[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Dec 19 2006, 06:54 AM, said:

Difficult question for me to answer since I'll open almost all 7-4 patterns with 4M or 5m.

That's a very wide range. How does partner judge what to do?

[Cascade]

For me 3♣ and 2♦ have the same minimum requirement and I am loathe to go all the way to 3♣ without showing my second suit.

I would reverse with four diamonds and five clubs so the question for me is do the two extra clubs make up for the lack of high-card points?

I think they do so I bid 2♦.

I would bid the same way at any form of scoring.

[flytoox]

I bid 3C, and I agree with Mikeh's post. 2D is about card strength, but 3C is more about playing strength.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Dec 19 2006, 04:22 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 19 2006, 06:54 AM, said:

Difficult question for me to answer since I'll open almost all 7-4 patterns with 4M or 5m.

That's a very wide range. How does partner judge what to do?

Hi Wayne

In general, I favor fairly disciplined methods. If I open 1♥ or 2♦ or what have you, I want partner to be well positioned to take the "right" action with his hands. (What these bids happen to describe, thats another story that can be left for later).

For the most part, this same philosphy holds true for my high level preempts. In particular, if I preempt in first or second seat my preemptive openings are pretty well defined. However, the definition looks something like this:

4S = Either a weak 4 level preempt in a major OR any 7-4 pattern unsuitable for a strong club opening.
The response structure that we use does not cater to the extremely undisciplined and wide ranging 7-4 patterns.

If partner wants to investigate slam, he does so under the assumption that we have a bad 4 level preempt that is unsuitable for a NAMYATS type opening.

Note that its possible for the 7-4 pattern to be significantly stronger than partner expects, but not significantly weaker. We might miss some slams this way, but we shouldn't end up bidding any really bad ones.

In a similar fashion, a 5m preempt shows either a normal 5m preempt or some 7-4 pattern. (For what its worth, I normally use my 4NT opening to show a good 5 level preempt in either minor. Once again, this helps ensure that the 7-4 pattern can be stronger than expected, however, it shouldn't be significantly weaker)

In general, I'm happy with this approach. As I said early in this thread, the 7-4 patterns are a royal pain in the butt. I've never been convinced that standard methods handle these patterns very well. Yes you CAN modify your reverse structure to accomodate hands like this one, but that places a lot of strain on the rest of the system. Furthermore, with this much shape it makes it highly likely that the opponents are going to be able to throw a spanner into the works.

I prefer to get the hand off my chest from the get go, blocking the opponents from describing their hands and preserving the integrity of my constructive openinng structure.

[HeartA]

I am with 3C rebid.

[the hog]

If I opened 1C, I would now rebid 2C. This hand is not goo enough to reverse to 2D. AWM totally misses the point. A reverse shows a hand which is good enough not just to force to the three levl, but also to designate a particular point count. This hand does not fit thebill.

I would be close to a 5C opening on this; I agree with Richard.

[HeartA]

mikeh, on Dec 18 2006, 05:26 PM, said:

Take AQx KJxx x AJxxx

You open 1♣, partner bids 1♠. Do you reverse? Assume the 'x's are deuce-equivalents. If you'd reverse and think nothing of it, you are a member of the light reverse school.... and this is a great hand on which to belong to that school. If you
would either not reverse or you'd do it, hating the need to overbid this way, you're either a member of the strong reverse school or you'd like an application form.

Don't ask me what I'd bid with this hand: one of the benefits of being a charter member of the strong reverse school is that you never hold these hands

I belong the strong reverse group. But I would consider rebidding 2H when pd respond 1S since I have a fit. If pd responds 1D, I would rebid 1H.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Dec 20 2006, 12:57 AM, said:

If I opened 1C, I would now rebid 2C. This hand is not goo enough to reverse to 2D. AWM totally misses the point. A reverse shows a hand which is good enough not just to force to the three levl, but also to designate a particular point count. This hand does not fit thebill.

I would be close to a 5C opening on this; I agree with Richard.

much much closer to 5c opener than 2c rebid assuming no roth/stone

[hrothgar]

It occured to me that looking at the 7-4 hand patterns might be an interesting application for Bridge Browser. More specifically

1. Find the set of all hands with 7-4 hand patterns that get to choose an opening bid.

2. Identify strain and level. How often to people play a contract other than their seven card suit? How often do they defend? How often are they able to buy the contract at a low level?

3. Look at hands where open chose to open at the one level. Identify the frequency of competitive auction.

[inquiry]

Looking for 74 opening hands with bridgebrowser is trivial, and discovering contested versus uncontested auctions is also fairly painless. With the plotting routines, it is also dirt easy to tell if you played in yoru seven card suit or not. Just not sure what the criteria for determining the right bid is? There are many different 74 type hands.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Dec 20 2006, 11:01 PM, said:

Looking for 74 opening hands with bridgebrowser is trivial, and discovering contested versus uncontested auctions is also fairly painless. With the plotting routines, it is also dirt easy to tell if you played in yoru seven card suit or not. Just not sure what the criteria for determining the right bid is? There are many different 74 type hands.

Hi Ben

If I had to establish a rule set for hands where I'd chose to open 4M or 5m with a 7 card suit it would be something like the following:

1. Suit quality for the seven card suit. 8765432 looks much more like a 6 card suit than a seven carder. Ideally, I'd like HHxxxxx of better in the suit, but I'll settle for Q98xxxx, KTxxxxx or better.

2. There are limits to everything. If I have a suitable hand with really good prospects on offense and defense, I'll sometime prefer to open at the one level.

Ax
KQT3
---
AQJxxxx

If possible, lets constrain the bids based on suit quality on the low end and eliminate all hands with 17+ HCP on the high end

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on Dec 20 2006, 10:21 PM, said:

If I have a suitable hand with really good prospects on offense and defense, I'll sometime prefer to open at the one level.

A
KQT3
Kxx
AQJxxxx

Hum.. a 1-4-3-7? Which game are you playing?

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Dec 21 2006, 02:15 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 20 2006, 10:21 PM, said:

If I have a suitable hand with really good prospects on offense and defense, I'll sometime prefer to open at the one level.

A
KQT3
Kxx
AQJxxxx

Hum.. a 1-4-3-7? Which game are you playing?

Wow...

I'm often bad at proofreading, spelling, and the like but this is bad even for me
I corrected the original hand

[helene_t]

I think I'll rebid 2♣, allthough it's close. 3♣ would be the most best describing bid in the school I was brought up with, but I don't really like the idea that 2♦ has a lower lower-limit than has 2♦. 3♣ ought to be very well defined, especially if/since it's not forcing.

I know my hand will probably turn out to be worth (much) more than this bid suggests. But it's easier to show extra values than to show less values later on in the auction. The silence of the opps shows that we have a misfit (to the extent that a misfit is possible with this shape) and/or that p has a monster. If he jumps to 3NT now (which is quite likely) I will rebid 4♦ and probably insist on slam.

Btw, I would probably have opened 5♣ allthough that's close, too.