[whereagles]

Fluffy, on Mar 28 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

I also though I might had jumped to 6♦ over 5♣, would it show my hand?

On paper I would take that as diamond void, likely heart controls and good trumps. At the table that could not be it, so 6♦ would have managed to confuse me beyond belief

[hrothgar]

whereagles,Mar 29 2006, 12:42 PM

>In any case, any textbook that claims 4♠ is out because "the suit is too weak"
>clearly isn't making an effort to be precise. I mean.. it's 8 cards to the QJT.
>EIGHT CARDS

Quote page 129 of "Preempts from A to Z"

Requirements for Open 4♥ and 4♠

1. A good seven or eight card suit. Non-vulnerable the suit occasionally may contain two losers. Vulnerable the suit should never have more than one loser opposite a possible singleton in partner's hand, assuming normal trump break.

2. At most one Ace or King outside the trump suit

3. Seven playing tricks non-vulnerable; Eight playing tricks Vulnerable (the rule of two or three)

Its all fine and dandy for folks to have different requirements for a 4♠ opening. Many people consider the rule of two and three someonewhat old fashioned. With this said and done, I'm still waiting for for your example from any one of a variety of "textbooks"

>Well.. Robson/Segal for instance. They don't give many examples, but they
>do something no other book does: they explain the strategy of preemption
>properly, in terms of ODR. This hand, with an ODR of 6 and solid suit, certainly >qualifies for a 4-level preempt.

I've read Robson and Segal. Moreover, I actually understand it. At lot of my own beliefs regarding pressure bidding came after reading that work. But even R-S have some degree of respect for vulnerable 4 level openings.

I'd like to include a couple quotes from that work.

"First in Hand Vulnerable

Now the odds shift, particularly if you are at "red". In fact, vulnerable against not we really wouldn't call this a pressure bidding situation at all. At game all the odds are not overly dissimilar from Love All -except that if you conceed one or two doubled off against a part score its more painful. Whilst on the subject of part scores, its important to recognize that, at matchpoints, its very dangerous to pressure preempt when vulnerable."

"Its usually wrong to open with a pressure bid when your side "owns" the hand. You must not exclude or hamper partner in the competitive process when your priority is to discover how high a contract your side can make. In such auctions your goals is to converse descriptively with partner. Similar considerations apply if the hand seems to be evenly balanced with each side able to make the same number of tricks.

The only major exception to this is when you open with a game bid. Now - even if the hand appears to be yours - it will often be right to open high. On the one hand, you may induce your opponents to conceed a large penalty (see a couple pages ago). On the other, you may prevent the opponents from finding a profitable sacrifice. The following deal (illustrating a red 4♠ opening caused some discussion

♠ KQJ9854
♥ Q
♦ 7
♣ AK96

I include this hand because the trump suit is quite a bit stronger than the QJT eight that you provided... (As R+S note, missing trump honors can be problematice, because the make it easier for the opponents to convert for penalty)

I admit: its possible that R+S believe that the benefits of opening with a game level opening outweigh the dangers associated with a vulnerable 4 level preempt. However, this seems ambiguous at best.

In short, i'm still waiting for that textbook that you mentioned earlier...

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Mar 29 2006, 10:02 AM, said:

Its all fine and dandy for folks to have different requirements for a 4♠ opening.  Many people consider the rule of two and three someonewhat old fashioned.  With this said and done, I'm still waiting for for your example from any one of a variety of "textbooks"

ACBL CLUB SERIES, THE CLUB BOOK,

Opening preempts...

Weak hand, seven card suit or longer, three of the top five honors. In deciding between the three level and four level. extra legnth is useful.

Now that is from memory, I looked it up last night out of curiosity, as I had no intention to post on this subject. And BTW, they then proceed to show a 4C preempt on AJ-seveth (only two of top 5 honors) as a typical preempt.

If you REALLY want the actual wording, I can get it for you tonight, not that I think audrey Grant and her beginner book is the gospel with respect to such issues, it is a widely sold textbook, and I ahve no doubt it has sold more than preempts from A to Z.

[whereagles]

> hrothgar wrote:
> I'm still waiting for for your example from any one of a variety of "textbooks"

Look, since this subject seems to be bothering you, I'll concede the hand is probably not a textbook example. Some textbooks might have examples like that, but I agree most don't. This is because authors tend to be conservative, so as not to be blamed for when readers go for -1100s or so. In practice most authors (if not all) open on junk and we both know it. Let's not be hypocrate.


