Another freak hand from the beginners section

[Adam Lea]

North
-
KQ2
A5
AKJ86432
- AT84
65 JT9843
QJT87642 K93
975 -
KQJ976532
A7
-
QT

E/W Vuln

By the time I got called over south had opened a strong 2S. After some
discussion with west she decided to overcall 3D (I preferred a higher
overcall myself). I advised north to bid 4C and east passed (5D may just
be worth a bid here?). South then bid 4S which became the final
contract. Making 11 tricks due to the 4-0 spade break.

It appears that N/S can make 7C (although 7D is a good sac by E/W). How
do you think the bidding should go?

[rhm]

What to do with a freak is anybody's guess not only in the beginners section.
My guess is that opening the South hand with 4S is a long term winner.
(Assuming you do not play Namyats or something similar)
Sure you might loose a slam, but you also might keep opponents out or you might get doubled.
As the bidding went or was directed I would never stop below 6C if South opens with a strong bid.
Despite the possible "misfit" passing 4S is taking a very deep position and certainly not recommended when telling beginners how to react to a strong opening.
I simply would bid 6C over 4S.

Rainer Herrmann

[Lorne]

however it goes one thing is certain. Passing 4S with 17 points and a
void and a near solid 8 card suit opposite a strong two opener is not
going to be a long term winning strategy.

[derek]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:38:27 AM UTC-3, rhm wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:34:51 AM UTC+2, Adam Lea wrote:
>
> > North
> >
> > -
> > KQ2
> > A5
> > AKJ86432
> >
> > - AT84
> > 65 JT9843
> > QJT87642 K93
> > 975 -
> >
> > KQJ976532
> > A7
> > -
> > QT
>
> > E/W Vuln
> >

> > By the time I got called over south had opened a strong 2S....

> >
> What to do with a freak is anybody's guess not only in the beginners section.
> My guess is that opening the South hand with 4S is a long term winner.
> (Assuming you do not play Namyats or something similar)
> Sure you might loose a slam, but you also might keep opponents out or you might get doubled.
> As the bidding went or was directed I would never stop below 6C if South opens with a strong bid.
> Despite the possible "misfit" passing 4S is taking a very deep position and certainly not recommended when telling beginners how to react to a strong opening.
> I simply would bid 6C over 4S.

I'm certain that opening 4S is a long-term _losing_ proposition at anything but the beginners game. I've lost count of the number of slams I've missed in pickup BBO games with partners who open their opening-strength 8-card suits at the 4 level. Opening 4 bids (without Namyats) should be preemptive. Preemptive hands shouldn't be strong.

In this system, I agree with Rainer that North should just bid 6C over 4S, but in my system I'd have opened 1S and I'd expect something more like:

1S
(4D) 6C (6D) 6S (I can't see 5C being forcing)

Or maybe even

1S
(5D) 6C (6D) 6S

and North now has to decide whether 6S is likely to make solo, or correct to 7C. Many times, he's going to guess wrong.

[rhm]

First of all South holds a nine card suit, not an eight card suit.
The difference is significant.
Second we probably can agree that whether you preempt or not, sometimes your as well as my strategy will loose and sometimes win. Where we differ is what is more likely to happen.

You might want to have a look at

http://www.rpbridge.net/9x15.htm

where Pavlicek documented deals and results from top level play:

"One team opened one spade and the other opened four spades".

If you look over the deals you will see that the most common reason why one team did not preempt was that the hand was considered too strong for a 4S bid.

The overall results do not support your contention. Preempts work not only at low level games.
Of course there are also deals where slams were missed by the side, who preempted. There certainly is somewhere a point where preempting with strong hands must backfire more often than win.

It is dangerous to be dogmatic about such issues and the long term winning strategy remains in doubt at all levels of the game.

Rainer Herrmann

[Lorne]

On 12/06/2013 08:50, rhm wrote:
>
> You might want to have a look at
>
> http://www.rpbridge.net/9x15.htm
>
> where Pavlicek documented deals and results from top level play:
>
> "One team opened one spade and the other opened four spades".
>
> If you look over the deals you will see that the most common reason why one team did not preempt was that the hand was considered too strong for a 4S bid.
>
> The overall results do not support your contention. Preempts work not only at low level games.
> Of course there are also deals where slams were missed by the side, who preempted. There certainly is somewhere a point where preempting with strong hands must backfire more often than win.

Apart from the conclusion, the other interesting factor from this list
is some of the eye watering hands top players think are 4S openers.
For example in the Spingold:

K J 9 7 5 4 2
2
A 6 5 3
K

A horrible suit plus defensive values in both minors plus all side suits
known to be breaking badly but a good player still opened 4S and the
results showed despite such offbeat hands being opened 4S it was still
the winning percentage action.

[MartinCarpenter]

This one really doesn't surprise me that much. Its pretty main stream I
think.

If you open 1S (far too much for 3S) then you have the twin problems of
getting partner to evaluate when game might be possible, and being
committed to backing in again up to say the 3S level.

The former is very difficult indeed, the later is of course relatively
dangerous in its own right. Opening 4S directly is probably roughly as
safe as doing anything else.
(So not very....).

The crazy extreme can get very much scarier :)
--
MartinCarpenter

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-06-12 3:50 AM, rhm wrote:
> You might want to have a look at http://www.rpbridge.net/9x15.htm
> where Pavlicek documented deals and results from top level play:
> "One team opened one spade and the other opened four spades".

Very interesting page! It's a little hard to follow because RP gives
scores for declarer rather than for NS. In the part I've read so far,
the conclusion isn't obvious to me, but I need to read the rest. Also,
the conclusion may not follow for matchpoints even if it's true at IMPs.

> the long term winning strategy remains in doubt at all levels of the
> game.

That last looks like an overbid to me or at least not justified by RP's
data. At low levels of play, preempts are of _less_ value than at high
levels because opponents are likely (or at least more likely) to go
wrong even if left alone. On a borderline hand, I would preempt against
strong opponents but open a one-bid against weak ones.

The key, of course, is defining just which hands are borderline against
one's present opponents.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA