A 3 loser hand

[pilowsky]

[hv=pc=n&s=shakq986532d3cqt7&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p]133|200| This hand came up in todays club game.

Matchpoints. 2/1 with 3 weak 2's etc.

I've toned my bidding down to over-exuberant from psychotically optimistic because my Thursday partner has a hair-trigger for 3NT, but with 3 losers I felt 2♣ was fair.

The median opening was 4♥.

What would you suggest?

[/hv]

 

 

What happened at our table.

[hv=pc=n&s=shakq986532d3cqt7&w=skjt32h74d7542ca5&n=saq94hjdaqj6c9632&e=s8765htdkt98ckj84&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p2c(game%20force)2sd3s4hp6nppp]399|300| For 96.67% because exactly the same thing happened at another table.

My partner North caught the ♠ 5 from East.[/hv]

[mw64ahw]

I’d call it a 4 looser hand, but if you play Namyats start with 4♣.The slam try should be accepted, but with the right methods you will find the exposed ♣ suit

[AL78]

In the UK, I don't think the regulations permit opening a hand like that with an artificial strong 2 opening. I'd probably open 4♥ if not playing Namyats. You got lucky.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

what to do with a 9 card suit is ...

 

I would go with 4H, I dont play Namyats. If you do, use it, 4H is heavy,

you are white against red, and the only factor for strengthening the bid

is, 2nd position, so Namyats looks perfect.

 

If you agreed to play gambling, with a running major, ... go for it, it

is not likely you will have another opportunity.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[LBengtsson]

With one red opp. passed I will try 1♥ here. I think it is too strong for Namyats, even though it is a 9-10 trick hand with normal breaks. ♣Q10x is also a potential trick. The problem with Namyats here is the solid suit. Most Namyats I have seen is where one honour is missing from the major with an outside trick such as an ace or king/queen.

[pescetom]

A clear Namyats for me. And I wouldn't like to be without that option, given the ominous spades void.

[mycroft]

I open 1♥. I do play Namyats, but it's a *very specific* bid, and this hand doesn't qualify. Partner with 3 tricks will play in 4-making-6, because 8+3=11. And there's not enough room to ask "do you actually have 9 tricks rather than 8?"

 

And 2♣ did what we expect it to - the colours allowed you to bid 4♥, but it still put partner in a hopeless situation. Trusting souls believe north and find a non-spade lead. West doubling 6NT might get a non-spade lead. If it's a diamond, oh well. If it's a round card...

 

Those that (in the ACBL) properly Alert their tendency to open "overstrength preempts" are more likely in this auction to get a heart(!) lead. Would I find it? Not sure. But I do know at least three people at my level who probably would.

[mikeh]

Here’s a rule that might help the OP avoid fatuous 2C openings: when one opens 2C one should be 99.999% sure that the opponents cannot make a slam except for nearly impossibly freakish distribution. Here, fairly normal hands would let them make a grand slam.

 

Another rule: never open 2C on distributional hands unless there is a real chance that opening at the one level carries a realistic chance of missing a good game.

 

We have 11 hcp and a spade void. The chances of 1H being passed out are less than zero….ok, I exaggerate a little

 

I’d open 1H in second seat. In 1st I’d open namyats if I still played it, which I don’t

 

In 3rd or 4th I’d open 4H., although the likelihood of p p p to me is minuscule.

[DavidKok]

I always thought people play Namyats as a necessary evil to keep their 4M opening clean. This is not a muddy 4M opening, so it's not a Namyats. But maybe I'm being too simplistic.

 

Anyway, 2♣ is awful. 1♥ is completely safe. I'd consider 4♥ in fourth seat, but it never goes (P)-P-(P)-? if you have this hand. Also we might still miss a slam on that auction.

[pescetom]

I open 1♥. I do play Namyats, but it's a *very specific* bid, and this hand doesn't qualify. Partner with 3 tricks will play in 4-making-6, because 8+3=11. And there's not enough room to ask "do you actually have 9 tricks rather than 8?"

It's slightly outside our definition of Namyats too, but I would still downgrade to 4♣ rather than risk 1♥ or 2♣ on this particular hand.

There's room to discover both the solid hearts and the mutual lack of clubs control within 5♥, which would be early enough to stop more often than not, although not here. But yes, North would still not know there were 9.

As it turns out, opening 2♣ with a more collaborative West would allow us to stop in 4♥, but I wouldn't bet on those coincidences and their spades contract might be better than our hearts contract.

[akwoo]

I open 1♥. I do play Namyats, but it's a *very specific* bid, and this hand doesn't qualify. Partner with 3 tricks will play in 4-making-6, because 8+3=11. And there's not enough room to ask "do you actually have 9 tricks rather than 8?"

