[ggwhiz]

Hanoi5, on 2013-May-17, 09:06, said:

You're red against red and the opening was at the second seat, what are the standards for that?

8 (ish) winners is our partnership standard. I understand that this does not appear to be the the mainstream view but with 7 (ish) and 1/2 decent defence we open 1 and rebid the suit a few times.

ArtK's example hands are not good enough for 4 without the ♥10 for us. Lacking that card (as cherdano points out) one would be 3♥ (pretty good hand in this seat) and the other would be a 1♥ opener.

That's in theory and we don't get them all right at the table.

[cherdano]

It is very unusual to play 4♥ as promising more than a minimum 1♥ opening.

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2013-May-17, 08:03, said:

We do not play NAMYATS. All red, you hold:
♠ A K J ♥ J ♦ J 9 8 ♣ A K 7 6 x x
(Pa)-4♥-(Pa)-???

IMO 6♥ = 10, Pass = 9, 5♣ = 7, 4N = 6.
2nd seat, vul, 4♥ shows a good hand, ♥J is a good card, and 6♥ may make on a blind lead.

5♣ (Sharples style) would show concern about ♦. Without 2nd round control, opener bids 5♥. Other bids are cues with ♦ control e.g. With 2nd round control and nothing much else of interest, he bids 5♦. 6♦ shows 1st round control. 5N shows solid trumps. The problem is that even 5♥ may be in jeopardy if we direct a ♦ lead

[MrAce]

I would pass easily.

[jallerton]

nige1, on 2013-May-18, 19:26, said:

IMO 6♥ = 10, Pass = 9, 5♣ = 7, 4N = 6.
2nd seat, vul, 4♥ shows a good hand, ♥J is a good card, and 6♥ may make on a blind lead.

Yes, 6♥ might make on a blind lead, but some people play in circles where the opening leader is encouraged to inspect his own hand before leading.

[the hog]

Pass. As pointed out above, 6H might make. I think it is a bad bid.
Pass = 10, 6H = 5

[bigbenvic]

Second set all vul pards will have 8 tricks in his hand. I have 4, 8+4 = 12 so I am bidding 6.

If not a regular partner this is harder but this isn't a seat to go nuts with wild pre-empts so since he had 3 as an option and chose 4 I still lean to 6.

At matchpoints 680 isn't a horrible score unless you think most are bidding slam so pass is in my thoughts but at IMPs I think that slam worth the score.

Make it 1st seat or change the vulnerabilities and it would change things - of course at unfavourable I will be even more likely to bid 6 but otherwise the power of partners hand or the range they could have would likely make me more cautious.

[aguahombre]

bigbenvic, on 2013-May-20, 20:01, said:

Second seat all vul pards will have 8 tricks in his hand. I have 4, 8+4 = 12 so I am bidding 6.

I remember those days. And Vul vs. not required 9 tricks (We hoped partner had one, so we wouldn't go minus.) I think I was 14; I am 68.

[bigbenvic]

aguahombre, on 2013-May-20, 21:12, said:

I remember those days. And Vul vs. not required 9 tricks (We hoped partner had one, so we wouldn't go minus.) I think I was 14; I am 68.

I understand your point however the gain/loss with having tight pre-empts at All Vul in 2nd seat is IMO sound bridge. I never played the 9pt version?? however the rule of 2 & 3 was common.

I prefer to play very wide ranging pre-empts in 1 and third seats and to a lesser degree in 2nd when favourable. But the value of being wide ranging here is not worth it IMO.

You have 3 ♥ available as well as a 2 level bid of some kind so 4 should be a lot more defined. You pre-empt partner 50% of the time when you are 'getting' someone, mitigating it a little here isn't a great impost.

[CSGibson]

bigbenvic, on 2013-May-20, 20:01, said:

Second set all vul pards will have 8 tricks in his hand. I have 4, 8+4 = 12 so I am bidding 6.

I'm assuming that you are ok with partner bidding 4H on 9 hearts to the KQ, correct, even with 3 small diamonds as part of the other 4 cards, correct? How about QT eighth of hearts with a side AK of diamonds? How about a more standard AQT eighth of hearts?

Your logic is false logic. Its how a person can bid 6N with AKQJT9 of a suit and out opposite a hand with AKQJT9 of another suit and out and wind up down 12 - you forget to account for the defensive tempo.

You may eventually have 12 winners, but maybe not before you have 2 or more losers. Guess what good players lead on auctions like this? They lead aggressively, frequently laying down aces, or leading from K's. I put a diamond lead at 60% or higher just looking at my hand, knowing they don't have the AK of either other side suit.

[bigbenvic]

CSGibson, on 2013-May-20, 22:11, said:

I'm assuming that you are ok with partner bidding 4H on 9 hearts to the KQ, correct, even with 3 small diamonds as part of the other 4 cards, correct? How about QT eighth of hearts with a side AK of diamonds? How about a more standard AQT eighth of hearts?

Your logic is false logic. Its how a person can bid 6N with AKQJT9 of a suit and out opposite a hand with AKQJT9 of another suit and out and wind up down 12 - you forget to account for the defensive tempo.

You may eventually have 12 winners, but maybe not before you have 2 or more losers. Guess what good players lead on auctions like this? They lead aggressively, frequently laying down aces, or leading from K's. I put a diamond lead at 60% or higher just looking at my hand, knowing they don't have the AK of either other side suit.

KQ to 9 yep, and I'll wear it, sorry pards.

QT to 8 and an outside AK are you mad partner! Its a 9 count with 7 of them outside your suit so NO not a 4♥ bid.

AQT to 8 and? That's only 6.5 winners what are the other cards? A ♦ card perhaps? If it's the Ace it probably doesn't meet the standard pre-empt term here as they'd have 2 aces, so KQ tight or KQx? That's an 11 HCP hand and again not a pre-empt in this seat! Or Kxx that's suck but will require the ace on lead so only half of your example.
As I have the 2 black AK's its hard for him to have 8pt in this case. The only hand I'd fear (other than KQT to 9 & AQT to 8 and Kxx) is a red 2 suiter but since my diamonds are specifically J98 his second suit quality would need to me KQxx. So as not to be to much like an opening hand, he'd have KQTxxxx as well, that's a 10 count that I'd certainly consider opening 4♥ as I'm aceless. I'd still have to really think about it as it's also openable at the 1 level.


It's all about position, 2nd seat isn't a seat I mess around with my 4 level major suit pre-empts. You cannot exact science everything, for slam to be right you need what 70% as a good approximate for it to be a winning action in the long run?

Change my diamond holding to xxx and honestly I'd consider pass a lot more. J98 kills too many of the holdings they could have here.

Just my opinion, happy to see it differ to others as everyone has their own style. But if partner and I are on the same wavelength and that's the point of partnerships and why we have so many discussions with our regular partner/s then my bid will be right about 85-90 % of the time and that's fine by me.

[uhhlv]

Let s look at ArtK78 example hands. You can see that 10 tricks are the maximum if you change the clubs and the diamonds.
Because I´ve much more cards in clubs than in diamond, the likelihood of a diamond shortness is lower than a club shortness. So I expect most of the time we´ll make 10 or 11 tricks. Certainly there´s the possibility of making 12 tricks, but an unlucky expert loses the forth diamond trick to the queen of hearts when he has x,Akxxxxx,xxxx,x. So even 4H aren´t safe.
I´d expect that the average number of tricks is below 11. So a slam try seems to be a bad idea.