[dchui]

3rd hand, unfavourable Vul (Vul vs Non-Vul)

After 2 passes, will you open with the following hand?

♠ 98653
♡ ------
♢ AKJ984
♣ 52



Thanks,
Daniel

[Winstonm]

2d

[Cascade]

1♦ we might even have a game and this is the second best way to find a spade fit. The best is to bid spades but I am not doing that with five-small and AKJ-sixth on the side.

[the hog]

Sure I am opening this. Wilkosz 2D or some other multi if I am playing that. Else 1S if playing in unenlightened countries. I am not hiding a 5 card S suit.

[Winstonm]

Two passes to me an I've got 8 high cards? Sorry, but I'm not thinking game and I'm not trotting out spades because I am pre-empting this sucka where I live - 2 diamonds.

I am going to make my LHO tear off all of his precious non-contested auction convention card and use nothing but that little square in the top left that says "defensive bidding". And good luck to us all.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Jan 2 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

Two passes to me an I've got 8 high cards? Sorry, but I'm not thinking game and I'm not trotting out spades because I am pre-empting this sucka where I live - 2 diamonds.

I am going to make my LHO tear off all of his precious non-contested auction convention card and use nothing but that little square in the top left that says "defensive bidding". And good luck to us all.

Good to see you haven't changed your mind since yesterday

I'll go for 3♦.

[dicklont]

2♠ Muiderberg.
Showing 5 spades and 4+ in a minor suit.
When vulnerable it is 5-5 or some other distributional extra.

This makes it just a bit harder for them to find the heart suit, although the lead directional value is at its lowest.

[Fluffy]

3♦

[whereagles]

3♦ or 1♠, depending on how I feel. Prefer the later under normal circumstances.

[Codo]

There would be no point in asking what to do, if you have a way to show a two suiter.
With standard agreements, I would pass and later bid a twosuiter or let them play with these bad breaking suits.

[qwery_hi]

dchui, on Jan 1 2009, 10:39 PM, said:

3rd hand, unfavourable Vul (Vul vs Non-Vul)

After 2 passes, will you open with the following hand?

♠ 98653  
♡ ------ 
♢ AKJ984     
♣ 52  
   


Thanks,
Daniel

I will pass.

I feel this hand has too much defense and multiple offensive capabilities for even a 3rd seat preempt. I'm not sure they will bid slam.

1. If spades/hearts is their suit, I'm not sure I want to preempt then from finding it. Partner could have 4 good hearts. Opening 1 or 2 ♦ will not prevent them from finding it. 3♦ might, but see above.

2. If clubs is their suit, I will still get a chance to preempt 3♦ after I hear what partner has to say the second time around.

3. If it goes 1♥ - X, I can still bid spades.

4. I guess I will lose big time if it goes 2♣ - pass - 3♣.

[Fluffy]

qwery_hi, on Jan 2 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

1. If spades/hearts is their suit, I'm not sure I want to preempt then from finding it. Partner could have 4 good hearts. Opening 1 or 2 ♦ will not prevent them from finding it. 3♦ might, but see above.

4-3 fit is found a lot more often if you open 3♦ than if you do not.

[MFA]

I think that 3♦ works badly in the long run. The spades are just too important to bury like that.
So I'll try 1♦.
This exact hand came up in Beijing, but I think the vulnerability (and perhaps also the position) was different, so the board is probably not from there anyway.

[qwery_hi]

Fluffy, on Jan 2 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jan 2 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

1. If spades/hearts is their suit,  I'm not sure I want to preempt then from finding it. Partner could have 4 good hearts. Opening 1 or 2 ♦ will not prevent them from finding it.  3♦ might, but see above.

4-3 fit is found a lot more often if you open 3♦ than if you do not.

Thanks. This seems right intuitively, but I don't have the experience or judgement to back it up.

Its interesting that this then would be the #1 for me to open 3♦ on this hand.

However, if I bid 3♦ and the auction reaches 4♠, I wouldn't envy partner who could be looking at a small spade singleton and diamond length.

[gnasher]

3♦. 2♦ seems rather feeble, and any spade bid misdirected.

[Winstonm]

gnasher, on Jan 2 2009, 07:18 PM, said:

3♦. 2♦ seems rather feeble, and any spade bid misdirected.

Did you notice we are vulnerable against not vulnerable?

[neilkaz]

3♦ for me inspite of vulnerability since I am in 3rd seat. PD has to hold a perfecto for us to miss a 4♠ game and sometimes the opps may bid to 5 round anyhow and we can't set them.

I don't care for 1♠ with such a poor 5 carder and 8 HCP and 2♦ doesn't preempt enough for me in 3rd seat.

If 3♦ works out poorly, I am prepared to appologize to PD and if PD takes the wrong call over 3♦ I won't criticize. Note that PD won't sac very often at these colors over their round suit game.

Hmm..some reasons to not bid 3♦ I have given but it still is my call in 3rd seat.

[gnasher]

Winstonm, on Jan 3 2009, 04:43 AM, said:

Did you notice we are vulnerable against not vulnerable?

Yes.

[MFA]

neilkaz, on Jan 3 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

3♦ for me inspite of vulnerability since I am in 3rd seat. PD has to hold a perfecto for us to miss a 4♠ game and sometimes the opps may bid to 5 round anyhow and we can't set them.

I don't care for 1♠ with such a poor 5 carder and 8 HCP and 2♦ doesn't preempt enough for me in 3rd seat.

If 3♦ works out poorly, I am prepared to appologize to PD and if PD takes the wrong call over 3♦ I won't criticize. Note that PD won't sac very often at these colors over their round suit game.

Hmm..some reasons to not bid 3♦ I have given but it still is my call in 3rd seat.

"A perfecto" is a stretch.
There is play for a vulnerable game opposite ♠Axxx out.
As for their 5 level contract, we do have ♦AK. I'm more worried about selling to 4♥ making, but are some of you 3♦-bidders planning to get back in later? Guess not.
I don't like that bid.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

I have been wrong before.

With kind regards
Marlowe