Too big to pre-empt?
#1
Posted 2009-June-04, 22:04
xxx
AKQJxxx
xx
x
Do you pre-empt 3H, or 4H?
Or do you count length points and open 1 H?
Or do you pass in first seat because you hold 3 spades?
This particular hand has touched off a lot of discussion at our club, with votes for all four options.
What is reason for your choice?
love
joan
#2
Posted 2009-June-04, 22:10
#3
Posted 2009-June-04, 22:11
If you play a convention showing a solid suit, (we use 3NT here for a solid Major), you could open that.
I open 4H, which is a bit aggressive, but I doubt you will get doubled, and there are too many hands partner could have that she will pass, where 4H is cold.
#4
Posted 2009-June-04, 23:29
#5
Posted 2009-June-05, 00:24
otherwise - 4♥.
Winner - BBO Challenge bracket #6 - February, 2017.
#6
Posted 2009-June-05, 02:21
All Vulnerable I am near the minimum for 4♥. I would probably open 1♥.
For completeness ...
Nil Vulnerable 4♥ is fine for me.
Favourable I am a maximum for 4♥ - I might again open 1♥ since we open a lot of rubbish at these colours.
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#7
Posted 2009-June-05, 02:21
For me, at game all, the difference between this hand and x AKQJxxx xxx x is the difference between opening 1♥ and opening 4♥. At adverse I'd open 1♥ on either hand.
#8
Posted 2009-June-05, 03:39
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#9
Posted 2009-June-05, 04:15
Well, this hand is very offensive. We score at the very best 2 tricks in defense, whereas we can make 7 ourselves in offense. Therefore 4♥ is really a wtp bid to me.
Or perhaps 3NT gambling, if you also allow majors into the bid.
#10
Posted 2009-June-05, 06:07
#11
Posted 2009-June-05, 12:48
#12
Posted 2009-June-06, 05:05
whereagles, on Jun 5 2009, 05:15 AM, said:
Well, this hand is very offensive. We score at the very best 2 tricks in defense, whereas we can make 7 ourselves in offense. Therefore 4♥ is really a wtp bid to me.
Or perhaps 3NT gambling, if you also allow majors into the bid.
There is a lot in what you say and I look at the difficulty any bid gives to my partner and the opposition. There is usually a down side to most bids but I would view the overall as being in favour of the direct 4 bid. Not getting into the 3NT with a pre-emptive major but would be interested to hear anyone that feels they would change their strategy with ♠ instead of ♥?
#13
Posted 2009-June-06, 10:40
If you have agreements that cover this sort of thing, like maybe the 3NT options that have been metioned (or whatever), then you should make the bid your agreements say.
In the absence of good agreements, then, if "vulnerable" actually means adverse, then, to my mind, 7 playing tricks is not enough for 4♥. If, under these circumstances, 3♥ means this playing strength, then 3♥ is fine - otherwise it has to be 1♥.
If "vulnerable" means equal, then 4♥ is a possibility - but the 3 spade cards are a bit of a flaw to my mind - kinda looks like if 4♠ is right for them they'll bid it anyway and if it isn't right, they probably won't be fooled - so maybe 4♥ won't work out. Also, there is the possibility of 3NT being a reasonable contract for our side. But on other hands 4♥ might work fine - so 4♥ is a bit of a gamble. In any case, opening 1♥ is OK.
Nick