[cherdano]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 23 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

han, on Apr 23 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

Normal 1C, I expect unanimous answers.

This is a normal 1C opening. If you expect unanimous answers you are sadly naive.

Or sarcastic. Anyways, I vote unanimously for 1♣.

[Walddk]

jillybean2, on Apr 23 2008, 04:42 PM, said:

To all the 1♣ wtp responders please explain why this is 1♣ not 3♣ ty What would make it a 3♣ opener?

It's too good for a pre-empt because you have one trick too many. This is a 6-loser hand (for simplicity: 7 tricks), and since you should overbid by three tricks at these colours when you pre-empt, the hand is too good for 3♣.

Even if 4♣ is natural and would show the number of tricks (7) you think you can take in a club contract, I would not bid it. It's normally not a good idea to bypass 3NT if that seems like a playable contract. This could well be the case here.

This is perfectly normal 1♣ opening to me. Take away ♦K and it's a fine 3♣.

Roland

[jillybean]

OK, and now this

1st seat

JTx, void, Q, AKJT9xxxx

I opened 5♣, my pard said I should open 1♣

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Apr 23 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

OK, and now this

1st seat

JTx, void, Q, AKJT9xxxx

I opened 5♣, my pard said I should open 1♣

5C is fine.

You want to play clubs, and thats it.

The only question you have to answer, if you bid 3NT
(assuming you agreed to play Gambling 3NT) or 5C.

The advantage of 3NT is, that you may have a more
controlled auction to game or slam, depending on your
agreements after a 3NT opening, and maybe you go plus ,
because you were able to stop in 4C, but I would bid 5C
and be done with the hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

The world is too cruel for realism, I prefer naivety.

[jdonn]

jillybean2, on Apr 23 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

OK, and now this

1st seat

JTx, void, Q, AKJT9xxxx

I opened 5♣, my pard said I should open 1♣

I think 5♣ was a good bid. I guess 1♣ isn't "technically" wrong, but 5 seems both a better description and a much more effective tactic.

[jillybean]

I dont play gambling 3nt though it did cross my mind that I should

[Walddk]

jillybean2, on Apr 23 2008, 11:21 PM, said:

I dont play gambling 3nt though it did cross my mind that I should

No, you should not! This is one of the 25 conventions you would not want to learn.

Roland

[Echognome]

han, on Apr 23 2008, 06:31 AM, said:

Normal 1C, I expect unanimous answers.

I was so very confused until I saw we were in first seat. I thought this was a normal 3♣ opener in fourth.

As it is the case we are in 1st seat, we have a normal opening and an easy rebid. Seems good to me.

[awm]

Part of the point here is that there's a difference between a game level preempt and other preempts.

The main issue with opening 3♣ on the first hand is that it gives partner a problem. Sometimes you will have game (and sometimes you won't). If you would open 3♣ on an extremely wide range of hands then partner will get this wrong too frequently. So in order to narrow the range, we open 1♣ with the pretty good hands like the initial one given. Having some extra values (and extra defense) makes it more likely that we have game and less essential to intervene with the opponents.

When your preempt is at the game level, you have no fear of missing a making game. This lets you preempt on a wider range of hands -- you can preempt both on hands where you think you will make game, and on hands where you need some help to make game but you think it will be a good sacrifice when partner doesn't have the help. Partner's judgement is less important here.

Of course, at some point you have to worry about missing slam when you preempt a good hand at the game level. But this doesn't seem to make much difference unless opener's hand is really good -- recently I've been doing some bridge browser tests that indicate opening 4♠ with 13-15 hcp and a long spade suit seems to be a winning call.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Apr 23 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

I dont play gambling 3nt though it did cross my mind that I should

If you dont play it, dont start playing it.

The frequency is too low to make it worth while, because
you would also need to learn the follow ups, else playing
this convention is a waste of time.
And since this opening does not come up often, the follow
ups wont come up often, i.e. you learn someting, but can
use it, in other words useless balast.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[neilkaz]

jillybean2, on Apr 23 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

I dont play gambling 3nt though it did cross my mind that I should 

Gambling 3NT with a 9-bagger !...You'll miss far to many slams here if you do that and sometimes be set when 5♣ is cold.

I don't mind 5♣ with your cards but slightly prefer 1♣ since I've missed too many slams and even may miss 6♠ or 7♠ here.

.. neilkaz ..

