[mike777]

"you have a truly annoying habit of saying"

I was trying to say it in a polite, respectful way. I was asking. I will stop it.

[CSGibson]

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 02:20 PM, said:

Or would you rank teaching your int/adv students other things much higher?

One of the areas that I think it is most important for expert players to instruct is slam bidding. Slams are hard to bid accurately. I would very much encourage any expert to share any insights they have into slam bidding, cue biddng, when to bid blackwood, etc.

Josh's post saying that he would not use blackwood on this hand, and instead bid 5 clubs to define his hand type if exploring slam is a perfect example of the type of expertise that keeps me coming back to these forums. Thanks

[helene_t]

Wow I was dreaming of 7 and all the experts pass. Something must be wrong with my judgment.

[kenrexford]

CSGibson, on Dec 21 2007, 02:34 AM, said:

mike777, on Dec 20 2007, 02:20 PM, said:

Or would you rank teaching your int/adv students other things much higher?

One of the areas that I think it is most important for expert players to instruct is slam bidding. Slams are hard to bid accurately. I would very much encourage any expert to share any insights they have into slam bidding, cue biddng, when to bid blackwood, etc.

Josh's post saying that he would not use blackwood on this hand, and instead bid 5 clubs to define his hand type if exploring slam is a perfect example of the type of expertise that keeps me coming back to these forums. Thanks

For my part:

Your hand is ♠x ♥AKJxxx ♦A ♣Axxxx

Give partner an expected good pattern of 4-3-4-2.

Unless partner has the spade Ace, you need to lose no club tricks. If partner has the club King, then you may be able to play club-club-club ruff, back to diamond Ace, ruff a club, as clubs probably split 4-2. So, opposite that hand, you need partner to have the heart Queen to make this safe.

Thus, ♠xxxx ♥Qxx ♦xxxx ♣Kx works. But, tweak to add a third club, and there is no hope for the slam. Make the club the Queen, and add a few Kings in there, and same thing. Look at ♠KQJx ♥Qxx ♦Jxxx ♣Qx. An 11-count, but no way to make 6♠.

An ideal hand from partner would include three of the four "key" cards -- spade Ace, heart Queen, club King, club Queen. With three of them, but not the club King, this is far from lay-down, but three works enough to explore further.

If partner had three of these, he should do something more helpful than 4♥. Maybe 3♠ to show the spade Ace, or maybe 4♣.

This is not an evaluation hand, therefore. Sure -- slam is possible. It is a partnership bidding hand. When you have a partner who respects the possible slam motivation to your 3♣ call and helps you, these hands become less difficult. You can trust partner to show that he "has it" when you need it.

Lacking that partnership mesh, you have a problem.

Now, even with partnership mesh, will partner recognize that a hand like ♠xxxx ♥Qxxx ♦xxxx ♣Kx is powerful? Maybe, maybe not. As we saw, the fourth heart is not necessary. Again -- maybe, and maybe not. However, this boils down to judgment.

My judgment is notsomething that I would cite, as I am overly aggressive at times. However, two thoughts convinced me to pass. First, I think that the perfect minimum will occur less frequently than the "down one" scenario at the five-level. Second, I am bolstered by that thought by the opposition passing. I only have 16 HCP's, and partner's perfect minimum is 5. If we have a COV in our two suits, the opps have a COV in their suits. And yet, no action. This suggests that the ideal is not there, or a tendency that it is not.

If I did move, I agree that 5♣ is the right way to do that. If my clubs were AJ9xx, I might be induced. Ace-empty needs a lot.

[Codo]

Without clear discussion, I would make a slam try. And I would choose 4 NT in a pick up partnership.
Not because it is the theoretical best way, but because I hope that it will lead to the best results in practice.

F.E. Kevin told us, that his pd will show a key card. But to Joshs and others interpretations of 4 Heart, he cannot have this card, he had bid 3 Spade with it, so I have no idea how the "best" way of 5 Club will lead to the best result.

In a regular partnership the reasoning is of course different. My partner will know to answer with a control to my 3 Club bid, so he had denied any values in Diamond and Spade, which makes slam not worse.

I think passing is too cowardish. If pd has xxx,xxx,xxx,KQx,slam it is on a finesse, 5 is nearly icecold and you can stop on a safe level. If he has xxx,xxxx,xxxx,xx, 5 heart is still possible and he surely has more then a yarborough for his bidding.

I doubt that pd can judge correctly over 5 Club what to do, so I try 4 Spade as a cuebid and hope that he will cooperate.

[foo]

jdonn, on Dec 20 2007, 08:39 PM, said:

Foo, sigh...

First of all, your post has a lot of redundancy. "Axx_QTxx_xxxx_xx is a 9 loser 6 HCP minimum w/o a side stiff or void and w/o a decent potential side source of tricks." is about 5 statements that say about 2 things. I understand that it's a 6 count with no shortness. On the other hand the 6 count is an ace and the queen of trumps, it has the ten of trumps, a fourth trump, and a doubleton where partner needs help. It started off as an above average 6 count, and each bid your partner made upgraded this hand tremendously, it is a clear 4♥ bid over 3♣. In fact it would have been a good example for me to use in my post on that auction!