 

In my Precision partnership, 1♥ denies this much playing strength also. So our choices would be an overstrength Namyats or 1♣. I'll go with Namyats.

[Winstonm]

Hands like this are always guesses and my criteria for guesses is to try to make the one least damaging in the long run. Here that to me is 1H. I cannot justify this much playing strength nv v vul for a preempt. It it almost too strong for a red V white preempt though I would do that. It is clearly not a 2C opener unless part of your aims is to screw with your opponents and lose some definition in your bids.

[mcphee]

The passed hand makes 1H an easy choice as a 4H bid makes slam no chance at all when you may make 13 tricks on a good day. Only takes AJ 5th of clubs on a S lead.

[kgr]

I’d open 1H in second seat. In 1st I’d open namyats if I still played it, which I don’t

In 3rd or 4th I’d open 4H., although the likelihood of p p p to me is minuscule.

If you would play namyats...

Can you explain why you don't open namyats in all seats?

I would think it is a good description of your hand and gives the opps more preempt to find their Spade fit.

[mikeh]

If you would play namyats...

Can you explain why you don't open namyats in all seats?

I would think it is a good description of your hand and gives the opps more preempt to find their Spade fit.

I played various forms of namyats for years. I eventually came to the view that a natural 4m opening was more valuable than using such a bid to show a strong major preempt.

 

3N, as a minor preempt, is relatively ineffective imo. The main problem is that responder is often unable to bid over an overcall by the opponent sitting over the 3N bid. In addition, 3N allows for both 4C and 4D to be used by the opps artificially. Some play that the bid minor shows a major 2-suiter, distinguishing between hand strengths while others use the choice of minor to distinguish between major quality/length.

 

As for gambling 3N: it can be effective when it arises. We picked up a slam swing in an important match more than 20 years ago when partner was able to jump to 6D, right-siding the contract, after I opened 3N.

 

But it’s a net loser, imo. After all, as Fred Gitelman said (I paraphrase), 3N wrong sides 3N!

 

All of these are low frequency hands, whatever agreements you may have

 

I used to play 4C as a one-loser namyats and 4D as a solid suit namyats.

 

We had specialized responses. For example, after 4D, if responder had slam interest he basically always knew opener’s major (since it would be the major in which he held nothing). 4D 5C would show a source of tricks somewhere and promise both minor aces and deny the other major ace, so if opener had a major singleton he could jump to slam…any response of 4S or higher showed slam values and was the lowest of touching aces.

 

On paper it was great. In the real world it never…I mean never…happened.

 

Meanwhile, being able to open 4m is fairly effective and doesn’t give the opps as much bidding space

 

Because these are rare hands, it’s not imo a big deal, but that’s why I no longer regularly play any namyats

[thepossum]

White versus red 6 or 7 hearts

 

What's Namyats other than backwards Stayman?

 

Seriously 2C or 4H

 

Only problem with going 2C is with a partner like GiB which uses the alleged point count to overrule and go with a different suit, and ignore your clear preference. Is there not a law about going against 2C opener's suit. Fancy thinking you know better than someone opening 2C

[DavidKok]

Fancy thinking you know better than someone opening 2C

Judging by this discussion, I think GiB likely does know better than the people opening 2♣.

[Cyberyeti]

White versus red 6 or 7 hearts

 

What's Namyats other than backwards Stayman?

 

Seriously 2C or 4H

 

Only problem with going 2C is with a partner like GiB which uses the alleged point count to overrule and go with a different suit, and ignore your clear preference. Is there not a law about going against 2C opener's suit. Fancy thinking you know better than someone opening 2C

 

Namyats is like South African Texas, 4♣ is a good 4♥ opener, 4♦ a good 4♠ opener. When I used to play this, we used them very strong and this was borderline, our criteria were that the right 2 aces and a stiff trump gave you decent play for a slam.

 

2♣ on this hand type is either illegal or requires very good disclosure in some jurisdictions. It's clear from other threads you open 2♣ way too much, and won't listen to people who tell you this.

[pilowsky]

Just to be clear - this is from an actual Australian club game - matchpoints, 2/1 etc.

 

 

In the previous post where 2C was opened with a huge club suit I was defending not bidding.

The opponent learned Bridge in the UK - like most people he's a much better player than me.

 

2♣ on this hand type is either illegal or requires very good disclosure in some jurisdictions. It's clear from other threads you open 2♣ way too much, and won't listen to people who tell you this.

In retrospect I think 4H is the right bid.

 

In Australia opening 2♣ as a game forcing bid is completely legal.

But this is clearly a jurisdictional matter.

According to the sky blue regs eating is not permitted (penalty not described) in online games where opponents can see you (one chew per Ace?) but not on BBO where they can't.

As I understand it eating is not illegal in Australia - but I haven't checked.

