Don't you think there's a real risk of it going

 

pass..1♥...1♠...2/3♥

3♠.....4♥...4♠ <--- it might make!

If it does make, then probably because of a big fit, which they may well find over a 4♥ opening, too. If it does not make, partner may be in a good position to double.

 

or

 

pass..1♥...2♠...4♥

4♠ <--- probably goes down, but 5♥ might make

 

or

 

pass..1♥...1♠...dbl

2♠.....3♥...3♠..pass

pass <--- and now? Pard can have many hands.. ones that fit nice, others that don't

Yes. But you have described your hand well, and so partner will be in the best position to make the final decision. He passed. 4♥ isn't making, and 3♠ is probably down.

 

All this will become

 

pass..3/4♥..pass..pass

pass

 

if you skip "constructive" bidding in favor of a bid that inhibits intervention while conveying a decent amout of information. The point here is you have hearts and they rate to have spades. If it were the other way around, a 1♠ would be much more attractive.

The most likely result of this is -200 against a partscore. Your ♣Q is very likely to be useless in offense, but may score a trick in defense. ♦A is also a sure defensive trick, so with 4♥ you have IMHO seriously misdescribed your OD ratio.

Hence it might go

 

pass 4♥ X pass

4♠ pass pass 5♥

X

 

with 5♥ down two and 4♠ not making.

 

If you open 1[HE[ the bidding might also go

pass 1♥ pass 1♠

pass 2♥ AP.

Isn't it nice to score +110 than -200? I really think this is a partscore deal.

 

Now add the possibility of going for 800 in 4♥...

[inquiry]

Ben, why do you require 9 tricks to open 4♥ at 'red'? I thought the idea of preemption was to take out the enemy single-handedly, not to bid 1 trick below what you think you can make.

 

Looking at this hand and RHO having passed, chances are points split something like 9-10(you)-11-10 or similar. So statistically you're looking at a part-score deal, with some chances for major suit game if there's a fit. Don't you think there's a real risk of it going

 

pass..1♥...1♠...2/3♥

3♠.....4♥...4♠ <--- it might make!

 

or

 

pass..1♥...2♠...4♥

4♠ <--- probably goes down, but 5♥ might make

 

or

 

pass..1♥...1♠...dbl

2♠.....3♥...3♠..pass

pass <--- and now? Pard can have many hands.. ones that fit nice, others that don't

 

All this will become

 

pass..3/4♥..pass..pass

pass

 

if you skip "constructive" bidding in favor of a bid that inhibits intervention while conveying a decent amout of information. The point here is you have hearts and they rate to have spades. If it were the other way around, a 1♠ would be much more attractive.

My esteemed friend is right.. my 9 tricks (at least) for opening preempt of 4H is for when we are RED and they are white at imps.

 

What good is -200 or -500 versus 420 for them? But what diaster to be -800 or -1100 versus nothing make....

 

As I ahve said before, my preempts tend to be like hand patterns.. 5431... where not vul versus vul, I can go down 5 if partner provides nothing. Not vul verus not vul, I can go down 4 if partner provides nothing, vul verus vul, I am down two or three if partner provides nothing, but vul versus not vul? I will darn near make my bid against a busted misfit. Works for me... (third seat preempts can be different from this)....

 

Ben

[MickyB]

Ben, why do you require 9 tricks to open 4♥ at 'red'? I thought the idea of preemption was to take out the enemy single-handedly, not to bid 1 trick below what you think you can make.

I am sure Ben was only talking about red vs white.

Many refer to vul against not as "red", NV against vul as "green", both vul as "amber" and neither vul as "white".

[Gerben47]

I was about to pass when I decided that I could get away with something here and I bid 3♥ instead. That didn't work the way I wanted as partner raised to 4♥ (opps silent) and tabled:

 

AKQxxx

Axx

xx

Kx

 

12 tricks later...

 

Anyway, the opponents at the other table managed this auction:

 

1♥ with my hand

1♠ by responder after long thought

2♥

More long thought by responder.

6♥ <so much for science>

 

Oh well...

Finding the slam legitimately is not so easy as the ♣Q is very important.

You might want to bid it 'on momentum' though:

 

Pass - 1♠

2♥ - 3♥

4♦ - 4NT

5♠ - 6♥

[fred]

This is a style and partnership question. My style is to open 3H, but I have no problem with either 1H or 2H as long as your partner expects you to do that with a hand like this. I don't like 4H myself, but again it is more important that your partner likes your bid than that I like it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

My style is to open 3H

An opening bid of 3♥ is, imho at this color and at imps, wacky...

 

:)

[inquiry]

My style is to open 3H

An opening bid of 3♥ is, imho at this color and at imps, wacky...

 

:)

lol.. cute...