I'm not sure what source of tricks you expect from a 6-9 count anyway, but this hand has them. Club ruffs.

And, your statement that partner may have 4 hearts is totally ridiculous. That's only if he is opening light, not if he is good enough to make later game tries.

As for style, we will have to just agree to disagree. There is no right or wrong answer there that can be addressed in a disccusion forum. Only using ATT results.
Let's just say we disagree on the evaluation of Axx_QTxx_xxxx_xx in this auction.

However, your last statement is, as you would put it, ridiculous.

Opening 4cM's in 3rd or 4th seat is relatively standard when playing the almost always played Drury. Even with good hands. Heck, =especially= with good hands when playing Drury.

DRURY IS NOT SO WE CAN OPEN GARBAGE.

Drury is so we can open lead directors without getting killed and so we can improve our game and slam bidding after 3rd and 4th seat openers.

Since just about every serious SA or 2/1 GF partnership I know of plays Drury, just about every serious SA or 2/1 GF partnership I know of opens 1M with 4cMs very often in 3rd and 4th seat.

So give me a 12-14 or 18+ 44(32) in 1st or 2nd and I open 1m.
But if I'm playing Drury I'm almost always opening that same hand 1M in 3rd or 4th seat. (This assumes We are playing Strong NTs of course).

[pclayton]

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 05:52 AM, said:

Opening 4cM's in 3rd or 4th seat is relatively standard when playing the almost always played Drury.  Even with good hands.  Heck, =especially= with good hands when playing Drury.

DRURY IS NOT SO WE CAN OPEN GARBAGE.

Drury is so we can open lead directors without getting killed and so we can improve our game and slam bidding after 3rd and 4th seat openers.

I don't know of a single serious player or partnership that systemically plays 5 card majors and opens 4 card majors in 3rd seat with a good hand.

Opening a 4 card major in 3rd seat with something like: AKJx, x, Qxxx, AQxx because we'd like a lead director borders on the insane.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Dec 21 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 05:52 AM, said:

Opening 4cM's in 3rd or 4th seat is relatively standard when playing the almost always played Drury.  Even with good hands.  Heck, =especially= with good hands when playing Drury.

DRURY IS NOT SO WE CAN OPEN GARBAGE.

Drury is so we can open lead directors without getting killed and so we can improve our game and slam bidding after 3rd and 4th seat openers.

I don't know of a single serious player or partnership that systemically plays 5 card majors and opens 4 card majors in 3rd seat with a good hand.

Opening a 4 card major in 3rd seat with something like: AKJx, x, Qxxx, AQxx because we'd like a lead director borders on the insane.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this.

There is one hand pattern on which I would open 1♥ in 3rd or 4th with a goodish hand: precisely 1=4=4=4.

This is because with, say, x AKJx Qxxx AQxx, I would be embarrassed for a rebid after 1♦ (or, worse, 1♣) 1♠... what do I bid now? I am not asking this rhetorically: I would like to hear from Phil and Josh how they would handle this hand if partner bid 1♠ over our 1♦... and if anyone out there thinks that 1♣ is technically the correct opening... I really look forward to your answer

I think that this is literally the only hand-type where I would contemplate a 4 card major on a good hand, and it doesn't apply to hands with a 4 card spade suit, since I am never embarrassed for a rebid on those.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Dec 21 2007, 09:13 AM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 21 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

foo, on Dec 21 2007, 05:52 AM, said:

Opening 4cM's in 3rd or 4th seat is relatively standard when playing the almost always played Drury.  Even with good hands.  Heck, =especially= with good hands when playing Drury.

DRURY IS NOT SO WE CAN OPEN GARBAGE.

Drury is so we can open lead directors without getting killed and so we can improve our game and slam bidding after 3rd and 4th seat openers.

I don't know of a single serious player or partnership that systemically plays 5 card majors and opens 4 card majors in 3rd seat with a good hand.

Opening a 4 card major in 3rd seat with something like: AKJx, x, Qxxx, AQxx because we'd like a lead director borders on the insane.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this.

There is one hand pattern on which I would open 1♥ in 3rd or 4th with a goodish hand: precisely 1=4=4=4.

This is because with, say, x AKJx Qxxx AQxx, I would be embarrassed for a rebid after 1♦ (or, worse, 1♣) 1♠... what do I bid now? I am not asking this rhetorically: I would like to hear from Phil and Josh how they would handle this hand if partner bid 1♠ over our 1♦... and if anyone out there thinks that 1♣ is technically the correct opening... I really look forward to your answer

I think that this is literally the only hand-type where I would contemplate a 4 card major on a good hand, and it doesn't apply to hands with a 4 card spade suit, since I am never embarrassed for a rebid on those.

Mike, what does this bidding problem with a 1444 have to do with a 3rd seat opening?

If I hold: x, AQxx, KJxx, AQxx I have a problem in any seat. The fact that I'm systemically allowed to open 1♥ doesn't matter that much to me, although I do recognize that pard isn't necessarily running back to 2♥ on a 3=2=4=4 after 1N for instance. That's the only material contrast to a 1/2 opening.

