[pclayton]

ArtK78, on Sep 17 2007, 08:03 PM, said:

We are not in agreement that 2♣ is idiotic. The only thing that is idiotic is to suggest that 2♣ is idiotic.

At least one poster has stated that the hand is "too strong" for a Namyats opening. Then, by definition, it is a 2♣ opening.

If you do not agree that it is a 2♣ opening, then it is a Namyats opening.

After reading all of the posts in this thread, I have reconsidered my original position and have decided that it is very close between a Namyats opening and a 2♣ opening. I think it is a heavy Namyats opening rather than a 2♣ opening, but I would not criticize a 2♣ opening on these cards.

This isn't necessarily true.

A 2♣ opening requires honor strength. A Namyats opening requires tricks.

A typical Namyats opening looks like: AQJTxxxx, Axx, x, x. I can strengthen by two tricks in two ways:

1. AQJTxxxxxx, Ax, x, void

2. AQJTxxxx, AKx, A, x

#1 isn't a 2♣ opener, but #2 is.

[ArtK78]

pclayton, on Sep 18 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

A typical Namyats opening looks like: AQJTxxxx, Axx, x, x. I can strengthen by two tricks in two ways:

1. AQJTxxxxxx, Ax, x, void

2. AQJTxxxx, AKx, A, x

#1 isn't a 2♣ opener, but #2 is.

I don't think your "typical Namyats opening" is good enough for a Namyats opening bid - at least not by my criteria. It is at least 1/2 playing tricks short of my definition of a Namyats opening bid.

And if you truly want to open your second hand (hand #1) 1♠ with 10+ tricks in hand, feel free. Not me.

[pclayton]

ArtK78, on Sep 18 2007, 09:55 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 18 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

A typical Namyats opening looks like: AQJTxxxx, Axx, x, x. I can strengthen by two tricks in two ways:

1. AQJTxxxxxx, Ax, x, void

2. AQJTxxxx, AKx, A, x

#1 isn't a 2♣ opener, but #2 is.

I don't think your "typical Namyats opening" is good enough for a Namyats opening bid - at least not by my criteria. It is at least 1/2 playing tricks short of my definition of a Namyats opening bid.

And if you truly want to open your second hand (hand #1) 1♠ with 10+ tricks in hand, feel free. Not me.

Art:

Most people's requirement for Namyats is 8-8.5 tricks. The hand I gave was 8.5 tricks. Maybe yours is higher, but the requirement isn't germane to the argument anyway.

When did I ever suggest something like # "1." above is considered a one bid? I'd rather open it 6 than 1, although I'd rather open 1♠ than with 2♣.

[ArtK78]

pclayton, on Sep 18 2007, 01:07 PM, said:

When did I ever suggest something like # "1." above is considered a one bid? I'd rather open it 6 than 1, although I'd rather open 1♠ than with 2♣.

I apologize if I gave the impression that you would open hand #1 with 1♠.

But do you really think it makes more sense to open it 6♠ than 2♣? Yes, it might work. But that is quite a position to take as an opening bid. To make 6♠ you need to find partner with a few well placed cards. And, with 3 aces, it is unlikely that the opponents can make anything (although they might have a paying sacrifice).

Personally, I would rather open the hand 2♣. At least I am not taking an irrevocable position on the hand with my first call.

[Fluffy]

I disagree with your namyats vs 2♣ arguments ArtK78.

By my definition, a 2♣ opening requires more defensive tricks than losers, if you cannot beat opponents in 5♦ ny yourself nor can you bid 5♥/♠ then you cannot open 2♣.

What good can happen after you open 2♣?, that you can set spades as trumps? only in dreams!, only good thing that can happen is that partner bids ♥s. Then you can better open 1♥ and enjoy his raises.


If you open 1♠ you might hear free bids (even raises are possible) from partner, if you open 4♦ You can trust more your partner's next bid (but you give up on slam). But There is no real gain from a 2♣ opening.

[ArtK78]

OK.

Here is the be all and the end all of my argument for opening 2♣.

Suppose you open 1♠ and the auction proceeds PASS-PASS-PASS.

Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No. It has happened before.

Can I set spades as trump after opening 2♣? Of course I can. Any intelligent partner will know that one possibility for a 2♣ opening bid is a hand with a very long strong suit and game in hand. After opening 2♣, a jump in spades or successive spade bids should let partner know that I have a single suited 2♣ opening bid.

As for the downside to opening 2♣, I don't really see one. With all due respect, your argument about being able to defeat a 5 level contract in your hand as a requirement for opening 2♣ or being able to bid at the 5 level by yourself just does not make sense.

