[Mbodell]

Cascade, on Feb 19 2008, 03:21 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 19 2008, 07:37 PM, said:

Can you direct me to any of the discussion (I assume you mean a general online discussion over time as opposed to one particular discussion) about two vs. four handed bridge?

Try Cathy Chua's book "Fair Play or Foul".

I really enjoyed that book and find the 2 vs 4 stuff a very interesting shift in thinking. I'm not sure I'm in either camp full time.

[helene_t]

I am almost sure that opening 5♣ is most likely to cost, at any colors. We might belong in hearts. We might be going down against nothing. We might miss slam.

When I say I might open 5♣ at favorable (and indeed 1st seat at IMPs) it's because the (less likely) gain could be quite large, such as being allowed to play a sac undoubled, or opps bidding 5♦/♠ and going for a phone number. (Edit: now thinking more about it I realize that the undoubled sac is not much of an issue, 5♣ doubled is unlikely to cost more than 300 if nonvulnerable).

Besides, opening a nebolous 1♣ in a likely to be contested auction does not guarantee accurate bidding either. As the actual auction developped, we were not unlucky. Opps were kind enough to allow us show hearts at the 3-level, and to allow p first to bid 1♠ and then 3♠. Even so, it is not easy, there is a lot of confusion about what we have actually shown by bidding 3♥ and now 4♣.

Since none of the experts here show sympathy for a 5♣ opening (it would have surprised me if many experts would have opened 5♣, even at favorable) I believe it would be a losing bid in a serious partnership. My perspective is different, though. The fact that some ps may take 4♣ as Gerber or as a cue for spades makes me less happy about opening a nebolous 1♣ with wild distributions. Also, the Dutch bidding fora that I read are dominated by a preempt style which is much less diciplined than what is prevalent in MSC. It wouldn't surprise me if one of the Dutch panel members would have opened this hand 5♣ at favorable.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Feb 19 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

Also, similar to what Cascade said, when you have a long major there are very good odds 4 of that major is your optimal contract. There are much smaller odds this is true for 5 of your long minor, all the more when you have a major on the side.

I'm at work right now and don't have access to my bridge library, however, I seem to recall an old Bols Bridge Tip that (essentially) said that Swans should always play in the long suit. Obviously, this is an over-statement. I'm sure that folks can construct plenty of hands where a its best to play in the 4 card suit. However, there is more than a kernel of truth to the assertion...

1. More often than not, the hand is going to play best the long suit
2. While there are some examples where it will be better to play in the 4 card suit, the odds that you'll be able to judge this accurate at the table aren't all that good.

Note the "real" discussion on this hand: There are all sorts of opinions about what 4♣ should show...

Is this forcing?
Is it none forcing?
Does it show clubs?
Is it a cue bid in support of Spades?

I readily agree that there are risks associated with a 5♣ opening. However, its ludicrous to assume that your going to enjoy a perfect constructive auction if you open 1♣...

I might miss slam, but I'm not going to miss game. Furthermore, with luck the next time that I open 5m (or 4M) the opponents are going to have to worry about a broader range of hands.

(For what its worth, I didn't invent this theory... I've always heard it called Burgess's Rule: If you get dealt a Swan, you open it at the game level)

BTW, I have tried to extend the same concept to 7-5 hands. It doesn't seem to work well at all....

[the hog]

"(For what its worth, I didn't invent this theory... I've always heard it called Burgess's Rule: If you get dealt a Swan, you open it at the game level)"

Yes it is called Burgess' Law and it is a philosophy he espouses.
Fwiw, I agree with Richard and would open 5C. Helene, you wouldn't want to put down a 7 card C suit in a H contract, would you?

[jdonn]

If there is ever a swan that wants to play in the 4 card suit, it's one with a long minor and AKQT of a major? In fact, on this hand it seems very like you will want to play in your doubleton suit.

