It's a sectional Swiss and your opponents are fairly decent at your
table but your counterparts are weak. On the other hand, your
teammates are a good player except that he didn't play for about
twenty years and just came out of retirement and an inexperienced
player.
You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
first seat, no one vulnerable:
XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
bid) and 4H
> It's a sectional Swiss and your opponents are fairly decent at your
> table but your counterparts are weak. On the other hand, your
> teammates are a good player except that he didn't play for about
> twenty years and just came out of retirement and an inexperienced
> player.
> You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
> first seat, no one vulnerable:
> XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
> What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
> bid) and 4H
> --
> Will in New Haven
1H - 10
4C - 8
P - 3
3H - 0
4C is sort of ok, but with the top cards in the wrong suit I don't
like it. If the void were in spades I might try it anyway.
Pass seems to me an odd psyche since the hand is certainly worth a 1-
bid.
In article
<23af0882-de8f-404a-b9a5-b2370aede...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> It's a sectional Swiss and your opponents are fairly decent at your
> table but your counterparts are weak. On the other hand, your
> teammates are a good player except that he didn't play for about
> twenty years and just came out of retirement and an inexperienced
> player.
> You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
> first seat, no one vulnerable:
> XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
> What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
> bid) and 4H
IMO, 1H is the "least bad" of the alternatives. You have a 5-loser
hand with what appears to be two defensive tricks outside of your long
suit.
4C is about right on playing strength, but seriously midescribes the
defensive potential, making it almost impossible for partner to
correctly evaluate if (when?) the opponents compete. 3H as an
alternative has to be a joke. 4H, like 4C, makes it really difficult
for partner to operate intelligently if the opponents compete. Passing
with a 5-loser hand seems like a really unilateral approach.
On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:53:50 -0800, Will in New Haven wrote:
> It's a sectional Swiss and your opponents are fairly decent at your
> table but your counterparts are weak. On the other hand, your teammates
> are a good player except that he didn't play for about twenty years and
> just came out of retirement and an inexperienced player.
> You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in first
> seat, no one vulnerable:
> XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
> What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
> bid) and 4H
P - 0: Silly trying to walk the dog with this.
1H - 10: My choice. I'll risk the Spades.
3H - 0: Absurd.
4C - 5: Better than 4H, but the constructive opportunities for 1H are too good.
4H - 2: If we are going to pre-empt, 4C is much better.
> It's a sectional Swiss and your opponents are fairly decent at your
> table but your counterparts are weak. On the other hand, your
> teammates are a good player except that he didn't play for about
> twenty years and just came out of retirement and an inexperienced
> player.
> You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
> first seat, no one vulnerable:
> XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
> What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
> bid) and 4H
For me, this is close between 1H and 4H. The main comment of others that I disagree with is favoring 4C over 4H. This is NOT an 8 trick hand. 7-3/4, maybe. Partner will also never expect this bad a trump suit for 4C. He might understand for 4H. 4C also has substantially less preemptive value, since they can not only get a 4D bid in, but also a "free" takeout double. On the other hand, for constructive bidding, 4H isn't great, either, with the side AK and side void.
So I'll give 1H a 10, 4H a 9, 4C a 5, Pass a 1, and 3H a zero. Really, I should give Pass a zero and 3H a minus score. The insanity of opening this hand with a below-game preempt will be obvious even to the novice opponent in your seat at the other table.
In article <23af0882-de8f-404a-b9a5-b2370aede...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
>first seat, no one vulnerable:
>XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
>What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
>bid) and 4H
I have to admit that the information about the conditions and my teammates doesn't really affect my opinion of the actions. Maybe I'm insufficiently subtle.
Pass: 0. This hand screams for *some* kind of action.
1H: 100. You have two-plus honor tricks, your hand easily meets the
rule of 22. The plan is to show a minimum opener with long hearts.
3H: 40. Too much defense; and there may be no need to preempt (it's not
guaranteed that the opponents have a fit in spades).
4H: 50. This could work out, but it feels like it overstates the
heart suit a bit, and as with 3H it could easily be higher than you
need to go.
4C: 0. I've never played Namyats but from what I've read this bid
shows a noticeably better hand than the above, so this combines the
downsides of 4H with the chance of deceiving partner.
-- David Goldfarb | "Questions are a burden to others.
goldfar...@gmail.com | Answers are a prison for oneself."
goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- _The Prisoner_, "Dance of the Dead"
> It's a sectional Swiss and your opponents are fairly decent at your
> table but your counterparts are weak. On the other hand, your
> teammates are a good player except that he didn't play for about
> twenty years and just came out of retirement and an inexperienced
> player.
> You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
> first seat, no one vulnerable:
> XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
> What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
> bid) and 4H
> --
> Will in New Haven
4H: 100
1H: 80
4C: 50
pass: 0
3H: -100
The choice is between 4H and 1H. While 1H will be favored by a majority, I believe 4H has more to gain than to loose.