[Vilgan]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 23 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Apr 23 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

I dont play gambling 3nt though it did cross my mind that I should 

If you dont play it, dont start playing it.

The frequency is too low to make it worth while, because
you would also need to learn the follow ups, else playing
this convention is a waste of time.
And since this opening does not come up often, the follow
ups wont come up often, i.e. you learn someting, but can
use it, in other words useless balast.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Whenever I am playing it, it never comes up. Whenever I have a partner who doesn't play it, there are 2 boards in the same session that I wish I could open a gambling 3 NT.

Really tho, what else is 3 NT opener good for? Maybe a broken 8 card minor (have some friends that play that), but 2c p 2d p 3NT covers the big hand so well.

[jtfanclub]

Vilgan, on Apr 23 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

Really tho, what else is 3 NT opener good for?

Asking for specific aces.

I have a partner who insists on it.

[Echognome]

By the way JB, this is a good question for BIL. I think having a discussion about preempt style is important. With one of my regular partners I'd be more worried about him having xx xxx xx QJTxxx if he opened 3♣ NV in first than I would with him having the actual hand (which he would clearly open). You see on the ACBL convention card preempting styles of sound/light/very light. I think the hand you gave is too strong for what most would consider sound. But it's a good question to ask what experts might consider good example hands of each of those classifications.

[han]

Vilgan, on Apr 23 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

Really tho, what else is 3 NT opener good for?

You could use it for many things, for example:

- old fashioned Acol two (solid minor plus stoppers in the side suits, some clearly defined strength)

- At least 6-5 in the majors, weak.

- Long strong major, about 8.5-9 tricks.

- Solid minor, no outside aces or kings.

Whatever you play it as, it should probably be a rare and well-defined hand.

[kenrexford]

1♣ on first.

1♣ or 5♣ on second OK.

3NT as a 4-level minor preempt + Namyats works also.

[the hog]

1C on the first hand though I won't argue with a pd who bids 3C

5C on the second hand

3NT can also be used for a good 4 level M opening, which leaves the nice bids of 4C/D for minor pre empts, and 4M for weaker Major openings. I prefer not to give up my 4 level minor openings for namyats.

[jillybean]

Echognome, on Apr 23 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

By the way JB, this is a good question for BIL.  I think having a discussion about preempt style is important.  With one of my regular partners I'd be more worried about him having xx xxx xx QJTxxx if he opened 3♣ NV in first than I would with him having the actual hand (which he would clearly open).  You see on the ACBL convention card preempting styles of sound/light/very light.  I think the hand you gave is too strong for what most would consider sound.  But it's a good question to ask what experts might consider good example hands of each of those classifications.

My prefered style is very light but with most partners I have to tick sound.

jx,Tx,Kx,AQJTxxx

I asked if this hand was 3♣ rather than 1♣ as it looked to me that we will either be playing in some number of ♣'s or nt. With only 1 possible entry outside ♣ I dont want the auction going 1♣ 1♥ 1nt and 1♣ 1♥ 2♣ doesnt do this hand justice. Perhaps this is where Im mixed up.

[cherdano]

jillybean2, on Apr 23 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

Echognome, on Apr 23 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

By the way JB, this is a good question for BIL.  I think having a discussion about preempt style is important.  With one of my regular partners I'd be more worried about him having xx xxx xx QJTxxx if he opened 3♣ NV in first than I would with him having the actual hand (which he would clearly open).  You see on the ACBL convention card preempting styles of sound/light/very light.  I think the hand you gave is too strong for what most would consider sound.  But it's a good question to ask what experts might consider good example hands of each of those classifications.

My prefered style is very light but with most partners I have to tick sound.

jx,Tx,Kx,AQJTxxx

I asked if this hand was 3♣ rather than 1♣ as it looked to me that we will either be playing in some number of ♣'s or nt. With only 1 possible entry outside ♣ I dont want the auction going 1♣ 1♥ 1nt and 1♣ 1♥ 2♣ doesnt do this hand justice. Perhaps this is where Im mixed up.

I am not sure why you think 1♣..2♣ doesn't do this hand justice. It is true that 1♣ 1♥ 2♣ is not a perfect description (partner expects 6 clubs rather than 7), but it is a pretty good description, and a much better description than opening 3♣.

This hand has opening strength in high cards, with 11 nice high card points supporting a very good suit. So this hand is an opening bid both offensively and defensively, and anything but opening 1♣ is a clear misdescription.