[badderzboy]

Scoring: MP

---

I had this hand in a teaching session and was torn between the options?

What would u open and what do u think of the alternatives?

Steve

[Fluffy]

Anything can work, neither option looks wrong to me, I would be more agressive against strong opponents, 4♦ looks right if avaible althou diamonds are a bit too good.

[jtfanclub]

Cool...we have four votes, one each for 1♦, 3♦, 4♦, and 5♦.

[jdonn]

I'm a bit torn between 1 and 4 so I didn't vote. Call me a waffler.

3 is the only choice that I find clearly wrong, this hand has way too much playing strength.

[han]

4D is my first choice, 5D my second, 1D my third. 3D I don't understand.

[Echognome]

I'm pretty sure I'd open 5 at the table. It could easily be wrong.

[Free]

Depends on the teaching level imo. If you're teaching beginners, an 8 card suit is usually 4♦ so I'd do that. Otherwise it's very difficult to decide imo

[gwnn]

I like 4♦ but somehow this time I'd just go for 5♦. good hand for the Burges agreement "don't raise my 5 level preempts without 4 aces"

[Gerben42]

This is not a good hand for teaching sessions. If you were playing "random" hands, teach the rule of 2 and 3.

In this case this means: 5 losers --> open 5♦.

[Cascade]

One or four for me. I voted for 4♦.

Our requirements for a five-level pre-empt are stronger than this.

[whereagles]

Seems like a textbook 4♦. 8 cards, no aces, very short on majors...

[Codo]

You are growing up Nuno. A year ago your choice had been between 5 and 6 Diamonds.

I bid 5 ♦ with convidence and await relaxed any further development.
Maybe my emotions will shift when I write down the - 800 in the score sheet and the tears in pds eyes are dropping to the floor, but such is life. Nobody forced him to play with me.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

5D

#1 1D depends on your agreements, but will only
delay the decision

#2 I dont think that 3D is a serious suggestion.

#3 4D is ok, playing MP 5Dx-3 is worse than their
game, and it is quite easy for them to go for blood
against 5D, but I usually bid at MP the same as I
would playing IMPs, and playing IMPs I dont care
about -500 vs. -420

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

Gerben42, on Mar 27 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

This is not a good hand for teaching sessions. If you were playing "random" hands, teach the rule of 2 and 3.

In this case this means: 5 losers --> open 5♦.

I never understood that rule.

First, the vulnerability of opps should be taken into account also.

Second, it is the difference between the offensive and defensive strength of the hand that determines the safety level, not the offensive strength per se.

Roughly, at equal vul you need O-D=7 to open at the 5-level since we need 9 tricks if opps have game but not slam. This is based on the somewhat dubious assumptions that
1) Opps will always make the right decision
2) P has O-D=0

I suppose assumption 1) is a little too conservative (only a little because part of it is that they would also make the right decision if we opened at a lower level, which is actually an aggressive assumption). OTOH the second assumption is too aggressive, especially because if p has positive O-D he would probably increase our preempt anyway. OTOH opening 5 has more preemptive effect than 4 raised to 5.

Maybe all in all the above rule is a little too aggressive so one should require O-D=7.5 for an equal-vul 5-level opening.

With one defensive trick and 7-7.5 offensive tricks I voted 4♦.

[whereagles]

Codo, on Mar 27 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

You are growing up Nuno. A year ago your choice had been between 5 and 6 Diamonds.

I learned that 4m preempts can be far more bothersome than 5m. Opps usually just double 5m, whereas they usually bid over 4m and may very well end up in a hopeless game (sometimes doubled by pard )

[skjaeran]

4♦. 5♦ more attractive at IMPs.

[jillybean]

1♦, I still have a partner.

[mikeh]

jillybean2, on Mar 27 2008, 04:22 PM, said:

1♦, I still have a partner.

Sorry, Kathryn, but opening 1♦ is the worst thing to do to a partner.

Partner will expect an entirely different hand, whether the opps bid or stay silent. No way will partner ever be able to evaluate accurately if you open 1♦.. even if you robotically rebid the minimum number of diamonds every time.

It is, in part, because you have a partner that you should, in my view and that of the majority of posters so far, open some large number of diamonds.

I'd open 5♦ at white v red. I open 3N at other vulnerabilities because I use 4♣/♦ for other purposes, and we can't reach 3N if I open a natural 4minor, but, given we play 4minor natural and preemptive, I echo whereagles' comments (wow, this may be a first: justin and me both endorsing whereagles' posts. I'm not sure who is more surprised.. me or whereagles I hope for more in the future!)

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Mar 27 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Mar 27 2008, 04:22 PM, said:

1♦, I still have a partner.

Sorry, Kathryn, but opening 1♦ is the worst thing to do to a partner.

Partner will expect an entirely different hand, whether the opps bid or stay silent. No way will partner ever be able to evaluate accurately if you open 1♦.. even if you robotically rebid the minimum number of diamonds every time.

It is, in part, because you have a partner that you should, in my view and that of the majority of posters so far, open some large number of diamonds.

I'd open 5♦ at white v red. I open 3N at other vulnerabilities because I use 4♣/♦ for other purposes, and we can't reach 3N if I open a natural 4minor, but, given we play 4minor natural and preemptive, I echo whereagles' comments (wow, this may be a first: justin and me both endorsing whereagles' posts. I'm not sure who is more surprised.. me or whereagles I hope for more in the future!)

The use of the modifier "still" suggests a knowledge of the imminent loss.