1246

[nige1]

Which expert would open 1C? I would award 1C a big fat zero.

That is the Hog's prerogative but he ignores a reliable prediction

In spite of sims by Pavlicek the seer,

Openers become weaker, year on year.

Happy New Year 2015!

[GrahamJson]

Whether you open 3C or pass is a matter of style and partnership agreement. With an unknown random partner a pass could not be criticised.

 

Having opened 3C the best route to a slam is a simple one; 3C - 6C. A more scientific one is likely to make a spade lead odds on, in which case the slam is not a great one.

[razorsharp]

If you open 3C, you should gird your loins and be prepared to REBID 4NT if opps steam & scream into 4S (maybe even 4H?) THAT will surely stun the viewgraph audience!!

But for me, I'll put my money on opening 3NT (we play NUMNUTZ, so that = 1-suit 4C OR 4D preempt(6-7 winners at these colors), saving 4C & 4D openers as strongish 4H & 4S pumped-up "preemptz".

3NT still gives you a chance to play 3NT, you gotta admit! :)

[cherdano]

A marking-system is an attempt to provide that kind of feedback. For example ...

• 10 for the action you'd choose
• 5-9 for other actions that you consider might work.
• 0-4 for actions that you don't think would work.

I think "might work" is an awful criterion for awarding marks. If I have a normal balanced 19 count, it "might work" to open 1NT showing 15-17. Maybe partner has 7 hcp but we have an unstopped suit. Maybe it stops partner from bidding a 75% slam that goes down on the lie of the cards. It's still a terrible choice, and awarding it a non-trivial score would be ridiculous.

 

I give your marking scheme 7/10 - there might be a reader for whom it is a helpful scale.

[Fluffy]

3♣-3♦ (short ask)

4♣-4♦ (spade short, blackwood)

4♠- (no void 1 keycard)

 

I can't find ♦K in time, although at this point I think slam is odds on.

[nige1]

I think "might work" is an awful criterion for awarding marks. If I have a normal balanced 19 count, it "might work" to open 1NT showing 15-17. Maybe partner has 7 hcp but we have an unstopped suit. Maybe it stops partner from bidding a 75% slam that goes down on the lie of the cards. It's still a terrible choice, and awarding it a non-trivial score would be ridiculous. I give your marking scheme 7/10 - there might be a reader for whom it is a helpful scale.

I award 0-4 marks to an action that somebody else actually chose or that I rejected after consideration. If cherdano thinks the marking scheme is awful, then he doesn't need to use it. Personally, I still find it a useful exercise. And Yes -- I hope some other reader might find it helpful.

 

It amuses me when a poster ridicules my award of 6 or more marks to a call; and that call is subsequently chosen by somebody more expert.

[nige1]

There is a conventional way of finding out about ♠ control: Over a pre-empt, it makes sense to use suit bids below 3N as asking bids, to find out about a stop or support or control. Here for example, after 3♣ - 3♠, Opener might rebid as follows

• 3N = ♠ stop e.g. ♠QJx
• 4♣ = (Pre-empt suit) ♠ Shortage. i.e. Singleton or void ♠. Like eagle's hand.
• 4♦ = ♠ Tolerance. 2 ♠. Poor hand. e.g. ♠ x x ♥ x x x ♦ x ♠ Q J x x x x x
• 4♥ = ♠ Enthusiasm. 3+ ♠ e.g. ♠ J x x ♥ x ♦ x x ♣ A J x x x x x
• 4♠ = ♠ Support. 3+ ♠. Poor hand. ♠ x x x ♥ x ♦ x x ♣ K J x x x x x

3♣-3♦ (short ask)

4♣-4♦ (spade short, blackwood)

4♠- (no void 1 keycard)I can't find ♦K in time, although at this point I think slam is odds on.

Fluffy's method is good but how does it cope after a 3♦ pre-empt. IMO, you need 3♥ and 3♠ to explore major and notrump games and 4♣ is over-committal.

Alternative asking-bid methods combine simplicity with generality.

 

Over 3♦/3♥/3♠ pre-empts, I think 4♣ is best reserved to set trumps and ask for half-keys, by steps. Over 3♣ you can use 4♦ for that purpose.

[the hog]

I repeat who opened 1c? Not all stars are good players and some make noises for the sake of making a noise.The term expert is a subjective one. There are a number of players who have bought their way into representing their country or have played in minor international events. Some Australian ones I would not even bother playing with in a Saturday afternoon duplicate. When I see some of the poor players with stars on BBO I am not impressed. If you told me Balicki opened 1C I would be impressed, surprised but impressed. If you mentioned some obscure Indian star, forget it.