 

Well I put a condition on my 3♥ bid.. if both vul, here I would open 3♥... I assume Fred bids 3♥ at both vul as well at the unfavorable one here.

 

I will not try to explain why fred is "wrong" (you should listen to fred rather than me on all things bridge)... but for me, it is clear that at imps (not mp, imps) that at these colors, 3♥ opening bid is wrong... at least for me.

 

First, when I open 3♥ at this vul, my partner with"

♠xxxx ♥Q ♦xxxx ♣Axxx can raise to game.. as I promised 8 tricks, and he has two for me (my vul versus non-vul allows you to count tricks). Here four hearts gets ripped if your partner raises with this. Of course, playing with a partner who opens 3♥ on the kind of hand we have here, you would know to pass.

 

Second, the gain/loss ratio is all wrong. If they have huge spade fit, your 3♥ bid is not talking them out of anything, and if the hands misfit you rate to be too high with your neck stuck out. Reverse spades and hearts, a "stretch" to 3♠ or opening 2♠ to introduce the idea of potential 4♠ save over 4♥ is more attractive.

 

Besides, ever read any of the bidding contest things? People can disagree and no method is right all the time. I highlighted 3♥ as "wacky" to illustrate how utterly suicical 4♥ was, not to point out that 3♥ itself was a terrible bid... read my comments in context of the discussion on why no 4♥ option in the poll (which is what I was commenting on).

 

Besides, here is a good place for Fred to learn a better way to bid.... hehehehe....

 

Ben

[cherdano]

Ben, I also find your 5431-rule a little tight in the vul vs not case. Why do you accept

-500 when non-vul vs non-vul, but only -200 when vul vs non-vul?

 

On a side note, I must say I find it extremely unlikely to get doubled with the above hand if you open it 3♥ or 4♥. I don't see the dealer reopening with a double at this level if he couldn't open in first seat. So the only case is when LHO makes a take-out (or card-showing?) double and RHO a flat hand that sees the best chance for a plus in 3♥X. Ok, maybe if RHO has ♥ AQxx in which case he can be pretty sure to score the ♥Q.

[mr1303]

Just my opinion, but if you can raise a vul pre-empt to 4 on:

 

xxxx

Q

xxxx

Axxx

 

and expect it to make, your pre-empts look more like Acol 2 bids to me.

[inquiry]

Ben, I also find your 5431-rule a little tight in the vul vs not case. Why do you accept

-500 when non-vul vs non-vul, but only -200 when vul vs non-vul?

 

On a side note, I must say I find it extremely unlikely to get doubled with the above hand if you open it 3♥ or 4♥. I don't see the dealer reopening with a double at this level if he couldn't open in first seat. So the only case is when LHO makes a take-out (or card-showing?) double and RHO a flat hand that sees the best chance for a plus in 3♥X. Ok, maybe if RHO has ♥ AQxx in which case he can be pretty sure to score the ♥Q.

The reason being, that your opponents are much more willing to go for blood (my blood) when I am vul and they are not than at any other time. So when they can get me for 500 instead of game for them, they are much less likely to take me when they have me. Also, if I am going down that many (at the three level say), odds are they are making overtricks, so instead of 420, they maybe 450 or even 480.. (of 980).

 

Thus, experience, and bidding theory, suggest the opponents are much more likely to bid on if you are not vul than if you are. They are even more likely to bid on if they are vul and you are not. On the downside... when they do decide to stay and double you in your prempted suit.... it can be very bloody... :-(...

 

But the short answer is frequency. You are much more likely to doubled for penalty at vul versus not than at other conditions. Now, if you like, feel free to use 5431. I happen to know people who use 4421 and 5421 (down at most two vul versus vul, down one vul versus not). I think the biggest thing to do is to agree with your partner what level applies and how does position (first seat, second seat, third seat) affect the expected values for the bid.

[mikestar]

My rules for preemptive openings are:

 

Appropriate playing strenght for the vulnerablity and position.

 

Decent trumps.

 

Not too much defense.

 

 

A shortcut I use for the last two rules is at least half of my HCP must be in trumps. By this standard this hand is a 1h openenr or a pass is\f playing sound openings.

 

 

As for appropriate playing strength, I start with 4332 and adjust as follows:

 

Lean toward aggression NV, toward conservatism vul.

Lean toward aggression in third seat, toward conservatism in second seat.

 

(Fourth seat is a bit sounder than 2nd unfavorable at any vul. and may have better defense.)

 

To quantify this for the case at hand, I start off at down tow then lead conservative once for vulnerable and again for 2nd set, so I'd want to be within about 1 1/3 fo my bid (down 1 with decent luck).

 

So if I were to preempt, this hand is only worth 2H and I ahte waek twos on a seven card suit. On the other hand 3rd ahnd favorable, I'd probably disregrad the ecxcess defense and open 4H.