Suppose you hold:

AKQ KQJ ---- KQJT987

Is this a 2♣ opener? Certainly. You can make 11 tricks in your own hand with clubs as trump barring a ruff. Can you guarantee that you will beat 5♦? No. For all that you know, the opponents could be cold for 7♦. Can you bid to the 5 level in a major suit with assurance of making? Of course not.

I admit that this is an extreme case, but this whole thread is dealing with an extreme hand.

[han]

ArtK78, on Sep 18 2007, 04:05 PM, said:

OK.

Here is the be all and the end all of my argument for opening 2♣.

Suppose you open 1♠ and the auction proceeds PASS-PASS-PASS.

Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No. It has happened before.

To whom?

Do you know anybody who opened 1S with a 14-count and 8-4 shape and this got passed out?

If this is the best argument that you can give then I don't find it very convincing.

[Fluffy]

by the way Csaba, will you post th rest of full hands?

[gwnn]

erm I can try.

2.

♠JTxxxxx
♣xx

I can't exactly remember what she held in the reds, but she had a little something. 4♠ can only beaten by 2 rounds of trumps from the defense. That wasnt the case at our table and +170 was not a great success. I really think my pass was wrong.

3.

This was something like

AQxx
KQJTx
JT
AK

opposite

KJxxx
x
AQxxxx
x

Any lead but a ♥ lets it through. I posted it from mere curiosity, not necessarily because I thought a ♥ lead was right. And, I posted it at night and I was still bothered by the kibs' contemptuous comments ("look, he found the only lead that gives the contract away" - this was vs the top favorites).

4.

I'm sorry, your minors were vice versa.

Pd has

Qxx
Qxxx
xxxx
Kx

and I had

AJ9xxx
-
KTxx
AQx

4♠ was an easy make, I didn't have to concede the looming diamond ruff as they were 2-3.

Needless to say, I just passed, but I'm not quite sure why. I still wonder what 3♦ and 3♣ would have meant from me. We had the agreement "natural game tries, we just show where our honors are" about 1M-2M, I wonder if this was applicable here also.

5.

This is quite embarrasing, I just passed and then disliked my +200 and -0 MP's. True, we had a little misunderstanding in defense and didn't have to concede that ruff and sluff, but +500 would have equally bad. Of course 3NT is the call because I have a stop but not trump tricks. I don't remember the exact hand, spades were 7-1-3-2 around the table (from LHO) and I think we had a 4-4 diamond and 4-3 heart fit. 3NT and 4♥ were both makes.

[ArtK78]

Hannie, on Sep 18 2007, 07:39 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Sep 18 2007, 04:05 PM, said:

OK.

Here is the be all and the end all of my argument for opening 2♣.

Suppose you open 1♠ and the auction proceeds PASS-PASS-PASS.

Improbable?  Yes.  Impossible?  No.  It has happened before.

To whom?

Do you know anybody who opened 1S with a 14-count and 8-4 shape and this got passed out?

If this is the best argument that you can give then I don't find it very convincing.

There are numerous stories of this type. I recounted one that I have heard attributed to Les Bart. It is an earlier post in this thread. The story goes that Les Bart held a hand with AKxxxxxxx of diamonds and possibly another honor card. He decided to pass to await developments. The developments were all pass. When his teammates heard about the passout, one of them asked incredulously "Did you really pass with AK ninth of diamonds?" to which Les replied "But they were AK EMPTY NINTH!"

It really is not too much different passing a hand with a 9 card diamond suit and about a 10 count and opening 1♠ on a hand with 8 solid spades and a KJTx of hearts on the side.

I personally have had a very odd experience with a passout. I was playing Blue Club, and I had a 3-5-2-3 hand, just short of a strong 1♣ opening bid, but good enough to canape into hearts. So, I opened 1♦. It went all pass. Partner had about a 6 count with 4 diamonds and 4 hearts. From my failure to open 1♣, he knew that game was unlikely. And he had 4 diamonds. Furthermore, it is not very likely that I would have a short diamond holding for a Blue Club 1♦ opening - not as likely as a Precision 1♦ opening. So he made a reasonable pass. I could not make 1♦ on the lie of the cards. However, even though it was not a good contract, 4♥ made at the other table.

Even with distributional hands, one must be aware that one bids do occasionally get passed out. Given that possibility, even if it is remote, one should not open with a one bid when one has game in hand. Find some other reasonable action, whether it be a 2♣ opening, a Namyats bid, or a game-level preempt. But a one bid should not be considered.

Quite frankly, I don't see how opening this hand with a one-bid is going to help you get to the right spot anyway.

[Fluffy]

Well, there are many more chances partner bids 2♥ or 2♠ over 1♠ than that there are for being passed out

[ArtK78]

Fluffy, on Sep 19 2007, 02:19 PM, said:

Well, there are many more chances partner bids 2♥ or 2♠ over 1♠ than that there are for being passed out

Agreed (although getting a 2♥ response is certainly a dream).

