[jillybean]

---

[mike777]

I would risk 4s here.

second choice would be 3s but am afraid west might bid 4s now. I suppose I could try 3s and then 4nt if west bids 4s??

[mgoetze]

The only bids that come to mind, really, are 5♥ and 6♥. Doesn't it seem quite likely that either 5♠ or 6♥ is making?

[manudude03]

I'm not jumping around here. What's to say partner isn't 5341 or something. I'll settle for a quiet 3C. I won't sell out to 4S, even if doubled, but if the opponents do shut up, we'd be in a much better spot.

[ArtK78]

3♠ is fine. If partner signs off in 4♥, that will be it for me. For slam to be reasonable, partner needs at least two good cards or features. The least he could have for 6♥ to be good would be the singleton or doubleton ace of clubs and the ♥J (to ruff the fourth club). Otherwise, I will need some combination of club honor(s) and the diamond A. Pard has to have at least one minor suit ace along with something useful in clubs. This is actually a lot to ask for.

I fully expect that the opps will bid more. I will also bid more. I have not yet decided how much more.

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2014-December-16, 09:05, said:

I would risk 4s here.

second choice would be 3s but am afraid west might bid 4s now. I suppose I could try 3s and then 4nt if west bids 4s??

I don't understand this at all, assuming that 4♠ is intended as exclusion.

Isn't partner's most probable response 1 keycard (followed by none, with 2 a distant third)?

What do you bid over a 1 keycard response, and why?

xxx xxx xxx AQx makes slam laydown

QJx Jxx AQxx Qxx makes slam poor, even tho I gave him 12 hcp!!!!

Qxx Jxx AQxx Jxx makes slam virtually unmakeable (requires doubleton AQ of clubs onside....good luck with that)

And so on

A useful rule to remember is that one should never....and I mean never...use keycard when a plausible response leaves you unable to know what to do. There will always be options, other than keycard, of which at least one will be better. Here, while nothing comes with any guarantee, by bidding 3♠ we show a very powerful hand, and involve partner beyond reducing him to a robot, as keycard does.

My own view is that dreaming of slam is just that: dreaming. I can't think of any sequence that could ever leave us or partner able to determine that we probably have play for 12 tricks. My concern, then, is to try to make the best 4 or 5 level decision, and, ideally, avoid the need to bid 5♥ at all. While we are favourite to make 11 or, sometimes, 12 tricks, there is no assured 5-level safety here.

QJx Jxxx Kxx Jxx is more than enough for a 2♥ raise and we have basically no play at the 5 level.

3♠ strikes me as the call that is most likely to inhibit an immediate 4♠ call, and that is what I would do. It also offers a remote chance that partner, with 2 Aces, might be able to do something that gets us to a slam, tho I doubt it.

Btw, in 3rd seat I would much prefer to open this 4♥. Slam is so remote, even if and maybe especially if, the opps stay out, that I would prefer to do my best to ensure that we play this hand. After all, we don't have much defence to 6♠!

[PhilKing]

3♥. It's time to walk the dog.

On a really good day, West bids 3♠ and we get "pushed" to 4♥. Far more likely is that West jumps to 4♠, and then our bid of 5♥ will look like a sacrifice ...

[wanoff]

3♣ - I start with a game try.

[mikeh]

PhilKing, on 2014-December-16, 12:10, said:

3♥. It's time to walk the dog.

On a really good day, West bids 3♠ and we get "pushed" to 4♥. Far more likely is that West jumps to 4♠, and then our bid of 5♥ will look like a sacrifice ...

Only against opps who haven't seen this movie before. That isn't to say that it won't work. My sense, from my limited playing these days, is that tactics like this have fallen out of use, to the point that the vast majority of average players wouldn't even think this could be happening.

You are giving up on slam, and you are risking playing in 3♥ when partner has 4 decent spades and a maximum, since 3♥ is never a gametry. However, walking the dog is a lot of fun when it works.

[Fluffy]

mgoetze, on 2014-December-16, 10:21, said:

The only bids that come to mind, really, are 5♥ and 6♥. Doesn't it seem quite likely that either 5♠ or 6♥ is making?

For me 5♥ would show a slam try with no spade control, and I think most players play that way too.

manudude03, on 2014-December-16, 10:29, said:

I'm not jumping around here. What's to say partner isn't 5341 or something.

Maybe we should double, partner will have some trump tricks in spades

Seriously, I don't think we should give up control on this hand, so making descriptive bids won't help. 3♣ or voidwood seem like best alternatives to me if we are gonna go scientific. But I'd rather bid 3♣ so we can still use partner's ♠A as a diamond trick on 6♥. I wouldn't mind some regular blackwood also to make extra noise in case partner gives a positive in clubs.