4C is a middle of the road decision, but I doubt that the gain over 4H makes it worthwhile. If you are worried of missing slam you are better off opening 1H.
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:19:39 AM UTC-8, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Den måndagen den 5:e november 2012 kl. 23:06:34 UTC+1 skrev Charles Brenner:
> > 3H is just terrible.
> Actually, 3H has one merit. It's completely impossible for the opponents to visualise this hand when you open 3H...
Well, if that's your criteria, a 3S opening would be even better. :)
> In article <23af0882-de8f-404a-b9a5-b2370aede...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> >You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
> >first seat, no one vulnerable:
> >XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
> >What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
> >bid) and 4H
> I have to admit that the information about the conditions and my
> teammates doesn't really affect my opinion of the actions. Maybe
> I'm insufficiently subtle.
> Pass: 0. This hand screams for *some* kind of action.
> 1H: 100. You have two-plus honor tricks, your hand easily meets the
> rule of 22. The plan is to show a minimum opener with long hearts.
> 3H: 40. Too much defense; and there may be no need to preempt (it's not
> guaranteed that the opponents have a fit in spades).
> 4H: 50. This could work out, but it feels like it overstates the
> heart suit a bit, and as with 3H it could easily be higher than you
> need to go.
> 4C: 0. I've never played Namyats but from what I've read this bid
> shows a noticeably better hand than the above, so this combines the
> downsides of 4H with the chance of deceiving partner.
I opened 1H but I do have a comment about the discussion of 4C versus
4H. When Namyats came out, it was said that it allowed a player to
divide his 4H openings into the weaker and the stronger ones. The idea
that 4C shows a "noticably better hand than this," when this hand is,
in my opinion, too strong for either preempt, shows where Namyats has
moved.
At one time, Namyats showed a hand where 1H and 4H were both
considered. Now it seems to show a hand where 1H and 2C are both
considered. Hands that are opened 4C _never_ seem to look like hands
that someone, absent the convention, would have opened 4H.
I considered 4C because we treat Namyats as a good preempt, not a very
strong hand, but rejected it.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:42:11 -0800, Will in New Haven wrote:
> I opened 1H but I do have a comment about the discussion of 4C versus
> 4H. When Namyats came out, it was said that it allowed a player to
> divide his 4H openings into the weaker and the stronger ones. The idea
> that 4C shows a "noticably better hand than this," when this hand is, in
> my opinion, too strong for either preempt, shows where Namyats has
> moved.
> At one time, Namyats showed a hand where 1H and 4H were both considered.
> Now it seems to show a hand where 1H and 2C are both considered. Hands
> that are opened 4C _never_ seem to look like hands that someone, absent
> the convention, would have opened 4H.
> I considered 4C because we treat Namyats as a good preempt, not a very
> strong hand, but rejected it.
FWIW, I prefer your treatment. For me, on this hand, 4C is the runner-up by a couple of lengths; the clear winner being 1H and the rest nowhere.
> On Nov 6, 3:44 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> > In article <23af0882-de8f-404a-b9a5-b2370aede...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > >You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
> > >first seat, no one vulnerable:
> > >XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
> > >What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
> > >bid) and 4H
> > I have to admit that the information about the conditions and my
> > teammates doesn't really affect my opinion of the actions. Maybe
> > I'm insufficiently subtle.
> > Pass: 0. This hand screams for *some* kind of action.
> > 1H: 100. You have two-plus honor tricks, your hand easily meets the
> > rule of 22. The plan is to show a minimum opener with long hearts.
> > 3H: 40. Too much defense; and there may be no need to preempt (it's not
> > guaranteed that the opponents have a fit in spades).
> > 4H: 50. This could work out, but it feels like it overstates the
> > heart suit a bit, and as with 3H it could easily be higher than you
> > need to go.
> > 4C: 0. I've never played Namyats but from what I've read this bid
> > shows a noticeably better hand than the above, so this combines the
> > downsides of 4H with the chance of deceiving partner.
> I opened 1H but I do have a comment about the discussion of 4C versus
> 4H. When Namyats came out, it was said that it allowed a player to
> divide his 4H openings into the weaker and the stronger ones. The idea
> that 4C shows a "noticably better hand than this," when this hand is,
> in my opinion, too strong for either preempt, shows where Namyats has
> moved.
> At one time, Namyats showed a hand where 1H and 4H were both
> considered. Now it seems to show a hand where 1H and 2C are both
> considered. Hands that are opened 4C _never_ seem to look like hands
> that someone, absent the convention, would have opened 4H.
You haven't seen what some people will open 4H then. (I've seen people open 4H on hands where I would have considered 2C.)