I never tried to imply 1♣ will always or almost always lead to a perfect constructive auction. I was trying to say that whatever bids you get to make beginning with a 1♣ opening are going to be far far more useful to partner than to the opponents.

I don't feel there is any controversy about 4♣. It is clearly forcing and clearly natural as far as I'm concerned. To me the bottom line is this hand is far too good to worry about the opponents, and far too complicated to needlessly guess both strain and level.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Feb 20 2008, 01:37 AM, said:

(For what its worth, I didn't invent this theory... I've always heard it called Burgess's Rule: If you get dealt a Swan, you open it at the game level)

BTW, I have tried to extend the same concept to 7-5 hands. It doesn't seem to work well at all....

Stephen Burgess does extend these to 7-5 hands. He is willing to open at even higher levels with more distribution.

There are several stories about his six-level openings. He told me that he had a rule that partner (think client) was not allowed to raise his six-level openings unless he held four aces. I recall vaguely some hand where partner raised inappropriately and he needed some brilliancy (obsure squeeze) to pull the contract in.

He also told me a story about playing US at a world championships with US NPC kibitzing on his side of the screen - Dan Morse I think. Stephen opened 6♦ with some 7-5-1-0 with five hearts on the side. The NPC could not control himself and blurted out for all to hear "Is THAT the opening bid?"

[gerry]

For what its worth, what I found when I plugged this hand into my favorite software was (just looking at the hands with the help of a double dummy analyser) a good rate of success, certainly better than even money. Obviously one needs to make some guesstimates about what might happen at the table on any given hand but nevertheless I found the experiment quite interesting.

[hrothgar]

gerry, on Feb 20 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

For what its worth, what I found when I plugged this hand into my favorite software was (just looking at the hands with the help of a double dummy analyser) a good rate of success, certainly better than even money. Obviously one needs to make some guesstimates about what might happen at the table on any given hand but nevertheless I found the experiment quite interesting.

????

What were you measuring?

[han]

Indeed.

[matmat]

han, on Feb 19 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

Indeed.

I agree with Han

[the hog]

hrothgar, on Feb 20 2008, 06:35 AM, said:

gerry, on Feb 20 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

For what its worth, what I found when I plugged this hand into my favorite software was (just looking at the hands with the help of a double dummy analyser) a good rate of success, certainly better than even money.  Obviously one needs to make some guesstimates about what might happen at the table on any given hand but nevertheless I found the experiment quite interesting.

????

What were you measuring?

Inflation rate?

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Feb 19 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

I don't feel there is any controversy about 4♣. It is clearly forcing and clearly natural as far as I'm concerned. To me the bottom line is this hand is far too good to worry about the opponents, and far too complicated to needlessly guess both strain and level.

Maybe this is just my limit bidding hat again, but I don't think 4C is totally forcing. But it honestly doesn't matter if it is forcing or not, it describes our hand. By opening 1C, bidding 3H then bidding 4C we said "I have a powerful hand with 4 hearts and 7 clubs*" I said this earlier, but if partner passes 4C I don't expect to miss game.

On the actual hand, if partner's SK were the Ace I would certainly have expected him to raise 4C to 5C, for example.

*You have to be 4-7. With 5 hearts you would bid 4H now; with 3 spades you would raise spades, with 2416 you would have doubled 3D.

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 20 2008, 01:06 AM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 19 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

I don't feel there is any controversy about 4♣. It is clearly forcing and clearly natural as far as I'm concerned. To me the bottom line is this hand is far too good to worry about the opponents, and far too complicated to needlessly guess both strain and level.

Maybe this is just my limit bidding hat again

It is

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Feb 19 2008, 10:35 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 20 2008, 01:37 AM, said:

(For what its worth, I didn't invent this theory...  I've always heard it called Burgess's Rule:  If you get dealt a Swan, you open it at the game level)

BTW, I have tried to extend the same concept to 7-5 hands.  It doesn't seem to work well at all....

Stephen Burgess does extend these to 7-5 hands. He is willing to open at even higher levels with more distribution.

