what to open here

[Chamaco]

I'd bid 4NT as well if I know partner has 7 tricks at least. After the response '1 + diamond void' I'd be disappointed but probably there is no way back at this point.

 

However I have no problem with 4♠ on this:

QJxxxxxx

xx

xx

x

 

and 5♠-1 will look silly.

 

I don't really like 1♠ either and see your problem, Roland. I'd rather open 4♦ but the poster did not say if this was part of the system so I assumed it was not.

Ditto

[Walddk]

However I have no problem with 4♠ on this:

QJxxxxxx

xx

xx

x

I have a problem bidding 4♠ with that hand. I think 4-level pre-empts should be disciplined (yes, it's been a long time since I was a junior). This hand is one trick short, or has one loser too many if you like.

 

But as we well know, we have the 2-3-junior pre-empt rule. If 4♠ can have any number of losers, it's impossible for responder to judge.

 

Roland

[Gerben47]

I agree with game preempts being disciplined if disciplined means: not a wide range from minimum to maximum. If you open 4♠ on QJ(8) xx x xx then you cannot open 4♠ on AQJ(8) QTx void xx. If you bid it on both partner cannot judge when to bid on...

 

If 4♠ can be on junk you should pass with the actual responding hand and if 4♠ is not on junk you should make another move.

 

Regular partnerships talk so much about convention this and convention that, but not about these kinds of things. It is so important to DISCUSS a preempting style and stick to it. This is the problem with the initial question.

 

Do I open 4♠ on this hand? Well, I don't know, it depends on your partnership style.

 

DISCUSS what a weak two looks like. And a weak three. And a game level preempt. What about Namyats? If you play that what do you do with a 4minor preempt?

 

The short version of my style is this:

 

Vulnerable: You can take it to the bank. 3-level preempts should be on 7 cards with 2 of the top 3. 4-level preempts have 8 tricks.

No one vulnerable: 3 tricks short

Favorable: 4 tricks short

[Walddk]

No one vulnerable: 3 tricks short

Favorable: 4 tricks short

Yes, a very disciplined junior style I must say. By the way, I agree with all you are saying about partnership discussions. Many want to add zillion of new conventions before they have been through all the basic stuff.

 

Roland

[whereagles]

I consider the preempting "rule of 2, 3 and 4" a major misconception. It doesn't matter how many tricks you'll take. What matter is how likely it is that a preempt will derail the opponent's auction.

[Walddk]

Unless you pre-empt partner. That happens as we all know.

 

Roland

[hotShot]

My partner can bid 3♠ with anything they want, but a 4♠ bid should be better defined.

To me 4♠ is only justified, if the hand could also be opened at 1 level.

(This 4♠ is allowed to open since the rule of 18 applies.)

I cover partners looser in ♠, ♣ and ♥ and I'm short in ♦.

Since we have at least a 10 card fit, opps will have a fit too and it's almost sure it's ♦.

So i guess 5♠ is makeable., and my main iterest is partners tump quality.

This is why i bid 5♠, partner should advance to 6 it he holds AQ.

[mike777]

Ok so the consesus is 4♠ I can live with that.

 

What if anything should partner do holding this hand on hearing 4♠

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ K863 ♥ A53 ♦ T ♣ AQT93

 

Sitting North

NS White

EW Red

Dealer South

 

Bidding so far

 

4♠p?

 

Please comment

4nt, blackwood, must admit I would never pass here.

 

Will allow for p to have 8 spades to the nothing and expect no outside aces and very seldom outside kings. So we may be off 2 aces. Of course will bid 6 if they show ace of spades.

[geofspa]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sk863ha53dtcaqt93&w=shj86dakj964cj872&e=sthk942dq87532ck6&s=saqj97542hqt7dc54]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding at table

 

.W....N....E....S

...................1♠

2♦...3♦...P...4♠

all pass

 

So this is the full hand.

 

I would like to see some comments on all aspects of bidding here please.

[inquiry]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sk863ha53dtcaqt93&w=shj86dakj964cj872&e=sthk942dq87532ck6&s=saqj97542hqt7dc54]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding at table

 

.W....N....E....S

...................1♠

2♦...3♦...P...4♠

all pass

 

So this is the full hand.

 

I would like to see some comments on all aspects of bidding here please.

There are a few little points to consider, most covered already by others.

 

OPENING BID

1) Is south too good for a preempt to 4♠. The too good issue revolves around two issues. How do you play your NOT VUL versus VUL preempts. Your hand rates to take 7 tricks opposite a bust (4♠ down three). In some circles, rule of 2 or 3 applies (non-vul preempt, you are within three of your preempt, vulnerable you are within 2 of your preempt). This rule has been relaxed, and really relaxed by some at these colors. I think a preempt at these colors can include down three or more (never less).

 

2) The second issue, is can you open namyats with this hand. This depends upon your agreement for such a bid. This hand falls outside my requirements for namyats.

 

3) Finally can you "lower" the requirement and open this hand 1♠. Well, if you are a ZAR point counter, this is well more than a minimum opening bid. I certainly think this hand has the "value" for an opening 1♠ bid, but I would have choosen a 4♠bid.

 

RESPONDERS FIRST BID

Over 2♦, responder has four reasonable choices.

