[Yu18772]

Hi
I saw this hand on bbo today while kibitzing, and everyone was having a different opinion. Thought it is an interesting one.
Yu

[the hog]

I would open 5D.

[Yu18772]

the hog, on 2012-July-10, 22:37, said:

I would open 5D.

Added as an option, thanks
Yu

[wank]

5♦ is terrible imo - you've got aces so, most importantly, you're not scared of opps playing it, your diamonds are dodgy and you've got axxx hearts on the side.

it's not difficult to imagine going off in 5♦ with 7♥ gin.

i open 1.

[akhare]

I am torn between 1♦ and 4♦. The latter seems wrong given the two Aces and the void, but it could work out very well at the table...

[the_clown]

I would open 5♦ too. Un 8 card suit headed by the Ace surely has to be trumps.

If I start with 1♦ and it is our hand, it is very likely that they will often preempt and I will be left guessing anyway whether to push for slam. Not to mension that they will often find their cheap sacrifice.

If it is their hand (not likely), they will have a hard time finding their fit at the 5. level.

Un upside is that they will have absolutely no idea what to lead or which is my second suit.

[MrAce]

1♦

5♦ would not even cross my mind to be honest.

Same goes for 2 or 3 or 4 ♦ bids for me, but at least they are recoverable if lucky.

[wclass___]

I think this is clear cut 1♦

I have quite defensive hand with those 2 aces and I don't see necessity to jump somewhere. If partner has some number of ♥ and short ♦ I really don't want to be in ♦. 4♠ might be another possible contract if partner has good-quality 6 card suit.

It would be different if my suit was KJTxxxxx as that would have far less defensive value, but doesn't play that bad if partner is short opposite.

[Zelandakh]

Well you have 8 PTs so you could try opening it a Benji/SEF 2♣ or a reverse Benji 2♦...

I always thought I was quite loose with my preempts but this really looks like a 1♦ opening to me. It is not hard to see where an opening preempt might gain, also not hard to see where it might lose. Here the hand has just too many flaws; none of them individually would be enough to stop me preempting but taken together I would prefer not to when there is a perfectly good alternative available.

[the hog]

1D would not enter my mind with this.

[awm]

I would bid 4♦. These sorts of pressure bids have worked very well for me in the past. Bidding five seems like too much -- the opponents often double 5m openings and given my suit quality (not so hot) and defense (two aces) they're unlikely to be wrong. I'd rather they make their decisions over 4♦ where double is takeout and they are more likely to play the hand and go down!

I've not found that opening 1♦ works very well on hands like this one. Aside from giving the opponents space to communicate, there are a lot of sequences where I will not have a satisfactory rebid and will have to take a big guess later in the auction. I'd rather take my guesses early in cases like this where waiting seems unlikely to help me much (but could help opponents a lot).

[chasetb]

I've thought about swapping hands that normally bid 5♦ or 5♣ with their counterparts at the 4-level, due to twice pre-empting at the 5-level, hitting partner with huge hands, and ending up at the 6-level down 1 (both times I would have raised to 6 if I had the huge hand). This hand is difficult, I think I'll bid 4♦ and hope I am right.

[fromageGB]

The problem for me in opening 1♦ is that partner will expect better than just 1 probable trick in defence, and may double them in 5♠ after I bid 5♦ over their 4♠. We are then in disaster scenario. So I open 4♦. I don't think it good enough for 5.

[gszes]

Aces make for good (high level) defense and that fact alone makes any
radical distribution hand holding those 2 aces a poor prospect for an
opening high level preempt and an even worse prospect when holding
a 4 card major (Axxx) as a second suit. While you cannot predict how the
future bidding will go (ie a preempt will work sometimes) the odds of
success of finding the best contract for your side lie with starting as low
as possible.

[SteveMoe]

What MrAce and Gszes said...

[mike777]

all red with a 7 trick hand looks like 4d to me.

if prd thinks he has 4 tricks and an entry he can raise to 5.

[ColdCrayon]

stupid back-button.

[ColdCrayon]

I was taught that 5-bids and greater are not preemptive at all, but declarations that you believe you can make the bid with your hand alone. It's not quite strong enough for that.

With two aces in the long suits and crazy distributional strength, it's a 1-bid to me. If my partner likes a higher hard-points to distributional strength ratio, then I make it a 2-bid, but you've got too many defensive tricks for 3♦ and 4♦, and if your partner has 4 hearts, then diamonds might not even be your best trump suit.

I'd be tempted to bid 2♦, especially if you play trent-2s, or have an understanding that 2-bids are constructive bids and not totally preemptive, but the four-card major makes that iffy.

If you play Namyats, then 3NT is another possibility.

[the hog]

ColdCrayon, on 2012-July-12, 21:44, said:

I was taught that 5-bids and greater are not preemptive at all, but declarations that you believe you can make the bid with your hand alone. It's not quite strong enough for that.

With two aces in the long suits and crazy distributional strength, it's a 1-bid to me. If my partner likes a higher hard-points to distributional strength ratio, then I make it a 2-bid, but you've got too many defensive tricks for 3♦ and 4♦, and if your partner has 4 hearts, then diamonds might not even be your best trump suit.

I'd be tempted to bid 2♦, especially if you play trent-2s, or have an understanding that 2-bids are constructive bids and not totally preemptive, but the four-card major makes that iffy.

If you play Namyats, then 3NT is another possibility.

So you would not open 5D green vs red on
xx
xx
KQJTxxxxx

?

[Zelandakh]

SteveMoe, on 2012-July-12, 19:56, said:

What MrAce and Gszes said...

Which parts of the posts from wclass and myself were you disagreeing with? It seems all 4 of us were in broad agreement.