> I've read Robson and Segal. Moreover, I actually understand it.
> The following deal (illustrating a red 4♠ opening caused some discussion
>
> ♠ KQJ9854
> ♥ Q
> ♦ 7
> ♣ AK96
>
> I include this hand because the trump suit is quite a bit stronger than the QJT eight
> that you provided...

KQJ 7th takes the same 6 tricks as QJT 8th. If you can't understand that simple fact, I really have to dispute your claim to have understood more complicated concepts like those of Robson/Segal...

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Mar 29 2006, 06:22 PM, said:

KQJ 7th takes the same 6 tricks as QJT 8th. If you can't understand that simple fact, I really have to dispute your claim to have understood more complicated concepts like those of Robson/Segal...

Potentially the "fact" isn't as simple the person making it

I readily admit that

QJT987654

and

KQJT987

will both (probably) produce 6 trump tricks opposite a small singleton

With this said and done, the decision to make a penalty double or convert a card showing double for penalties often depends on the quality of one's trump holding. Judged by this criteria, eight cards to the QJT is significantly weaker.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Mar 29 2006, 03:28 PM, said:

the decision to make a penalty double or convert a card showing double for penalties often depends on the quality of one's trump holding.  Judged by this criteria, eight cards to the QJT is significantly weaker.

I respectfully point out that honors isn't the only criteria. Let me bundle that with some other:

- trump honors
- trump length
- intermediate cards in trumps
- lack of shape to bid over a take-out double

So.. while from the point of view of trump honors QJT 8th is more likely to be penalized, from the point of view of length and lack of shape it is less likely to be so.

[luis]

My view:

4♠ is automatic and with respect people discussing 4♠ should have their head examined.

5♣ is probably wrong, certainly you do have a cuebid in clubs and slam intentions but what are you going to do next? I mean you also have diamond AND heart controls in your hand. 5♣ in my view is used in hands where you are lacking a control in a side suit and need to investigate that.
For me there are two options with the North hand: 6♠ or 5NT, 6♠ is the conservative view, 5NT asking pd to bid 7 with AQxxxx(x) of spades is the agressive view. It seems that 6♠ is the "right" bid but I can live with 5NT if you needed a good result.

After 5♣, 6♠ is a good way to destroy the auction completely and 7♠ is a "punishment" bid for bidding something that can't exist because south either has a diamond control (5♦ or he doesn't and then he bids 5♥ or 5♠).

It certainly looks as an auction that can finish a partnership, but once I have a similar disaster with my pd and the conclusion was that the board was the one to be blamed because if North doesn't get the hand he has over a 4♠ opening this doesn't happen, and south unfortunately decided to do something silly and north did something even more stupid, the chances of this happening again are almost null so let's keep playing together.

Blame the dealing software!

[hrothgar]

luis, on Mar 29 2006, 06:44 PM, said:

My view:

4♠ is automatic and with respect people discussing 4♠ should have their head examined.

Grow up Luis:

This is a matter of partership agreement. I don't really care what that agreement looks like. There are a variety of different styles, all with different pluses and minuses.

The one thing that I am damn sure about is that open 4♠ with this hand when partner is expecting a better trump is a recipe for disaster. Do you really think that North expected QJT9xxxx in Spades when he bid a grand holding Kxx?

You say that 4♠ is an automatic bid vulnerable at IMPs?
I say prove it.

I've never many formal game theoretic proofs applied in bridge.
I'd love to see one.

[luis]

hrothgar, on Mar 29 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

luis, on Mar 29 2006, 06:44 PM, said:

My view: 

4♠ is automatic and with respect people discussing 4♠ should have their head examined.

Grow up Luis:

This is a matter of partership agreement. I don't really care what that agreement looks like. There are a variety of different styles, all with different pluses and minuses.

The one thing that I am damn sure about is that open 4♠ with this hand when partner is expecting a better trump is a recipe for disaster. Do you really think that North expected QJT9xxxx in Spades when he bid a grand holding Kxx?

You say that 4♠ is an automatic bid vulnerable at IMPs?
I say prove it.

I've never many formal game theoretic proofs applied in bridge.
I'd love to see one.

Richard,

I respect your opinion but if holding an 8-3-1-1 hand with 8 spades you can't open 4♠ there is something completely wrong in the Universe.
Playing Namyats you can choose 4♦ / 4♠ depending on your agreements.
Without Namyats this is a normal, obvious, solid, textbook 4♠ opening. If you ask 1000 good players 1000 of them will open 4♠ playing 2/1 or Sayc without special agreements. Maybe 1001 if someone decides to vote twice.

QJT is the most offensive heading you can have in a suit, I can understand reasons for not opening 4♠ with for example Ace 7th and a side ace where some people would open 1♠ because of the 2 defensive tricks but with an offensive hand 4♠ is so clear so clear that I really think you are absolutely wrong about thinking this depending on anything.