• 3D = cue-bid, setting game force as at your table
  
• 4D - splinter, settting spades as trumps
  
• 3C - forcing, planning on showing spade support later
  
• 4C = fit jump, showing clubs and spades, and values for at least game
  

I have to admit I would have jumped to 4♣ and gotten the best three features of my hand across to partner at the very first opportunity. This would show 1) Game value, 2) Fair to good club suit, and 3) Spade support. I can't imagine why you would consider any other bid (well, you may not play fit jumps in competition, but you should).

 

Openers Rebid

No doubt opener wanted to use priniciple of fast arrival to show spades and a weak hand. It is not clear if you played 3♦ as general force or if that promised spade support, as opener bid the same way, either way. It seems to me, if you open 1♠ you did so because you imagined slam chances. Your partner cue-bid at the three level and you are signing off. This seems odd to me. Opener probably should rebid 3♠ to see what responder had in mind, or cue-bid 4♦ denying club or heart control and see what happens next.

 

On my preferred auction, opener would cue-bid 4♦ over responders fit jump to 4♣. This is likely to propel you to the 6♠ contract you envisoned when you opened 1♠, which on this layout will make without a heart lead, and you are unlikely to get a heart lead as well.

 

How would I bid this hand? I would open 1♠ because I am not vulnerable and I am willing to outbid the opponents, if I feel it necessary. The diamond void might even doom any slam they bid over a potential 5♠ contract I might bid. At these colors, my first seat preempts are nowhere near this strong, so I can't afford to open 4♠ given the vulnerability. Reverse my majors, and I have to open 4♥. Or change to both not vul, or both vul, and I would open 4♠, as my partner would expect more in these cases for my preempt.

 

Ben

[Guest Jlall]

This is likely to propel you to the 6♠ contract you envisoned when you opened 1♠, which on this layout will make without a heart lead, and you are unlikely to get a heart lead as well.

Ben plays them better than me, im sure on the DA lead i would pull trump, hook a club, and when that fails play ace of clubs and go down.

 

On a side note, did east really never bid? rofl.

[cherdano]

Ben plays them better than me, im sure on the DA lead i would pull trump, hook a club, and when that fails play ace of clubs and go down.

I think you are right, in the sense that Ben plays them better :) :)

Pull trump, then double finesse to the 10 in ♣ looks best, doesn't it? (single-dummy, i mean of course) Makes unless East has both ♣KJ (any length), or ♣J tight, if I am not mistaken. Even then, you have an extra chance when you guess right on his heart return.

 

Arend

[whereagles]

It always amazes me when people argue in terms of "this hand is too strong for opening 4S". The point of opening 4S isn't to show playing strenght, but rather a hand type with high ODR.

[Fluffy]

I like the 1♠ opening, but it is still fobidden to open at the 1 level with less than 10 HCP around here, so I am with the 4♠ dudes (could b with them also if I had really to pick).

 

Those who asked what is the problem just faced why 1♠ opening has advantages.

 

After 4♠ I will bid 6♠ if we are vulnerable, or anything followed by 6♠, I can count 7♠, 1♦ ruff 2 aces for 10 tricks, and chances of extra tricks are ♣Q, a third ♦, 8th ♠, or 5th♣, all of them are likelly to come.

 

If we are not vulnerable I will bid 4NT just in case.

[Gerben47]

Forbidden to bid or forbidden to agree?

If the latter I explain that I normally do not hold an 8-card suit and we do not have agreements about 1-bids and 8-card suits.

[Fluffy]

Literarilly forbidden to have an agreement or system that allows you to open at the 1 level with less than 10 hcp.

[mr1303]

The rule is less than Rule of 18, not 10 HCP

[Free]

I also like opening 1♠ (especially with those 3 ♥s), but I think I'd just open 4♠... 5♣ cue or 4NT blacky seem both good choices to continue the bidding.

[Fluffy]

The rule is less than Rule of 18, not 10 HCP

I actually doubt you have such deep knowlegde about spanish rules, but if you do correct me please.

[Cascade]

Forbidden to bid or forbidden to agree?

If the latter I explain that I normally do not hold an 8-card suit and we do not have agreements about 1-bids and 8-card suits.

If when you open this hand and hands like it you open at the one-level then you have an agreement that you will open some hands with fewer than ten points at the one level.

 

Agreements are not only explicit they can be implicit.

 

So if the rule says you may not have an agreement to open with fewer than ten points then you cannot open hands like this one at the one level.

 

However it is illegal for a Sponsoring Organization to have a rule that restricts natural (actually non-conventional) opening bids at the the one level that are within a King of average strength.

 

The Sponsoring Organization is restricted by Law 40D in this matter:

 

"The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership’s initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility." L40D - Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge – 1997.

 

Nevertheless it is or has been relatively common that National Organizations have disregarded this law. My National association wrote the following when I questioned their regulations on this type of matter:

 

"When this law was drafted it was NEVER intended to constrain NCBOs." The capitals and bold were their emphasis not mine.

 

In my opinion this type of attitude by National Associations is unbelievably arrogant. I do not think that I would get very far if I justed announced for example that the revoke law was never intended to constrain me.