[nige1]

I repeat who opened 1c? Not all stars are good players and some make noises for the sake of making a noise.The term expert is a subjective one. There are a number of players who have bought their way into representing their country or have played in minor international events. Some Australian ones I would not even bother playing with in a Saturday afternoon duplicate. When I see some of the poor players with stars on BBO I am not impressed. If you told me Balicki opened 1C I would be impressed, surprised but impressed. If you mentioned some obscure Indian star, forget it.

Many hands that are now be considered routine openers were automatic passes, not long ago. I judge 1♣ to be a reasonable bid. I'm not brave enough to open 1♣ myself but I thought some would do so and they would probably be good players. Some partnerships are on systemic tramlines that dictate opening on such hands. Also fashions come and go in Bridge. Studies (like Pavlicek's simulations) affect expert judgement.

[the hog]

So Nigel we have gone from

"I would regard it as hubris for an ordinary player like me to award zero to an action that I know has been chosen by some experts" to when asked which experts " I thought some would do so and they would probably be good players." That is a huge backdown. (The emphasis is mine.)

 

The reason I rate 1C as a "big fat zero" is that it it is a nothing bid. It takes away no room and in fact offers the opps a greater range of options.

 

The reason I rate a 3C opening in first and second seat as a 6, maybe a 7 is that we have gained quite a few imps by bidding very tight 3NTs on Hx in Cs suit A A a few cards in the 4th suit and out. Knowing that the 3m pre empt is sound makes this easy. Sometimes this has even produced a double game swing. I believe this to be more effective than random pre empts in the first 2 seats, especially in the minors.

[Fluffy]

Fluffy's method is good but how does it cope after a 3♦ pre-empt. IMO, you need 3♥ and 3♠ to explore major and notrump games and 4♣ is over-committal.

Alternative asking-bid methods combine simplicity with generality.

 

Over any 3-level pre-empt, I think 4♣ is best reserved to set trumps and ask for half-keys, by steps.

 

We used to use 3♥ as short ask over 3♦, but partner decided that it was not worth it so we use 4♣ now. Hasn't come up very often. But I think it is still doable with 3♥:

 

3♦-3♥

3♠ = no short

3NT = heart short

4♣ = clubs

4♦ = spade shrot

 

This way you can still investigate heart fit to some extent.

[nige1]

We used to use 3♥ as short ask over 3♦, but partner decided that it was not worth it so we use 4♣ now. Hasn't come up very often. But I think it is still doable with 3♥:

3♦-3♥

3♠ = no short

3NT = heart short

4♣ = clubs

4♦ = spade shrot

 

This way you can still investigate heart fit to some extent.

Fair enough, whatever is comfortable for you. I still prefer the same simple response-structure over any 3-level pre-empt. e.g. after 3♦ - 3♥ - ; ??

• 3♠ = ♥ tolerance. 2♥.
• 3N = ♥ stop e.g. Kxx
• 4♣ = Enthusiastic ♥ support. e.g with outside ace.
• 4♦ = (Preempt suit) ♥ shortage.
• 4♥ = ♥ support but no ambition.

 

You can switch the responses around a bit. For example 3N could show any 3 ♥ or a stop. But it seems to me that a simple consistent asking bid structure like this allows you to explore

• 3N.
• Game in an unbid major
• Slam in the pre-empt suit.

The exception worth considering is to use 4♣ as a half-key ask, setting the pre-empt suit, after 3♦/3♥/3♠ . Over 3♣, you could use 4♦ instead. This keeps the bidding low. For example, when key-cards are missing, you can sometimes settle in 4M, rather than braving the 5-level.

[nige1]

So Nigel we have gone from "I would regard it as hubris for an ordinary player like me to award zero to an action that I know has been chosen by some experts" to when asked which experts " I thought some would do so and they would probably be good players." That is a huge backdown. (The emphasis is mine.)

The hog quotes, out of context, my defence of my idiosyncratic marking scheme from cherdano's criticism. Anybody can confirm by reading previous posts that this comment doesn't refer to anybody's actual choice on the OP hand.

The reason I rate 1C as a "big fat zero" is that it it is a nothing bid. It takes away no room and in fact offers the opps a greater range of options. The reason I rate a 3C opening in first and second seat as a 6, maybe a 7 is that we have gained quite a few imps by bidding very tight 3NTs on Hx in Cs suit A A a few cards in the 4th suit and out. Knowing that the 3m pre empt is sound makes this easy. Sometimes this has even produced a double game swing. I believe this to be more effective than random pre empts in the first 2 seats, especially in the minors.

I understand the Hog's arguments for sound and disciplined pre-empts. On the given hand, depending on partnership agreement, calls like 3♣, pass, and 1♣ would each work sometimes -- but all have flaws.