The hand in this thread is atypical since 4H openings often feature an 8-card suit (and, in my experience, 4C Namyats *usually* feature an 8-card suit). So for me, this is a maximum of side-strength for a 4C opening, but short on playing tricks since the trump suit is so bad. (For what it's worth, if this were at favorable rather than neither, I might actually prefer 4C to 4H, but that's because I might open 4H on real garbage at IMPs then.) I can't recall ever opening Namyats with a hand worth only 5 trump tricks, and equal vul doesn't seem like the time to start.
And, for what it's worth, I do refuse to play Namyats when playing strong club systems, for the explicit reason that most Namyats hands can comfortably be opened 1C.
> On Nov 6, 3:44 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> > In article <23af0882-de8f-404a-b9a5-b2370aede...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > >You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
> > >first seat, no one vulnerable:
> > >XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
> > >What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
> > >bid) and 4H
> > I have to admit that the information about the conditions and my
> > teammates doesn't really affect my opinion of the actions. Maybe
> > I'm insufficiently subtle.
> > Pass: 0. This hand screams for *some* kind of action.
> > 1H: 100. You have two-plus honor tricks, your hand easily meets the
> > rule of 22. The plan is to show a minimum opener with long hearts.
> > 3H: 40. Too much defense; and there may be no need to preempt (it's not
> > guaranteed that the opponents have a fit in spades).
> > 4H: 50. This could work out, but it feels like it overstates the
> > heart suit a bit, and as with 3H it could easily be higher than you
> > need to go.
> > 4C: 0. I've never played Namyats but from what I've read this bid
> > shows a noticeably better hand than the above, so this combines the
> > downsides of 4H with the chance of deceiving partner.
> I opened 1H but I do have a comment about the discussion of 4C versus
> 4H. When Namyats came out, it was said that it allowed a player to
> divide his 4H openings into the weaker and the stronger ones. The idea
> that 4C shows a "noticably better hand than this," when this hand is,
> in my opinion, too strong for either preempt, shows where Namyats has
> moved.
> At one time, Namyats showed a hand where 1H and 4H were both
> considered. Now it seems to show a hand where 1H and 2C are both
> considered. Hands that are opened 4C _never_ seem to look like hands
> that someone, absent the convention, would have opened 4H.
> I considered 4C because we treat Namyats as a good preempt, not a very
> strong hand, but rejected it.
> --
> Will in New Haven
I dislike Namyats as it takes away the useful 4m pre empt. Better to bid 3NT as a solid major. On this hand, however 4H is the bid and nothing else is even close.
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 6:25:10 PM UTC-8, mc110...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:42:12 PM UTC-5, Will in New Haven wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 3:44 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> > > In article <23af0882-de8f-404a-b9a5-b2370aede...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > >You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
> > > >first seat, no one vulnerable:
> > > >XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
> > > >What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
> > > >bid) and 4H
> > > I have to admit that the information about the conditions and my
> > > teammates doesn't really affect my opinion of the actions. Maybe
> > > I'm insufficiently subtle.
> > > Pass: 0. This hand screams for *some* kind of action.
> > > 1H: 100. You have two-plus honor tricks, your hand easily meets the
> > > rule of 22. The plan is to show a minimum opener with long hearts.
> > > 3H: 40. Too much defense; and there may be no need to preempt (it's not
> > > guaranteed that the opponents have a fit in spades).
> > > 4H: 50. This could work out, but it feels like it overstates the
> > > heart suit a bit, and as with 3H it could easily be higher than you
> > > need to go.
> > > 4C: 0. I've never played Namyats but from what I've read this bid
> > > shows a noticeably better hand than the above, so this combines the
> > > downsides of 4H with the chance of deceiving partner.
> > I opened 1H but I do have a comment about the discussion of 4C versus
> > 4H. When Namyats came out, it was said that it allowed a player to
> > divide his 4H openings into the weaker and the stronger ones. The idea
> > that 4C shows a "noticably better hand than this," when this hand is,
> > in my opinion, too strong for either preempt, shows where Namyats has
> > moved.
> > At one time, Namyats showed a hand where 1H and 4H were both
> > considered. Now it seems to show a hand where 1H and 2C are both
> > considered. Hands that are opened 4C _never_ seem to look like hands
> > that someone, absent the convention, would have opened 4H.
> You haven't seen what some people will open 4H then. (I've seen people open 4H on hands where I would have considered 2C.)
> The hand in this thread is atypical since 4H openings often feature an 8-card suit (and, in my experience, 4C Namyats *usually* feature an 8-card suit). So for me, this is a maximum of side-strength for a 4C opening, but short on playing tricks since the trump suit is so bad. (For what it's worth, if this were at favorable rather than neither, I might actually prefer 4C to 4H, but that's because I might open 4H on real garbage at IMPs then.) I can't recall ever opening Namyats with a hand worth only 5 trump tricks, and equal vul doesn't seem like the time to start.