But why run that risk? And what will you gain from hearing partner's response to a one bid that you will not get from his response to 2♣, for example?

[pclayton]

We haven't brought this up in a long, long time, but hands with good, long suits, some shape, but only a few controls are not handled well by standard methods.

I used to play a 2♣ opening to show at 4-5 losers and at least 5 controls. The 2♦ opening had the same control requirement, but 0-3 losers. SEF has similar requirements for its 2♣/2♦ opening.

If you insist on requiring traditional values for responding to a one bid, then this method helps fill in a gap.

My partnerships these days respond on 3-4 counts, so these gap hands aren't as vital to show initially.

Han's point is very valid. If you pass with an 8 bagger, it almost certainly won't go swish.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Sep 19 2007, 09:17 AM, said:

Hannie, on Sep 18 2007, 07:39 PM, said:

Do you know anybody who opened 1S with a 14-count and 8-4 shape and this got passed out?

If this is the best argument that you can give then I don't find it very convincing.

There are numerous stories of this type.

The reason that these occurences become stories to begin with is because it's so absurdly unlikely. Kind of like how the media creates frenzies about things like shark attacks by blowing every one out of proportion, making people think they occur much more than they actually do.

Quote

Quite frankly, I don't see how opening this hand with a one-bid is going to help you get to the right spot anyway.

That's easy to see. After a 1♠ opening bid you have happy options of jump shifting in hearts or showing club shortness, either of which will help partner evaluate his hand much better.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Sep 19 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

Quote

Quite frankly, I don't see how opening this hand with a one-bid is going to help you get to the right spot anyway.

That's easy to see. After a 1♠ opening bid you have happy options of jump shifting in hearts or showing club shortness, either of which will help partner evaluate his hand much better.

No matter what you bid, partner will not be in a position to properly evaluate the trick taking potential of the two hands. Only if you managed to get partner to tell you what he holds - specifically, heart honors and the diamond ace - will you be able to properly evaluate the combined trick taking potential of the two hands.

And I submit to you that opening a one bid will not make the process any easier.

Here is an idea: Open 2♣, bid HEARTS naturally and then bid exclusion RKCB in clubs (showing a club void). Partner will tell you how many key cards he holds outside of the club suit with hearts as trump. Then bid to the appropriate level in SPADES. In order for this to work, you need a very understanding (and high-level) partner. I have seen this idea floated before on hands like this where you need to know some key cards but have no effective way of asking for them.

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on Sep 19 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

Here is an idea:  Open 2♣, bid HEARTS naturally and then bid exclusion RKCB in clubs (showing a club void).  Partner will tell you how many key cards he holds outside of the club suit with hearts as trump.  Then bid to the appropriate level in SPADES.  In order for this to work, you need a very understanding (and high-level) partner.  I have seen this idea floated before on hands like this where you need to know some key cards but have no effective way of asking for them.

If you bid 5♠ over partner's exclusion reply of 5♦, any high-level partner will know that this is a grand slam try for hearts. He will have to guess whether you are asking for ♥Q or third round control in spades, but depending on your RKCB agreements an understanding partner will get this right.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Sep 19 2007, 04:50 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 19 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

Quote

Quite frankly, I don't see how opening this hand with a one-bid is going to help you get to the right spot anyway.

That's easy to see. After a 1♠ opening bid you have happy options of jump shifting in hearts or showing club shortness, either of which will help partner evaluate his hand much better.

No matter what you bid, partner will not be in a position to properly evaluate the trick taking potential of the two hands. Only if you managed to get partner to tell you what he holds - specifically, heart honors and the diamond ace - will you be able to properly evaluate the combined trick taking potential of the two hands.

And I submit to you that opening a one bid will not make the process any easier.

Here is an idea: Open 2♣, bid HEARTS naturally and then bid exclusion RKCB in clubs (showing a club void). Partner will tell you how many key cards he holds outside of the club suit with hearts as trump. Then bid to the appropriate level in SPADES. In order for this to work, you need a very understanding (and high-level) partner. I have seen this idea floated before on hands like this where you need to know some key cards but have no effective way of asking for them.

That will work just brilliantly when partner bids diamonds over your heart bid and you bid exclusion keycard in diamonds. Or when he bids clubs and your exclusion keycard is actually a raise. Or when he bids 5♦ showing none and you bid 5♠...to ask for the heart queen. Just brilliantly.

[ArtK78]

I just floated an idea. It might work. But why would one ever bid exclusion RKCB in diamonds? Bidding hearts would only work if partner raises so you can bid exclusion RKCB in clubs.

As I said, it was an idea. You tell me how to locate the ♦A and the AQ of hearts without sophisticated methods?