BTW: North bid 7♠ to punish pd for his 6♠ bid it is a clear allergic reaction to the 6♠ bid to me.

[hotShot]

The original post said 5♣ was a cuebid showing fit, i wonder why people had been discussing alternative meaning.

luis, on Mar 29 2006, 05:44 PM, said:

My view:
5♣ is probably wrong, certainly you do have a cuebid in clubs and slam intentions but what are you going to do next?

So what you say is, that if you don't know what your partner is going to do next, you just ignore him?
Partner started a cuebid sequence and oviously he wanted to hear a cuebid from opener.

I'll help you finding the answer:
AQ 7th opposit his Kxx with all controls will allow the Grand (at least with a finesse)
AJ 7th will allow a grand if the trumps are not 3-0 (at least with a finesse)
A 8th will allow a grand (at least with a finesse)
So how does he find out about the trump ace?
Probably this pair doesn't have any agreements
or voidwood is not agreed and a simple blackwood can't determinate which Ace opener holds.
By starting a cuebid sequence at least, some informations can be collected because:
- the long suit will have 3 of the top 5 (at least 3 HCP) and
- opener will usually have 10 HCP at most and
- any side control weakens the trump suit
- any ♦ values opposit a void may/will be wasted
Openers 5♦ will make the grand less probable, so advancer will settle for 6.
Without side controlls opener will bid 5♠, that can be advanced to 6.

This sound like a plan to me that should work with any partner that is willing to cooperate.

6♠ means: I don't care what you want from me. Advancer now has to guess, if opener hold the A♦ (stop in 6) or A♠ the grand is on.

luis, on Mar 29 2006, 05:44 PM, said:

My view:
BTW: North bid 7♠ to punish pd for his 6♠ bid it is a clear allergic reaction to the 6♠ bid to me.

Oviously i don't agree with that statement.

[inquiry]

hotShot, on Mar 29 2006, 04:35 PM, said:

The original post said 5♣  was a cuebid showing fit, i wonder why people had been discussing alternative meaning.

Because this is a discussion forum, people find their own issues to be intersested in. For example, rather or not this clearly appropriate 4♠ opener is even worth an opener or how to continue over 5♣.

Quote

luis, on Mar 29 2006, 05:44 PM, said:

My view:
5♣ is probably wrong, certainly you do have a cuebid in clubs and slam intentions but what are you going to do next?

So what you say is, that if you don't know what your partner is going to do next, you just ignore him?

Partner started a cuebid sequence and oviously he wanted to hear a cuebid from opener.

I'll help you finding the answer:
AQ 7th opposit his Kxx with all controls will allow the Grand (at least with a finesse)

And how is your cue-bid of 5♣ going to find that? Luis (and I) both addressed that issue with if your gambling instincts run that way start with 5NT over 4♠. That will get teh answer about spades.

Quote

AJ 7th will allow a grand if the trumps are not 3-0 (at least with a finesse)

Still gambling? 5NT when find out ♠A only, figure it is AJeight or better at this vul, and gamble as you like.

Quote

Ace 8th will allow a grand (at least with a finesse)

See answer above Axxxxxx is not a vul preempt. AT-eight might be

Quote

So how does he find out about the trump ace?

The reponse schedule is fairly ckear, you can eliminate no ♠ honors from the tree. 7 bids show two honor, 6♣ shows Ace or king, 6♦ shows queen. If you want to get fancy, with spades, you can have each bid show a different top honor (or lack of) but 6♣A or K and 6♦ just queen has worked for me. After a one honor GSF, 6D ask for extra extra legnth (as long as diamonds are not trumps).

Quote

Probably this pair doesn't have any agreements
or voidwood is not agreed and a simple blackwood can't determinate which Ace opener holds.
By starting a cuebid sequence at least, some informations can be collected because:
- the long suit will have 3 of the top 5 (at least 3 HCP) and
- opener will usually have 10 HCP at most and
- any side control weakens the trump suit
- any ♦ values opposit a void may/will be wasted
Openers 5♦ will make the grand less probable, so advancer will settle for 6.
Without side controlls opener will bid 5♠, that can be advanced to 6.

This sound like a plan to me that should work with any partner that is willing to cooperate.

I am not sure where you are going. Doesn't 6♦ PROMISE a ♦ control? Doesn't it also promise a ♥ control. Why if partner bids 5♦ showing a diamond control will you stop short of grand slam and if parnter bids 6♠ you will bid grand slam?

