[helene_t]

Scoring: MP

---

Maybe I should supply some details about p, opps and state of the match. But since I'm curious about the experts' choice, let's say you're playing with your regular partner against expert opps and it's the first board in something like the Open Dutch Championsships, semi-final.

[Fluffy]

certainly something that shows diamonds, I have enough defence for a level 1 opening I think, 1♦

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

since you play precision, you should be able
to locate specific honor cards, assuming the
auction stays undisturbed.

If the opponents get into auction, you can always
bid 5D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

P_Marlowe, on Mar 4 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

Hi,

since you play precision, you should be able
to locate specific honor cards, assuming the
auction stays undisturbed.

If the opponents get into auction, you can always
bid 5D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Assuming the auction stays undisturbed is a strong assumtion. If you start with 1♣ or 1♦, it would (probably) go
1♦-(2♣)-2♠-(5♣)
?

[Fluffy]

1♦ opening gives me the info that ♠ is partner's suit, so 5♦ is probably enough now.

[hotShot]

With my regular partner, I have a systemic opening for any "strong" or distributional hand.

Without that I open this as 5♦, I hope partner will have 2 tricks.
Additionally I don't want opps to find their ♠? fit.

[hrothgar]

I consider this an easy 5♦ opening bid.
I don't even need to think too hard.

[Free]

I find a strong 1♣ opening wrong with this kind of hand. Opponents will compete (that's almost certain) and even higher than if you open natural. You're lying about your strength to your partner and this can cause several mistakes to happen because partner gives you more than you have. I prefer 1♦ or 5♦, because it shows what I have and doesn't lie about my defensive strength.

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on Mar 4 2007, 06:26 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Mar 4 2007, 01:23 PM, said:

Hi,

since you play precision, you should be able
to locate specific honor cards, assuming the
auction stays undisturbed.

If the opponents get into auction, you can always
bid 5D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Assuming the auction stays undisturbed is a strong assumtion. If you start with 1♣ or 1♦, it would (probably) go
1♦-(2♣)-2♠-(5♣)
?

5D, that was the plan.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

At matchpoints I find this a clear-cut 5♦ opener, followed by dbl if opps bid.

[pbleighton]

5D.

Peter

[dake50]

Give up the way too rare 3-suits 2D for 5+D natural. just this hand.
Partner may eventually see that his HKQ+CA(orDK) is slam stuff in the right place.

[Double !]

helene_t, on Mar 4 2007, 06:26 AM, said:

Assuming the auction stays undisturbed is a strong assumtion. If you start with 1♣ or 1♦, it would (probably) go
1♦-(2♣)-2♠-(5♣)
?

Helene:
isn't this sort of what you anticipated when you opened one diamond.
i'm not sure that this is a problem: i guess i'm missing some important inference.
What is wrong with bidding 5D over 5C at this point? Doesn't it describe exactly what you have? With solid diamonds and an outside ace one might have selected a different bid (e.g.: 1C).
I don't agree with opening this hand with a possibly pragmatic 5D and then doubling should the opps compete because 1) the opps might not compete, and 2) P will undervalue the combined trick-taking potential of the partnership by at least one trick and never play you for two aces AND a semi-solid 8 or 9-card suit.

perhaps now we need to invent a namyats-like opening for minor suits lololol

have a nice day/ evening

dhl

[hrothgar]

Double !, on Mar 4 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 4 2007, 06:26 AM, said:

Assuming the auction stays undisturbed is a strong assumtion. If you start with 1♣ or 1♦, it would (probably) go
1♦-(2♣)-2♠-(5♣)
?

Helene:
isn't this sort of what you anticipated when you opened one diamond.
i'm not sure that this is a problem: i guess i'm missing some important inference.
What is wrong with bidding 5D over 5C at this point? Doesn't it describe exactly what you have? With solid diamonds and an outside ace one might have selected a different bid (e.g.: 1C).
I don't agree with opening this hand with a possibly pragmatic 5D and then doubling should the opps compete because 1) the opps might not compete, and 2) P will undervalue the combined trick-taking potential of the partnership by at least one trick and never play you for two aces AND a semi-solid 8 or 9-card suit.

perhaps now we need ti invent a namyats-like opening for minor suits lololol

have a nice day/ evening

dhl

For what its worth, there is a NAMYATS type opening for 5 level preempts in minors. (I use a modified version in a lot of partnerships). Here is the treatment as described in preempts from A to Z

A 4NT opening shows:

1. An excellent eight or nine card suit
2. Sound playing values for the 5 level
3. No more than one loser in any suit

A 5m opening shows

1. An exception eight or nine card trump suit (never more than one loser in the suit)
2. No more than one outside Ace or King
3. Eight playing tricks NV. Nine playing trick V

Preempts from A to Z gives the following hand as a prototypical example of a red 5♦ opening.

♠ A3
♥ 74
♦ KQJ876432
♣ void

(My main "modification" is that I add most 7-4 hand patterns with a long minor into the mix)

[cherdano]

Double !, on Mar 4 2007, 10:33 AM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 4 2007, 06:26 AM, said:

Assuming the auction stays undisturbed is a strong assumtion. If you start with 1♣ or 1♦, it would (probably) go
1♦-(2♣)-2♠-(5♣)
?

