Help
I definetly think opening 3C is for the shooters. To me this just is outside of what I call a first seat minor 3 level bid. Having said that I have a great fit showing jump when partner opens 1D which will eaisly drive our side to slam.
1246
#42
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,342
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2015-May-03, 06:22
IMO 3♣=10, pass=4, 1♣=4, some psyche=0.
By which I mean: of course everything could work but I believe that 3♣ is the long term winner. Pass or 1♣ might be the long term winner (i.e. my judgment might be wrong and/or pass or 1♣ could be better in particular partnerships). A psyche could of course work but I strongly believe that it is not the long term winner, so it gets a zero.
By which I mean: of course everything could work but I believe that 3♣ is the long term winner. Pass or 1♣ might be the long term winner (i.e. my judgment might be wrong and/or pass or 1♣ could be better in particular partnerships). A psyche could of course work but I strongly believe that it is not the long term winner, so it gets a zero.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#43
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 223
- Joined: 2012-June-26
Posted 2015-May-03, 07:13
It's interesting to see how people's views have changed over the years. A hand like this certainly would have been considered anything other than a pass some time long ago. Now it seems like we are contemplating opening it at the one level. For me this is a very very clear 3♣ bid. The bid has a lot of upsides: 1) the opponents have a lot of cards in the majors, this will make it difficult for them to find the correct strain/level, sometimes the opponents will be put in a borderline situation and have to decide whether or not they should be bidding and they will get this decision wrong sometimes. 2) We might catch partner with a fit, this could lead to a cheap sacrifice or (rarely) a making game, we are telling partner about a lot of our cards and they will be in a good position to decide where we should be playing. 3) It suggests a good lead! Particularly at pairs this is worth going for the odd number, the extra trick could be huge for your side, even at IMPs you are establishing a trick, and potentially warning partner from underleading an honour.
There are some downsides: 1) We could miss a cold game (or a slam) because partner will have less space to make safe game tries et cetera. 2) We push the opponents into good games they were not going to bid. I'm willing to take the risk that they will either not bid when they should or bid when they shouldn't more frequently than this happening.
It's an interesting question as to what we should be pre-empting with, and how mixed a strategy we should be employing. I think unless you are very conservative you should be opening this hand 3♣, your pre-empts with x Axx xx KQTxxxx might get you to good games, but I suspect you don't pick up hands like that too often. I think at green you can really be aggressive with these 3m pre-empts. I open really a lot of junk (well depending on how much it annoys my partner) at this vul. On the hand in question we very well miss game, given that a more typical hand for this bid would have been something like x xxx xx QT9xxxx or xxx x xxx KJ9xxx. I'm not saying I would always open those hands, but I think it's definitely right to mix things up (and even pre-empt heavy...) so that the opponents are more unsure about whether or not they should enter the auction, and how well they can count the hand. It means that they have no idea when to make a speculative penalty pass for instance (which will greatly reduce the numbers that you go for).
Think about it this way, your opposition are either good or they are bad. If they are good they will likely have a good constructive auction and bid to most making games, you will not be assisting them at all by bidding 3♣, on this hand if you can go for a number then they can almost definitely make game. If you play against weaker opposition then they will trip up a lot and bid on completely inappropriate hands, not correctly evaluating club wastage, club shortage, high honours (aces and kings), not knowing what is forcing and generally getting into a mess.
Another question raised in this thread was: should this hand be opened at the one-level? I think the short answer is 'no', not so much because it is an 8-count (upgrade or whatever to 9/10), but it has just so little defense, it also takes up next to no space, and doesn't even really suggest a good lead. You have no real reason to give partner the impression that you can provide anything in the way of playing strength outside clubs (yes diamonds rarely), so just bid them! It could easily be winning bridge to open KJTxx Axxx x xxx at the one level, but this hand is a different kettle of fish. I think as bidding times are changing people should open their minds about opening light. I don't think we are given the opportunity to experiment with different strategies. Maybe we should try and take a few more risks and put the opponents under some pressure.
There are some downsides: 1) We could miss a cold game (or a slam) because partner will have less space to make safe game tries et cetera. 2) We push the opponents into good games they were not going to bid. I'm willing to take the risk that they will either not bid when they should or bid when they shouldn't more frequently than this happening.
It's an interesting question as to what we should be pre-empting with, and how mixed a strategy we should be employing. I think unless you are very conservative you should be opening this hand 3♣, your pre-empts with x Axx xx KQTxxxx might get you to good games, but I suspect you don't pick up hands like that too often. I think at green you can really be aggressive with these 3m pre-empts. I open really a lot of junk (well depending on how much it annoys my partner) at this vul. On the hand in question we very well miss game, given that a more typical hand for this bid would have been something like x xxx xx QT9xxxx or xxx x xxx KJ9xxx. I'm not saying I would always open those hands, but I think it's definitely right to mix things up (and even pre-empt heavy...) so that the opponents are more unsure about whether or not they should enter the auction, and how well they can count the hand. It means that they have no idea when to make a speculative penalty pass for instance (which will greatly reduce the numbers that you go for).
Think about it this way, your opposition are either good or they are bad. If they are good they will likely have a good constructive auction and bid to most making games, you will not be assisting them at all by bidding 3♣, on this hand if you can go for a number then they can almost definitely make game. If you play against weaker opposition then they will trip up a lot and bid on completely inappropriate hands, not correctly evaluating club wastage, club shortage, high honours (aces and kings), not knowing what is forcing and generally getting into a mess.
Another question raised in this thread was: should this hand be opened at the one-level? I think the short answer is 'no', not so much because it is an 8-count (upgrade or whatever to 9/10), but it has just so little defense, it also takes up next to no space, and doesn't even really suggest a good lead. You have no real reason to give partner the impression that you can provide anything in the way of playing strength outside clubs (yes diamonds rarely), so just bid them! It could easily be winning bridge to open KJTxx Axxx x xxx at the one level, but this hand is a different kettle of fish. I think as bidding times are changing people should open their minds about opening light. I don't think we are given the opportunity to experiment with different strategies. Maybe we should try and take a few more risks and put the opponents under some pressure.