[Lovera]

It exit, to solve difficulty about natural bidding, the Cicchelli conventional system [highly compatible to Culbertson's asking-bid]. In this case 3♠=? in spade. The answeres are: first step -here 3NT- neg.=without controlls, positively if there is a controll in suit segnaling also controlls in the others three suits in this way: for every controll of first round (Ace or void) two steps up, for every controll of second round (King or singleton) one step up. Singletons or voids are showing only if are in query(=spade) suit. For our case 3♠(=?in spade for controlls)-4♦(=three steps up equivalent to three controlls).

[wanoff]

We used to use 3♥ as short ask over 3♦, but partner decided that it was not worth it so we use 4♣ now. Hasn't come up very often. But I think it is still doable with 3♥:

 

3♦-3♥

3♠ = no short

3NT = heart short

4♣ = clubs

4♦ = spade shrot

 

This way you can still investigate heart fit to some extent.

 

Not bad though I don't think partner could remember it :)

We currently play the very simple 3♣-4♣= please cuebid.

3♣- 4♦= RKC for clubs

[mcphee]

I definetly think opening 3C is for the shooters. To me this just is outside of what I call a first seat minor 3 level bid. Having said that I have a great fit showing jump when partner opens 1D which will eaisly drive our side to slam.

[helene_t]

IMO 3♣=10, pass=4, 1♣=4, some psyche=0.

 

By which I mean: of course everything could work but I believe that 3♣ is the long term winner. Pass or 1♣ might be the long term winner (i.e. my judgment might be wrong and/or pass or 1♣ could be better in particular partnerships). A psyche could of course work but I strongly believe that it is not the long term winner, so it gets a zero.

[KurtGodel]

It's interesting to see how people's views have changed over the years. A hand like this certainly would have been considered anything other than a pass some time long ago. Now it seems like we are contemplating opening it at the one level. For me this is a very very clear 3♣ bid. The bid has a lot of upsides: 1) the opponents have a lot of cards in the majors, this will make it difficult for them to find the correct strain/level, sometimes the opponents will be put in a borderline situation and have to decide whether or not they should be bidding and they will get this decision wrong sometimes. 2) We might catch partner with a fit, this could lead to a cheap sacrifice or (rarely) a making game, we are telling partner about a lot of our cards and they will be in a good position to decide where we should be playing. 3) It suggests a good lead! Particularly at pairs this is worth going for the odd number, the extra trick could be huge for your side, even at IMPs you are establishing a trick, and potentially warning partner from underleading an honour.

There are some downsides: 1) We could miss a cold game (or a slam) because partner will have less space to make safe game tries et cetera. 2) We push the opponents into good games they were not going to bid. I'm willing to take the risk that they will either not bid when they should or bid when they shouldn't more frequently than this happening.

 

It's an interesting question as to what we should be pre-empting with, and how mixed a strategy we should be employing. I think unless you are very conservative you should be opening this hand 3♣, your pre-empts with x Axx xx KQTxxxx might get you to good games, but I suspect you don't pick up hands like that too often. I think at green you can really be aggressive with these 3m pre-empts. I open really a lot of junk (well depending on how much it annoys my partner) at this vul. On the hand in question we very well miss game, given that a more typical hand for this bid would have been something like x xxx xx QT9xxxx or xxx x xxx KJ9xxx. I'm not saying I would always open those hands, but I think it's definitely right to mix things up (and even pre-empt heavy...) so that the opponents are more unsure about whether or not they should enter the auction, and how well they can count the hand. It means that they have no idea when to make a speculative penalty pass for instance (which will greatly reduce the numbers that you go for).

 

Think about it this way, your opposition are either good or they are bad. If they are good they will likely have a good constructive auction and bid to most making games, you will not be assisting them at all by bidding 3♣, on this hand if you can go for a number then they can almost definitely make game. If you play against weaker opposition then they will trip up a lot and bid on completely inappropriate hands, not correctly evaluating club wastage, club shortage, high honours (aces and kings), not knowing what is forcing and generally getting into a mess.

 

Another question raised in this thread was: should this hand be opened at the one-level? I think the short answer is 'no', not so much because it is an 8-count (upgrade or whatever to 9/10), but it has just so little defense, it also takes up next to no space, and doesn't even really suggest a good lead. You have no real reason to give partner the impression that you can provide anything in the way of playing strength outside clubs (yes diamonds rarely), so just bid them! It could easily be winning bridge to open KJTxx Axxx x xxx at the one level, but this hand is a different kettle of fish. I think as bidding times are changing people should open their minds about opening light. I don't think we are given the opportunity to experiment with different strategies. Maybe we should try and take a few more risks and put the opponents under some pressure.