> And, for what it's worth, I do refuse to play Namyats when playing strong club systems, for the explicit reason that most Namyats hands can comfortably be opened 1C.
> Christopher Monsour
I've seen my 4M openings. Non-vul totally undisciplined
has worked quite well. The stronger the opponents the
more undisciplined. Partner should usually just pass.
He needs 7-8 controls before slam is considered opposite
my non-vul 4M openings. I also don't like namyats. The
purpose of high level pre-empts is to be make it a
guessing game. Two opponents guessing and only one
partner confused.
> On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:42:12 PM UTC-5, Will in New Haven wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 3:44 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> > > In article <23af0882-de8f-404a-b9a5-b2370aede...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > >You are doing ok after four of the nine boards and you pick up in
> > > >first seat, no one vulnerable:
> > > >XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
> > > >What is your initial action? Rate Pass, 1H, 3H, 4C (showing a good 4H
> > > >bid) and 4H
> > > I have to admit that the information about the conditions and my
> > > teammates doesn't really affect my opinion of the actions. Maybe
> > > I'm insufficiently subtle.
> > > Pass: 0. This hand screams for *some* kind of action.
> > > 1H: 100. You have two-plus honor tricks, your hand easily meets the
> > > rule of 22. The plan is to show a minimum opener with long hearts.
> > > 3H: 40. Too much defense; and there may be no need to preempt (it's not
> > > guaranteed that the opponents have a fit in spades).
> > > 4H: 50. This could work out, but it feels like it overstates the
> > > heart suit a bit, and as with 3H it could easily be higher than you
> > > need to go.
> > > 4C: 0. I've never played Namyats but from what I've read this bid
> > > shows a noticeably better hand than the above, so this combines the
> > > downsides of 4H with the chance of deceiving partner.
> > I opened 1H but I do have a comment about the discussion of 4C versus
> > 4H. When Namyats came out, it was said that it allowed a player to
> > divide his 4H openings into the weaker and the stronger ones. The idea
> > that 4C shows a "noticably better hand than this," when this hand is,
> > in my opinion, too strong for either preempt, shows where Namyats has
> > moved.
> > At one time, Namyats showed a hand where 1H and 4H were both
> > considered. Now it seems to show a hand where 1H and 2C are both
> > considered. Hands that are opened 4C _never_ seem to look like hands
> > that someone, absent the convention, would have opened 4H.
> You haven't seen what some people will open 4H then. (I've seen people open 4H on hands where I would have considered 2C.)
Well, yes, Grace P used to do that but she is deceased. Not for
opening over-strength 4M though.
> The hand in this thread is atypical since 4H openings often feature an 8-card suit (and, in my experience, 4C Namyats *usually* feature an 8-card suit). So for me, this is a maximum of side-strength for a 4C opening, but short on playing tricks since the trump suit is so bad. (For what it's worth, if this were at favorable rather than neither, I might actually prefer 4C to 4H, but that's because I might open 4H on real garbage at IMPs then.)
Exactly, 4C was supposed to be _the stronger preempt_ and not a strong
hand. Opening 4C on a hand one would not open 4H when not playing
Namyats seems odd.
I can't recall ever opening Namyats with a hand worth only 5 trump
tricks, and equal vul doesn't seem like the time to start.
> And, for what it's worth, I do refuse to play Namyats when playing strong club systems, for the explicit reason that most Namyats hands can comfortably be opened 1C.
Oddly enough, when I got talked into playing a Precision variant a few
months ago my partner insisted on Namyats because 1H would be an
underbid and 1C would promise more HCP. No decisions based on this
agreement ever needed to be made. As is often the case.
> first seat, no one vulnerable:
> XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
If I were going to preempt, it would be 5H. That seems excessive, so I'll go with the normal 1H. Reverse the pointed suits or make the clubs KQxx and I think I'd choose 5H instead.
-- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
In article <k7hpur$ti...@dont-email.me>,
Steve Willner <swill...@nhcc.net> wrote:
>On 2012-11-05 4:53 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>> first seat, no one vulnerable:
>> XX QJT9XXX VOID AKXX
>If I were going to preempt, it would be 5H. That seems excessive, so >I'll go with the normal 1H. Reverse the pointed suits or make the clubs >KQxx and I think I'd choose 5H instead.
I've seen Kit Woolsey say that you should preempt to the level where you're not sure what you're hoping for. If you preempt 5H here, I think
you're definitely hoping for the opponents to bid 5S. 4H strikes me as
more in line with Woolsey's Guideline.
-- David Goldfarb |"Tom?...I don't get you."
goldfar...@gmail.com | "Nobody does. I'm the wind, baby."
goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