If my hearts are strong enough I have no qualms opening a 1444 with 1♥ in any seat. Usually I will open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ (and 2♥ over 2♦) but sometimes I'll fudge and open it 1N if my singleton is an honor.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Dec 21 2007, 12:13 PM, said:

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this.

There is one hand pattern on which I would open 1♥ in 3rd or 4th with a goodish hand: precisely 1=4=4=4.

This is because with, say, x AKJx Qxxx AQxx, I would be embarrassed for a rebid after 1♦ (or, worse, 1♣) 1♠... what do I bid now? I am not asking this rhetorically: I would like to hear from Phil and Josh how they would handle this hand if partner bid 1♠ over our 1♦... and if anyone out there thinks that 1♣ is technically the correct opening... I really look forward to your answer  

I think that this is literally the only hand-type where I would contemplate a 4 card major on a good hand, and it doesn't apply to hands with a 4 card spade suit, since I am never embarrassed for a rebid on those.

You are missing the point. He is trying to claim that it is normal, playing 5 card majors, to open 4 card majors on any strength hand in third seat, rather than merely on light hands. I know you don't believe this, nor can I believe that anyone does. I don't know why he would think you need a lead director when you aren't light.

Your example is a bidding problem but has nothing to do with third seat as far as I can see, nor would your view probably be majority anyway, nor would it matter if it was since that is just one difficult shape. It is simply an unrelated discussion that is interesting in its own right.

[foo]

*sigh* I'm not advocating opening with a lead director on normal opening hands.

I'm advocating opening with 4cM's in 3rd or 4th playing Drury with normal strength hands because it is winning bridge to do so. Not because I am suggesting that one should be making lead directing bids with normal opening strength hands.

Suit quality does matter even with normal opening hands, but it is a minor consideration compared to the implication that you are trying to make that a 4cM opening is always lead directing.
Lead direction is the main point only when the hand is a subminimum.

(The important point here is to not open garbage in 3rd. Subminimums with bad or indifferent 4cMs should be passed. Not opened.)

As I originally stated, a 3rd seat opening of 1M is =either=
a= a lead director in a subminimum opening hand OR
b= a 4cM in a normal opening strength hand appropriate for a 4cM opening.

With pclayton's example of AKJx_x_Qxxx_AQxx , OF COURSE I'd open it 1C.
In any seat.

But give me some of the "problem hands" for 1st and 2nd chair openings playing 5cM's: 44(32)'s, =2425 or =2452 not strong enough to reverse, mikeh's example of =1444, etc etc and Drury allows a 4cM opening to be much more safely considered.

[benlessard]

In IMPS 3 level bid after a raise are more often slam try then game try. Game try in imps = you bid game and you try to make it. So for me 4H would deny a keycard denies the Q of trumps or 4 trumps, denies the K of in my side suit. So i can easily pass 4H

Bidding 4H instead of 3C is a bad bid unless you play drury with 8-9 pts.

[benlessard]

Quote

I don't know of a single serious player or partnership that systemically plays 5 card majors and opens 4 card majors in 3rd seat with a good hand.

complete nonsense

When game is unlikely its much prefer to open a good 4M then a weak 3 card suit. It has nothing to do with rebids or 4441 shape or having 12 pts instead of 9. In 3rd seat lead directing is very important.

AKQx
xx
Jxxx
Qxx

AKQx
x
xxxx
Kxxx

KJx
AKQx
xxx
xxx


These are all clearcut 1M opening in 3rd seat. Game is unlikely you can easily pass most responses by partner.

[cherdano]

benlessard, on Dec 24 2007, 06:52 PM, said:

Quote

I don't know of a single serious player or partnership that systemically plays 5 card majors and opens 4 card majors in 3rd seat with a good hand.

complete nonsense

When game is unlikely its much prefer to open a good 4M then a weak 3 card suit. It has nothing to do with rebids or 4441 shape or having 12 pts instead of 9. In 3rd seat lead directing is very important.

AKQx
xx
Jxxx
Qxx

AKQx
x
xxxx
Kxxx

KJx
AKQx
xxx
xxx


These are all clearcut 1M opening in 3rd seat. Game is unlikely you can easily pass most responses by partner.

Another typical example of the non-sense conversation that is produced when someone replies without having read the thread. In the context of the thread, "good hand" clearly meant a hand that is good enough to make a game try over a single raise.

[benlessard]

Sorry it wasnt that clear to me.

Quote

That's only if he is opening light, not if he is good enough to make later game tries.

Quote

*sigh* I'm not advocating opening with a lead director on normal opening hands.

I'm advocating opening with 4cM's in 3rd or 4th playing Drury with normal strength hands because it is winning bridge to do so. Not because I am suggesting that one should be making lead directing bids with normal opening strength hands.

Suit quality does matter even with normal opening hands, but it is a minor consideration compared to the implication that you are trying to make that a 4cM opening is always lead directing.
Lead direction is the main point only when the hand is a subminimum.