[655321]

Jlall, on Jan 29 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jan 29 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

Keep in mind that you need a 3-2 break with AKQxxxx which is only about 15% better than picking up AKJxxxxx

I would never open 3N with AKQxxxx, but "only 15 %" is amazing to me. That is a ton of equity. Yes, I do realize I'm more conservative with my gambling 3Ns than others.

I am happy to open 3NT with AKQ5432, but in any case one third of the time the 'xxxx' will include the J or the T, making the difference even larger than 15%, i.e. responder can expect the suit to run opposite a singleton 70%+ of the time.

[Apollo81]

That 15% is IF partner has a small singleton and IF we declare notrump (or some minor contracts), and this is a bidding question so 15% is a lot different in this context than if we said "you know partner has a singleton diamond, what contract would you want to be in" where yes 15% would be huge.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Jan 29 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

I would never open 3N with AKQxxxx

Is this really true? That would be the first time I have ever heard someone say this. Do you open 1 with these?

[grrigg]

Actually if your suit is AKJ10xxxx (10 included) then you have 60% chance of picking up the suit opposite a singleton. There are 80 singleton deals: 5 possible singletons x 16 layouts of the other 4 cards. You pick up all layouts where partner's singleton is the Queen (if 10 isnt there then you would lose on two 4-0 breaks). For the other 4 singletons it doesnt matter what they are. You pick up all 2-2 breaks = 6 deals from 16 and any queen singleton which is 2 more deals. So the suit runs on 8/16 deals where its a non-Queen singleton. So the total number of deals with running suit is 4x8+16=48. Finally 48/80=6/10=60%. Voila.

[han]

Not all splits are equally likely (which makes it a bit more than 60%) but with singleton people mean a small singleton.

[whereagles]

You can also look at RHO's face. If he looks puzzled when pard explains 3NT as "gambling", then he's got the ♦Q. How much does that increase the odds??

[Gerben42]

3NT gambling. For me this is a running suit opposite "not a void". In fact the director was called on me when I bid a gambling on:

♠x
♥Qx
♦AKJTxxxx
♣Qx

as opps didn't think this was a "solid suit without side Ace or King".

[FrancesHinden]

your opponents had every right to call the director, because it's not a solid suit.

I'm with justin on this: if you have agreed to play that the 3NT opener shows a solid minor, then stick to having a solid minor.

I require AKQ to 8, or AKQJ to seven, or maybe AKQ10 to seven if I'm feeling frisky.

This hand I would open 4D.

[Gerben42]

The problem is that I learned bridge from a Dutch book for junior bridge and it clearly states a solid suit as one where you pick up the suit > 50% if partner has a small 1, i.e. AKQxxxx(x) or AKJxxxxx. So my agreement with a German partner was "solid suit" and we never discussed otherwise, why should we it is my responsability what I bid anyway.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jan 29 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Jan 29 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jan 29 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

I would never open 3N with AKQxxxx

Is this really true? That would be the first time I have ever heard someone say this. Do you open 1 with these?

yes you can ask jdonn and drg for confirmation .

Yes it's true, he is the soundest gambling 3NTer I have ever met and he never does it on AKQ2222. He is also the only one I've ever met who significantly takes vulnerability and whether in 1st or 2nd seat into account, so vul in 2nd he is even sounder.

[whereagles]

he might as well use 3NT opener for something else........... LOL

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

for me the min. would be

AKQxxxx.

This suit is solid and running, because
partner wont pass 3NT unless he has
at least a diamond.

And I guess I would also open with

AKJxxxxx

for the same reason, if partner passes,
we will have 9 cards, and there is a high
expectation that the suit will run.

The above are dead min for the call.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: To answer the question, it is either 3NT or 4D.
Although I more and more believe that one should
drop 3NT as gambling.

[Ant590]

In the words of a good friend of mine:

"3NT... it's gambling, ain't it?"

[helene_t]

Jlall, on Jan 30 2008, 04:02 AM, said:

655321, on Jan 29 2008, 08:59 PM, said:

I am happy to open 3NT with AKQ5432, but in any case one third of the time the 'xxxx' will include the J or the T, making the difference even larger than 15%, i.e. responder can expect the suit to run opposite a singleton 70%+ of the time.

Hi, this thinking is incorrect since it's not a question of whether you pass AKQJxxx/AKQTxxx/AKQxxxx, or open those. You can easily open AKQJxxx/AKQTxxx and pass AKQxxxx if you want to. So AKQJxxx/AKQTxxx are irrelevant to the subject of AKQxxxx.

Hey Justin, sorry for repeating myself once again, but why do you waste your time playing bridge? You would make a hell of an applied math teacher.

[lechcold]

Gerben42, on Jan 30 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

3NT gambling. For me this is a running suit opposite "not a void". In fact the director was called on me when I bid a gambling on:

♠x
♥Qx
♦AKJTxxxx
♣Qx

as opps didn't think this was a "solid suit without side Ace or King".

why the hell opps did call the director? Really very strange. Interesting what director said.

BTW: 3N with "solid suit, no side ace or king" is - in my opinion - one of the worst conventions. If 3N become final contract - you play it from wrong side. Opps have a lot of informations about your hand and defence is easy. If they outbid you - the dummy play is also easy for the same reason.