[Apollo81]

Halo, on Feb 21 2008, 03:28 PM, said:

Well I don't agree with 3S, or 4S.

If we judge not to double, then bidding 3D looks very sensible to me. We have a very good hand and if we go for offence, let's give ourselves some chances.

I think the whole point of this thread was that now we can't bid 3♦ like we would have done over a 1N response since that understates the spades and the playing strength of this hand.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 4S
#2 more less the way, it did develop in reality

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Halo]

Apollo81, on Feb 21 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

Halo, on Feb 21 2008, 03:28 PM, said:

Well I don't agree with 3S, or 4S.

If we judge not to double, then bidding 3D looks very sensible to me. We have a very good hand and if we go for offence, let's give ourselves some chances.

I think the whole point of this thread was that now we can't bid 3♦ like we would have done over a 1N response since that understates the spades and the playing strength of this hand.

But does it still understate spades when your next bid is 4S?

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Feb 21 2008, 11:52 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 21 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

One would think that starting with a 1♠ opening would give us the best chance to find the 6♦ slam.  However, no one is even sniffing arround investigating Diamonds as a possible strain.  In practice, the 4♠ opening isn't working any worse than the 1♠ opening.

Yes, this is a break even situation. On the other hand, if there was either no interference, or interference in the suit in which the opponents actually have a big fit, bidding a diamond slam would become extremely feasible.

Hi Josh

I'm not sure whether this evaluates as a break even situation:

Either Meckstroth or Rodwell made a very interesting point about all the "crappy" games that they bid... The defenders are never sure whether this is a game that will make comfortably or whether they need to do something wild to break the contract. The defenders are always under a lot of mental pressure.

I'd argue that the 4♠ opening can be viewed in the same light. Making the 4♠ opening less precise will certainly have an impact on our constructive bidding. However, it will also impose some additional burdens on the defenders. Moreover, this lack of precision will imapct them anytime we open 4M (not just when we have a 7-4 hand).

I certainly can't prove that these benefits outweigh the costs associated with missing the occasional slam. However, I'm happy enough with the style...

As an added benefit, I don't need to worry about 7-4 hands in my relay structures :-)

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Feb 21 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

Hi Josh

I'm not sure whether this evaluates as a break even situation:

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant either opening bid would have broken even on the actual layout and subsequent auction. I mean this time it breaks even, I wasn't refering to the broader general situation.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Feb 21 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

As an added benefit, I don't need to worry about 7-4 hands in my relay structures :-)

You don't get to show diamonds first and then canape into spades?

[Fluffy]

Halo, on Feb 21 2008, 09:33 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 21 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

Halo, on Feb 21 2008, 03:28 PM, said:

Well I don't agree with 3S, or 4S.

If we judge not to double, then bidding 3D looks very sensible to me. We have a very good hand and if we go for offence, let's give ourselves some chances.

I think the whole point of this thread was that now we can't bid 3♦ like we would have done over a 1N response since that understates the spades and the playing strength of this hand.

But does it still understate spades when your next bid is 4S?

What does make you think there will be a next?, I think 3♦ showing a weak 5-5 is the standard treatent.

[Wackojack]

Partner's "bad" 3NT bid gave me the opportunity to bid 4♦. I thought about it for a long time and passed. 4♠+1 at the other table -2imp

[helene_t]

Apollo81, on Feb 21 2008, 09:55 PM, said:

I think the whole point of this thread was that now we can't bid 3♦ like we would have done over a 1N response since that understates the spades and the playing strength of this hand.

Agree with that, at least it understates the spades. (Not sure if I would have bid 3♦ over a 1NT response though).