[thepossum]

Too late to comment

Can't be bothered to argue

 

And if anyone claims I can't bid 2c they are in for an argument

 

And I learnt to bid in England. Simple unpretentious and no unnecessary complexity and restrictions

 

PS involves rhetoric before I have to defend myself

[DavidKok]

It probably differs by region. As far as I know opening 2♣ on this hand is completely legal. And if is wasn't, I would be happy to waive the right to call the director just so my opponents would do it more often.

[AL78]

Too late to comment

Can't be bothered to argue

 

And if anyone claims I can't bid 2c they are in for an argument

 

And I learnt to bid in England. Simple unpretentious and no unnecessary complexity and restrictions

 

From the EBU blue book section , level 4

 

"7C Opening Bids from 2♣ to 3♠ inclusive

 

7 C 1 General, including ’Multi’ style opening bids

 

These may be played as one or both of (a) and (b) below

 

(a) Any meaning or meanings as long as they all show a strong hand (16+ HCP, or 12+ HCP with at least 5 controls), and/or

 

(b) At most one from the following four options:

 

(i) One or more meanings which all show at least four cards in the suit opened, or

(ii) One or more meanings which all show at least five cards in the same one specified suit, or

(iii) One or more meanings which all show at least 4-4 in the same two specified suits, or

(iv) Any combination of meanings that show either or both of

 

1) At least five cards in a suit, specified or not, which must not be the suit opened, and/or

2) At least 5-4 in two suits, either or both of which may be specified or not, but both of which must not be the suit opened.

 

Notes:

(1) A ‘Benji’ 2♣ or 2♦ opening (or any other opening with a similar meaning) which may have ‘eight playing tricks’ in any suit must by agreement satisfy (a) above. If the minimum strength does not, by agreement, satisfy (a) above the long suit (or suits) may not be the suit opened (in accordance with (b) (iv) above).

 

...

 

(5) It is permitted to open (say) 2♣ to show an unspecified long suit that is not clubs under (b)(iv) above. If such an opening may contain (for example) a solid eight card major with little outside this should be clearly described and not called simply, ‘Strong’ or ‘Acol’."

 

This does imply in England at least you are allowed to open 2♣ to show a hand like this at level 4+, but you must disclose the agreement that it could be a long solid suit with little outside.

[thepossum]

9 playing tricks in the selected trump suit

 

Some of us don't need to refer to rule books either. We know how to bid

 

Plus when I learned to play Bridge is wasn't run by police and lawyers

 

Sn we don't like having unnecessarily complex CCs with hardly used conventions for very rare occasions

 

One GF bid on CC -& clear GF situation -> use GF bid

 

Ideally have a partner that understands what it may mean

 

My dislike of the 4H option is that it is too good a hand for 4H in white vs red

[Cyberyeti]

9 playing tricks in the selected trump suit

 

Some of us don't need to refer to rule books either. We know how to bid

 

Plus when I learned to play Bridge is wasn't run by police and lawyers

 

Sn we don't like having unnecessarily complex CCs with hardly used conventions for very rare occasions

 

One GF bid on CC -& clear GF situation -> use GF bid

 

Ideally have a partner that understands what it may mean

 

My dislike of the 4H option is that it is too good a hand for 4H in white vs red

 

Yes but you need to describe it as GF but not necessarily strong. Eleven to the QJ10 is 9-10 playing tricks, but nobody would describe it as a classic strong 2♣, your opponents are entitled to know what you know if you would open it 2♣.

[thepossum]

As I said. One trick short of game. That is 2c

 

What is everybody's problem. You suggesting I don't bid according to my CC. I may not be the world's best player but I think I am rather painfully disciplined

 

Why the constant pileons with you lot

 

Stop trying to patronise and lecture me all the time

 

Its incessant, highly personal and annoying

 

I think I am entitled to a clear explanation from all the regular pileon participants why I am personally singled out on these forums for years now, simply for engaging like everyone else. I never attacked anyone. Just commented like everyone. Please leave me alone. Its upsetting and stressful dealing with this repeated behaviour. Am I the only person arguing for 2C bid. I think now. So why me?

 

Also, you want to know why I get upset at lectures. Its because I was brought up with and have more in the way of Bridge ettiquette and ethics than the majority on this site and world it seems these days. So don't lecture mw about Bridge rules and ethics. I know more about them than even having to read the rule book. Look elsewhere for the recipients of your lectures mateys

 

Maybe my memory is longer than others or I felt it more but the personal attacks and pileons (and accusations) started many years ago simply because I raised the issue of extreme rudeness at tables

 

And in case its not obvious I don't like fights. I get upset

 

PS For full disclosue my current preemptive style is 234 so favorable vulnerabily, 9 tricks = 7H - so I'm not bidding that

 

EDIT N. I feel I need some backing. Pavlicek rates it at 9.5 tricks with KR of 20+