[microcap]

Team match , you are first hand V vs NV and you are dealt:

Scoring: IMP

---

What do you open, if anything, and what are your tactical considerations? Teammates and opponents are good players.

[helene_t]

4♠, this is the classical hand for this opening. (At least vulnerable. Nonvulnerable it might be too strong).

[paulg]

4♠ for me too. Second choice, but a long way behind, is 1♠.

Paul

[kenrexford]

3NT as Gambling, if allowed systemically.

[microcap]

sorry Ken, it isn't..

[kenrexford]

If 3NT is not allowed, then I want to open 3NT anyway. But, that makes partners mad...

So, I suppose I'll open 1♠. I truly despise opening 4♠ on a hand where 3NT screams as possibly the best final contract and my suit is spades. Opening 1♠ risks two things. First, it may pass out. If it does, I probably make seven tricks for a near-game swing. Second, I may have a decision at the five-level. I'm not all that concerned about the latter, as the chance of a 5-level decision that only occurs after a 1♠ opening (the opponents can bid over 4♠) seems more remote than the potential benefits of intelligent auctions after a 1♠ opening, including finding slam intelligently, finding 3NT, and stopping for a partscore.

[Apollo81]

microcap, on Oct 16 2006, 11:34 AM, said:

Team match , you are first hand V vs NV and you are dealt:

Scoring: IMP

---

What do you open, if anything, and what are your tactical considerations? Teammates and opponents are good players.

4♠. For each time this causes a problem it will save a disaster (that would happen if you did something else) several times, IMO.

[pclayton]

microcap, on Oct 16 2006, 07:34 AM, said:

Team match , you are first hand V vs NV and you are dealt:

Scoring: IMP

---

What do you open, if anything, and what are your tactical considerations? Teammates and opponents are good players.

I had this identical hand a year ago with the same vul. I opened 1♠ and only bid 3♠ over pard's invitational 3♣ call.

4♠ was cold. I've since learned

[mike777]

1s but will accept the invite.

[microcap]

Rex opened 1♠, which turned into a disaster later but for other reasons than the opening bid {All Rex's fault in case you were wondering!}

But I think this is clearly a preempt from experience. I know it fulfills the Rule of 22 and such things, but in real life, you have 1 trick on defense and 7 on offense. And why give opponents all the room in the world to find their minor fit [or even possibly ♥ ] over a simple 1♠ bid.

Hands with concentrated values need to be on offense.

Open 4♠ all day long IMO.

[mike777]

I guess 4s at this vul means whatever you want it to mean.....not 8 tricks....

[cnszsun]

4♠.
I think we can bid 4M rather than 1M most of time with such hands. Because of the strong preemptive effects, that can compensate some bad results, like missed slam, unnecessary overbid.

[sceptic]

4 spades it fits my 8 or 7/4 dist and it is a lot better than some of the crap I would bid 4 spades on

[jikl]

4♠ for me.

Sean

[the hog]

4S is such an obvious opening I must be missing something in the original post.

[HeartA]

Jlall, on Oct 16 2006, 07:22 PM, said:

not that I follow the rule of 2/3/4 but this hand is 8 tricks (7 spades and 1 heart). Or it is 5 losers if you prefer to count that way. If you count this hand as 7 tricks that means you think it is the equivalent of 7 solid 2-2-2 which is clearly wrong.

I agree that it is an 8 tricks hand (or 5-loser). On the other hand, however, this hand doesn't have defensive trick (at most one). I will open 4S.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure why there is such insistence that there is at most one defensive trick.

If partner has two spades, I have two defensive tricks when spades are 7-2-2-2.

If partner has one spade, I have two defensive tricks when spades are not 1-1-4 or 4-1-1 around the table.

If partner has no spades, and if I am on lead, I take three defensive tricks when spades are 3-0-3, two when they are 4-0-2 or 2-0-4, and one only on rare occasion.

In addition, if partner has a doubleton or a stiff, I may take a "third" spade via a trump promotion for partner.

This is a much more defensive hand than AQJ10xxxx in spades, for example.

Further, the 7411 pattern suggests that, if the opponents compete to the five-level, and if we cannot, they will often have trouble in any trump suit.

That solid spade suit might also gain another trick by virtue of a tap...

[HeartA]

How big is the possiblility for both opps to have at least 2 spades? Do your math. (hint: it's less than 40%).

[kenrexford]

"At most" differs from "a chance of more."

Also, the critical question is not how many cashing spade tricks we have. The question is how many cashing spades tricks we will have if the opponents will compete to the five-level after a one-level spade opening but will not compete to the five-level after a four-level spade opening. I'm not sure how this affects the odds, but it seems logical to me that the the chances of opposing doubletons in that small sample of deals is higher than expected.

Put another way. There is a group of deals that will yield five-level competition no matter what. There is also a set of deals where we will buy the contract at the four-level or lower. The only relevant group of deals, relevant to opening bid decisions, is that set where five-level competition will only happen if we open 1♠ and not 4♠. Or, perhaps more precisely, that set of deals where the odds of this problem are increased.

What variable will change the opponents' thinking?

Further, you also have to assess those auctions where partner will have information to also compete to the five-level and will do so in either auction.

Weighing all of this, my gut tells me that a 1♠ opening will face five-level competition that is not likely after a 4♠ opening, five-level competition that will result in different decisions from partner, when partner is short in spades. When partner is short in spades (stiff), I have a greater chance of defensive tricks from spades, it seems, than would be expected when partner can have 2-3-4 spades.