[Jinksy]

I'm not sure why I opened this 1♥ - I won't be happy whether it's passed out or whether people start bidding. Third in 4♥ looks more plausible. 5♥ also tempting, and I certainly prefer it to 1.

[Fluffy]

Jinksy, on 2014-December-16, 14:54, said:

I'm not sure why I opened this 1♥ - I won't be happy whether it's passed out

You wanna make it to someone's signature or something?

[jillybean]

---

If you bid 3♠, partner bids 4♦

Mike, I'm having trouble accepting that this is a 4♥ opener. I am closer to opening 2♣ than 4♥

[the hog]

3C sticks out for me. If pd can show C support I will know that it should be ok to bid 5H if necessary.

"3♥. It's time to walk the dog."

Only if you play against beginners which I seriously doubt you do.




"Mike, I'm having trouble accepting that this is a 4♥ opener. I am closer to opening 2♣ than 4♥ "

This is not within a bull's roar of a 2C opening.

[Phil]

I'm bidding 3♥ against competent opponents. 4♥ baits them to bid 5/5 and we don't want that.

It's the novices that you have to worry about here because they'll pass 3.

I really loathe 3♣. It helps the opponents at least as much as partner. 6♥ is such a narrow target anyway even if it's the right sac.

If you could choose a final realistic what would it be? And what's the best way to get there?

[neilkaz]

"Mike, I'm having trouble accepting that this is a 4♥ opener. I am closer to opening 2♣ than 4."

But you only have 8.5 tricks and 13 HCP. I think it is good to look for reasons to not open 2♣ and would insist on at least 9 tricks to open 2♣ with sub-minimal HCP.

Some may think this hand is too strong for it, but it seems like a good Namyats opener to me if you play it can be this good.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2014-December-16, 18:43, said:

---

If you bid 3♠, partner bids 4♦

Mike, I'm having trouble accepting that this is a 4♥ opener. I am closer to opening 2♣ than 4♥

The point is that one should think about how the auction will go.

If we were in 1st or 2nd seat, with an unlimited partner and a good hand, it would be foolish to pre-empt

In 3rd chair, we need to balance the pluses and minuses of our options.

Do we think that we have any realistic chance of intelligently bidding to a good slam after 1♥? It seems to me that even if LHO passes, there are very few sequences where we can identify what we need for slam and, just as importantly, find out that he lacks what we need. Opposition bidding is likely to make that no easier on most layouts.

In fact, I have real difficulty trying to construct good auctions to slam opposite hands where we have play. xxxx x xxxx AQxx is a good slam, but how on earth are we getting there even if the opps pass throughout? I know, there will be posters here who will proudly display their successful auction on any and all example hands I can create, but they are (usually) idiots who only bid well when they see both hands. I think we all know who they are. Back in the real world, while it is possible to bid some hands on some layouts, the reality is that reaching slam after a 1 bid is going to be difficult.

So, if reaching slam is unrealistic, why are we opening at the 1-level, and giving the opps all that bidding space? Heck, we can't even be confident of beating a small slam and if partner has a heart fit, we may be unable to beat a grand.


Far more problematic in the real world is that we can readily foresee that the opps may be able to get to 4♠ before the auction gets back to us. Imagine a Michaels bid on our left and rho with any hand with 5 spades. Imagine a jump overcall and RHO with 4 spades and a near opener, short in hearts. And so on.

Do we really want to have to play 5♥? No.

So why are we choosing, amongst rational options, the action that maximizes the chances of our having to bid 5♥?

Sure, they might be able to get to 4♠ over 4♥, but coming in at the 4 level at equal with a passed hand partner and no sure fit is not as easy as bidding over 1♥. In addition, if we do open 4♥ and partner doubles 4♠ we can pass happily.

In bidding, context is all important. For example, swap my majors and I would open 1♠, since altho my chances of reaching a good slam are no better, I am very comfortable about bidding 4♠ over 4♥ plus 1♠ pre-empts hearts far more effectively than 1♥ pre-empts spades.

[mgoetze]

Fluffy, on 2014-December-16, 13:29, said:

For me 5♥ would show a slam try with no spade control, and I think most players play that way too.

Even after partner passed initially and then made such a feeble raise to 2♥?

Of course, as mikeh said, opening 1♥ in the first place was the problem.

[Jinksy]

mikeh, on 2014-December-16, 11:33, said:

Btw, in 3rd seat I would much prefer to open this 4♥. Slam is so remote, even if and maybe especially if, the opps stay out, that I would prefer to do my best to ensure that we play this hand. After all, we don't have much defence to 6♠!

Didn't notice this bit initially. If you open 4♥ and 4♠ comes back around to you, will you bid five?

[whereagles]

I like the dog-walking approach. 3♥ for me too.

My experience is that this works better than expected.