[cnszsun]

Hand 1:

---

Hand 2:

---

I used to open 1S with both hands. Looking at your own hand, it's not a very standard 4M preemptive hand. But thinking about shuting up opps or making most pressure on opps, this may not seem a bad idea. Your potential loss is missing a good slam, but you gains from forcing opps making the last guess.
My question is what's your agreement on 4M openning and how does the vulnerability affect it?

[inquiry]

I guess i am still old school, I open both of these 1♠.. however, the first one, I might venture a 4♠ opening bid in third seat.

[Free]

both similar to me: 1&2 seat 1♠, 3&4 seat 4♠.

[joker_gib]

Idem for me : 1&2 seat 1♠, 3&4 seat 4♠.

[inquiry]

joker_gib, on Aug 11 2004, 10:01 AM, said:

Idem for me : 1&2 seat 1♠, 3&4 seat 4♠.

Second hand needs little more than a four spades opposite plus a minor suit ace to have some play for slam... and even three spades, club ace and diamond Queen a reasonable play. So it is too strong, imo, for a third or fourth seat4♠ bid. Now, rather or not you have the tools to get to slam opposite such meger values might affect your choice.

Ben

[whereagles]

I don't care much for slams. I'd open both hands 4S in any seat/vuln. With second hand, if they bid over 4S I double to show a strongish preempt.

Unless one is playing some relay system that pin-points the keycards in pard's hand, it might be difficult to reach a slam. And even then the slam gains probably don't compensate the gains from putting opps under pressure.

With second hand 1st/2nd, I might try a strong 1C opening if playing relay precision. Otherwise just open 4S.

[Free]

whereagles, on Aug 11 2004, 03:28 PM, said:

I don't care much for slams.

Good luck winning ANY major event with that attitude...

[whereagles]

Good luck winning anything AT ALL with pure constructive bidding...

[mikestar]

I open the first hand 4S: it has no defense whatsoever and good playing stregth. Missing slam is always possible with these 7-5 hands, but maximum premption is likely to be the winner.

The second hand is a 1S opener. Not the remotest chance it gets passed out and I can bid 4S at my next turn if partner is weak--even 1s-(2H)-P(4H)-4S.

This bid should show the playing strength for a 4S opener or a bit better, but with some defense (and useful side cards for slam) -- just exactly what I have.

[MickyB]

Free, on Aug 11 2004, 04:18 PM, said:

whereagles, on Aug 11 2004, 03:28 PM, said:

I don't care much for slams.

Good luck winning ANY major event with that attitude...

Over the course of a European Championships a few years ago, the English (or was it British?) Open team would have done better if they had not even looked at any slams. I've also been told that that isn't an uncommon situation (for a lot of bridge players, not just English ones). Given that there are some slams you *have* to bid (eg combined 34 count), and I'd imagine this statistic didn't include losses in the play or bidding due to investigation of slam, I think there is a fair case for being very conservative in slam bidding, particularly if you currently bid slams like a junior

[Trpltrbl]

1♠ both hands, 2 reasons.
I have the mastersuit and ZAR tells me too.

Mike

[pclayton]

One of the first lessons I received as a bridge adolescent was that you don't need to preempt with marginal hands holding the spade suit (and similarly, diamonds).

I made a similar comment on RGB about 10 years ago, and received plenty of flame.

I might try 4♠ in 3rd chair with either of these. With the 1st hand - probably 4th chair too; I'm a little worried about a sac.

The 2nd hand is too slammish even opposite a passed pard. I'd love to hear 3♦ fit showing.

[whereagles]

pclayton, on Aug 11 2004, 04:46 PM, said:

One of the first lessons I received as a bridge adolescent was that you don't need to preeempt with marginal hands holding the spade suit

There are two sides to that. If you open low, you sure can outbid opponents, but if you open high, they'll have to go one level higher to outbid you.. and they might not want to do that. One should be aware of both consequences.

[paulhar]

This thread seems to be missing a good reason not to open 4S on the second hand, namely, you don't have a clue as to what to do when they bid 5H or 5C. It might be your hand but your partner can hardly double if you could also have QJ10 eighth and out. If you double, and partner is close to broke, a redouble could cost you four figures. I know - it has happened to me recently on BBO when I tried a 4-bid on one of these hands as an overcall.