Will partner with, say ♠AQxxxxxx ♥xx ♦-x ♣-xx not bid 5♦ by your scheme? How about ♠AJTxxxxx ♥Kx ♦x ♣xx will he not also cue-bid his diamond control? Here you also settle for 6♠. And give opener the hand ♠QJTxxxxxx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣void at least here you could use your GSF.

Quote

6♠ means: I don't care what you want from me. Advancer now has to guess, if opener hold the A♦ (stop in 6) or A♠ the grand is on.

Sigh. 6♠ was an answer to a question, the weakest positive answer to the question possible. The question 5♣ asked was we might be off two quick tricks in a red suit, tell me whcih suit you control. The possible answers are"

5♠ = neither red suit
5♥/5♦ = this red suit,
ANYTHING ELSE - I control both of them, The anything else starts at 5NT and ends at 6♠. I think (as I said before) the weakest of these anything else bids is 6♠ (Principle of fast arrival), the strongiest is 5NT. This is general prinicples. I leave jumps to show voids, so jump to 6H or 6D would show void and control of other red suit. You can define 6C and 5NT howevver you like, but both are stronger than 6♠. I might suggest that 6C would show both first round controls (one void, other ace), 5NT would show both great spades and control in both suits. A cue-bid by responder is looking for grand with first round control in the bid suit. Having said that, I use 5♣ for a control asking bid.

On this hand I would bid 5♥, find the second round heart control, (first step no first or second round control, second step, second round control), then over 6C bid 6H josephine and partner would not be accepting with this hand and would bid 6♠.

Quote

luis, on Mar 29 2006, 05:44 PM, said:

My view:
BTW: North bid 7♠ to punish pd for his 6♠ bid it is a clear allergic reaction to the 6♠ bid to me.

Oviously i don't agree with that statement.

Obvioulsy I agree greatly with that statement and Luis's entire post.

5♣ was a thoughtless bid perhpas. There is no doubt grand slam will be avoided if openers bids 5♦, but opener was asked a question (and not the right question at that) and he should give the correct answer. If he bids 5♦ and his partner now jumps to 6♠, how is opener to evaluate the usefulness of lack of for his stiff heart, could responder not have a hand where the key is the unshown singleton heart (say the same hand he had but AK9 of spades not A9x). Of course he could.

[jdeegan]

Kudos for some most outstanding postings. I really feel like I learned something about the finer points of the game. Of special note imo. was luis's summing up of the prospects for trying for seven, and inquiry's rationale in support of South's bid of six ♠.

Blast bids like the 6♠ call often irritate and disappoint partner, but that doesn't make them wrong. All it says is I have enough for six, but we are probably missing something for seven.

Notice that warts and all, the actual bidding sequence did land N-S in the correct contract, at least until the Unlucky Expert playing North invented a way to lose with his 7♠ bid.

[toothbrush]

I open 1♠ with this hand.
When you've decided to open 4♠, the jump to 6♠ is the worst thing you can do. A preemptive opener leaves the final choice to his partner, end of discussion. Partner knows what you have, you know NOTHING from partner.

[mikestar]

There must be some hand where South's correct bid is 6♠. Though in most situations I don't advocate Fast Arrival, here I think it is sensible. 6♠ should mean: "I've got enough to gamble the small slam, but the grand scares the crap out of me." You guys can debate wheter South should send this message on this hand.

If North wants to fish for a grand (I'd be inclined to, depending on the state of the match) how about the simple, straightforward 5NT over 4♠? Gets you therewhen patner has ♠AQ, keeps you out when he doesn't. Gambling on the side suits when you have three first round controls can easily pay off. A grand off the Ace of trump is gambling on the opponents revoking.

[whereagles]

For the record, I asked a few local experts, whom I would describe as "quite conservative" what would they open on

QJTxxxxx
x
AQx
x

and all of them opened 4♠. One junior said he would open 1♠(!) because he thought the hand was "too strong"(!!).

[hotShot]

whereagles, on Apr 4 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

For the record, I asked a few local experts, whom I would describe as "quite conservative" what would they open on



and all of them opened 4♠. One junior said he would open 1♠(!) because he thought the hand was "too strong"(!!).

The question is not: would/could/should you open this 4♠.
It is what does your partner expect you to have for opening 4♠.

If your junior opens 4♠ with:
JTxxxxxx
x
Qxx
x

Compared to that, the discussed hand is to strong for 4♠.
Partner acts based on his expectation of the hand. If he agreed to "weak" 4 level openings he needs to be stronger to act.

Obvously opener here expected partner to hold ♠AK, otherwise (as Ben poited out) he should not bid 6♠, because he has only 2nd round control in ♥.