Helene:
isn't this sort of what you anticipated when you opened one diamond.
i'm not sure that this is a problem: i guess i'm missing some important inference.
What is wrong with bidding 5D over 5C at this point? Doesn't it describe exactly what you have? With solid diamonds and an outside ace one might have selected a different bid (e.g.: 1C).
I don't agree with opening this hand with a possibly pragmatic 5D and then doubling should the opps compete because 1) the opps might not compete, and 2) P will undervalue the combined trick-taking potential of the partnership by at least one trick and never play you for two aces AND a semi-solid 8 or 9-card suit.

Don, what is wrong is that you would rather have bid 5♦ immediately if the auction progresses like this. Wouldn't you rather not let opponents find their 11-card club fit?

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Mar 4 2007, 08:40 AM, said:

Double !, on Mar 4 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 4 2007, 06:26 AM, said:

Assuming the auction stays undisturbed is a strong assumtion. If you start with 1♣ or 1♦, it would (probably) go
1♦-(2♣)-2♠-(5♣)
?

Helene:
isn't this sort of what you anticipated when you opened one diamond.
i'm not sure that this is a problem: i guess i'm missing some important inference.
What is wrong with bidding 5D over 5C at this point? Doesn't it describe exactly what you have? With solid diamonds and an outside ace one might have selected a different bid (e.g.: 1C).
I don't agree with opening this hand with a possibly pragmatic 5D and then doubling should the opps compete because 1) the opps might not compete, and 2) P will undervalue the combined trick-taking potential of the partnership by at least one trick and never play you for two aces AND a semi-solid 8 or 9-card suit.

perhaps now we need ti invent a namyats-like opening for minor suits lololol

have a nice day/ evening

dhl

For what its worth, there is a NAMYATS type opening for 5 level preempts in minors. (I use a modified version in a lot of partnerships). Here is the treatment as described in preempts from A to Z

A 4NT opening shows:

1. An excellent eight or nine card suit
2. Sound playing values for the 5 level
3. No more than one loser in any suit

A 5m opening shows

1. An exception eight or nine card trump suit (never more than one loser in the suit)
2. No more than one outside Ace or King
3. Eight playing tricks NV. Nine playing trick V

Preempts from A to Z gives the following hand as a prototypical example of a red 5♦ opening.

♠ A3
♥ 74
♦ KQJ876432
♣ void

(My main "modification" is that I add most 7-4 hand patterns with a long minor into the mix)

I've had a 4N opening on my cc as Namyats for the minors for 5 years, and it hasn't come up once.

I've never discussed what it actually shows with my pards, only that it is stronger than a direct 5 minor call.

[mr1303]

I'm following a new strategy with hands like this, by passing first up.

I'm awaiting my 9 card suits to try it out however.

[Winstonm]

I don't see a reason to allow the opposition exploration room, and I am pretty sure I want to play in...

5D

[helene_t]

Thanks. Here's the post-mortem.

Scoring: MP

---

I opened 5♦ making 7 as West did not lead a club. Maybe she should have. 13 tricks was 90% while 12 tricks would have been appr. 60% so the extra trick from the non-club lead was gold (many played 5♦+1).

My assertion that she would have overcalled 2♣ is probably incorrect now that I try to reconstruct the deal.

Double! said:

P will undervalue the combined trick-taking potential of the partnership by at least one trick and never play you for two aces AND a semi-solid 8 or 9-card suit.

Yes, I would have liked to open five and a half diamond and seriously considered 6♦. Slightly surprised that nobody voted for 6♦. Unfortuanetly, Ron's convention is not available. 4NT would have shown 6-5 in the minors. Maybe we should drop that convention, it never comes up.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Mar 4 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

Thanks. Here's the post-mortem.

Dealer: South Vul: Both Scoring: MP

♠ AKQxxx ♥ KQxx ♦   ♣ xxx ♠ Jxxx ♥ x ♦ xxx ♣ AQJxx ♠ xxx ♥ Jxxxx ♦ K ♣ Kxxx ♠   ♥ Axx ♦ AQJTxxxxx ♣ x

I opened 5♦ making 7 as West did not lead a club. Maybe she should have. 13 tricks was 90% while 12 tricks would have been appr. 60% so the extra trick from the non-club lead was gold (many played 5♦+1).

My assertion that she would have overcalled 2♣ is probably incorrect now that I try to reconstruct the deal.

Double! said:

P will undervalue the combined trick-taking potential of the partnership by at least one trick and never play you for two aces AND a semi-solid 8 or 9-card suit.

Yes, I would have liked to open five and a half diamond and seriously considered 6♦. Slightly surprised that nobody voted for 6♦. Unfortuanetly, Ron's convention is not available. 4NT would have shown 6-5 in the minors. Maybe we should drop that convention, it never comes up.

I don't think assumptions should be made based on the results of one hand - move the heart K to an opps hand and 6 diamonds is hopeless - or simply place the diamond K with another small diamond.

Although the hand is slightly strong for 5D directly, there is a lot to be said for bidding the maximum preempt right now (see Justin's blog on this point.)

The only decision is whether or not the hand is an opener or a preempt - once that is decided you live with your choice.