With thirteen hearts and eleven clubs out there, it seems likely that somebody will bid over 4S.

The first hand has close to the right amount of offense and defense for a 4S bid so I would do that against a stronger pair or if I needed a swing against an equal pair. If I think we're the better pair, I open 1S and increase the number of decisions made in the auction as well as decrease the number of flat out gambles by both sides.

[whereagles]

paulhar, on Aug 11 2004, 05:20 PM, said:

This thread seems to be missing a good reason not to open 4S on the second hand, namely, you don't have a clue as to what to do when they bid 5H or 5C. It might be your hand but your partner can hardly double if you could also have QJ10 eighth and out. If you double, and partner is close to broke, a redouble could cost you four figures.

Well, I did say what I would do if opps bid over 4S: I double. If pard is broke... well, too bad. But it's anyone's guess to bid over 4S, and opps definitely have to take the last one.

[mikestar]

pclayton, on Aug 11 2004, 03:46 PM, said:

One of the first lessons I received as a bridge adolescent was that you don't need to preempt with marginal hands holding the spade suit (and similarly, diamonds).

Why diamonds? High level minor suit preempts are quite effective--the opponents have both majors and may not have the tools or the bidding room to pick the right one.

[the hog]

"I think there is a fair case for being very conservative in slam bidding"

Disagree with this. I think there is a case for bidding 50%+ slams. Being very conservative is losing tactics.

[Antoine Fourrière]

In the final of the 1979 Bermuda Bowl (deal 29),

---

Garozzo opened 4♠ third in hand and played there, while Eisenberg-Kantar bid pass 1♠ 1N 3♦ 5♦ 6♦.

It cost Italy the title by 5 IMPs, but I'm sure Garozzo was right, and would have been right first in hand too.

[pclayton]

mikestar, on Aug 11 2004, 01:53 PM, said:

pclayton, on Aug 11 2004, 03:46 PM, said:

One of the first lessons I received as a bridge adolescent was that you don't need to preempt with marginal hands holding the spade suit (and similarly, diamonds).

Why diamonds? High level minor suit preempts are quite effective--the opponents have both majors and may not have the tools or the bidding room to pick the right one.

All things considered equal, if they have the spades & diamonds, we have the hearts & clubs.

With the lower ranking suit, try to neutralize their their ability to bid at the same level as us.

Its a little simplistic, but I think there is some wisdom in this approach.

[pclayton]

Antoine Fourrière, on Aug 11 2004, 03:08 PM, said:

In the final of the 1979 Bermuda Bowl (deal 29),

<!-- PARTNERSNS begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> ????? </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> ???? </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> Unknown </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> T7 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> K984 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AQJ2 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> 542 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AKJ8532 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> K8743 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Q </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- PARTNERSNS end -->

Garozzo opened 4♠ third in hand and played there, while Eisenberg-Kantar bid pass 1♠ 1N 3♦ 5♦ 6♦.

It cost Italy the title by 5 IMPs, but I'm sure Garozzo was right, and would have been right first in hand too.

Here's one of my favorite bridge stories. In the 1986 Bridge Week, at the age of 22, you meet Mike Lawrence and Peter Weischel in the 2nd round of a swiss. You lose the 1st round, and they are not to happy as they sit down, since they also lost their 1st match (the days before VP's).

The first board your partner forgets that a NAMYATS 4♦ opener shows spades and you misbid your way into an impossible 6N, doubled, down 3. 6 Boards to go, and a likely 14 in the hole.

You pick up as dealer, white on red:

♠AKQJTxxx
♥xx
♦xx
♣x

---

You are still a little shell shocked after the 1st board, so you PASS this fine collection. They efficiently bid to 7 of a minor using a splinter, and a really cool version of kickback grand slam force, that I haven't seen since. Well, you know this grand is ON ICE, due to the first board, so you take the sac for minus 500.

Win 4 IMPs. At the other table the auction went: 4♠ - (5♣) - all pass for +640. Regretfully, we still lost the match.