There are several stories about his six-level openings. He told me that he had a rule that partner (think client) was not allowed to raise his six-level openings unless he held four aces. I recall vaguely some hand where partner raised inappropriately and he needed some brilliancy (obsure squeeze) to pull the contract in.

He also told me a story about playing US at a world championships with US NPC kibitzing on his side of the screen - Dan Morse I think. Stephen opened 6♦ with some 7-5-1-0 with five hearts on the side. The NPC could not control himself and blurted out for all to hear "Is THAT the opening bid?"

If you ever get the chance, ask him what he'd open with

♠ KQ963
♥ 7
♦ Q876532
♣ Void

I tried a 5♦ opening. It didn't fare too well...

Partner tabled

♠ AT852
♥ T643
♦ A
♣ T73

The other table was allowed to declare 4♠

[helene_t]

Lol Richard, what about this preempt structure:
2D: 5/5 including spades
2H/S: Natural
2N: 5+ minor, 5 hearts
3x: Natural
3N: 6m, 5 spades
4c: 6/5 majors
4d: Major single suiter
4h/s: 6-card + 5-card minor
4N: 6/5 minors

This will allow you to open at the appropriate level (except that you would have to open a timid 2N with 5H+6m) and still be able to find the batter fit with the 6/5 hands (except that responder must guess over the 4N opening). You could obviously replace the 4d/H/S part with
4d: bad 4M opening
4M: Sound
if my 4d opening is not GCC legal or if you just don't feel the need for my 4d/4M distinction.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Feb 20 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

Lol Richard, what about this preempt structure:
2D: 5/5 including spades
2H/S: Natural
2N: 5+ minor, 5 hearts
3x: Natural
3N: 6m, 5 spades
4c: 6/5 majors
4d: Major single suiter
4h/s: 6-card + 5-card minor
4N: 6/5 minors

This will allow you to open at the appropriate level (except that you would have to open a timid 2N with 5H+6m) and still be able to find the batter fit with the 6/5 hands (except that responder must guess over the 4N opening). You could obviously replace the 4d/H/S part with
4d: bad 4M opening
4M: Sound
if my 4d opening is not GCC legal or if you just don't feel the need for my 4d/4M distinction.

Regretfully, almost none of these openings are GCC legal

Left to my own druthers, I prefer

2♦ = 4+ Diamonds and a 4+ card major
2♥ = 4+ hearts and either 4+ Spades or 5+ Clubs
2♠ = 6+ Spades or (4+ Spades and 5+ Clubs)
2N = Bad three level preempt in either minor
3♣ = Constructive club preempt
3♦ = Constructive Diamond preempt
3♥ = 6+ hearts
3♠ = 6+ Spades
3N = Good 4 level preempt in either major
4♣ = Natural
4♦ = Natural
4♥ = Natural (usually weak, could be a good 7-4)
4♠ = Natural (usually weak, could be a good 7-4)
4N = Good 5 level minor preempt
5♣ = Natural (usually weak, could be a good 7-4)
5♦ \= Natural (Natural (usually weak, could be a good 7-4)

[Yogeshdg]

helene_t, on Feb 17 2008, 05:33 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 17 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

I would have opened 5♣ in first seat...

Naah, not at these colors. I might open 5♣ at favorable.

Open 5♣? What should your pd respond with

---

.

[the hog]

Yogeshdg, on Feb 21 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 17 2008, 05:33 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 17 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

I would have opened 5♣ in first seat...

Naah, not at these colors. I might open 5♣ at favorable.

Open 5♣? What should your pd respond with

---

.

You or partner should call the director as soon as dummy hits. There are 2 Q of H in the deck!

Btw had you read Richard's posts you would be well aware that he KNOWS opening 5C MAY be a problem for his side, but feels it is more likely to cause grief to the opps.

[whereagles]

I'd definitely try a 5♣ opener some of the time. But I'm ok with other openings.