Message from discussion A Hand from a Sectional Swiss
Received: by 10.224.111.140 with SMTP id s12mr1780213qap.5.1352234531934;
Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.114.164 with SMTP id c24mr467364yhh.17.1352234531906; Tue,
06 Nov 2012 12:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Injection-Info: v9g2000yql.googlegroups.com; posting-host=126.96.36.199; posting-account=CBZzyQkAAADa8LlO-8hxEObjm8IdMLIc
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
Trident/4.0; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe)
Subject: Re: A Hand from a Sectional Swiss
From: Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:42:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Nov 6, 3:44=A0am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <23af0882-de8f-404a-b9a5-b2370aede...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups=
> Will in New Haven =A0<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. =A0Maybe
> I'm insufficiently subtle.
> Pass: =A00. =A0This hand screams for *some* kind of action.
> 1H: =A0100. =A0You have two-plus honor tricks, your hand easily meets the
> rule of 22. =A0The plan is to show a minimum opener with long hearts.
> 3H: =A040. =A0Too much defense; and there may be no need to preempt (it's=
> guaranteed that the opponents have a fit in spades).
> 4H: =A050. =A0This 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: =A00. =A0I'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
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