[grrigg]

Scoring: IMP

Red v White. The bidding goes Pass to you. Its your call!

---

[gwnn]

Another argument against Namyats.

[whereagles]

I'm gonna try 3NT anyway

[Fluffy]

3♦?

[Roupoil]

4♦, this is not a running suit for me.

[helene_t]

3N but wouldn't object to 4♦.

[Apollo81]

I'm not saying I'd bid this, but maybe 1♦ should have been in the option list?

I think I would open a Gambling 3NT if I were playing that convention, and 4♦ otherwise. I don't think this hand is substantially different than AKQxxxx and out. If partner has 1 you are better than 50-50 to run the suit, and if partner has 0 he won't pass 3NT. I'd also open AKQxxxxx 3NT for the same reason. Surely we are playing some sort of invitational method over this so that pard can find out whether we have 7 or 8 if he needs to know.

[awm]

I'd bid 3♦. My red/white preempts in 2nd chair are generally extremely sound.

It seems way too likely to me that 3NT by partner is a winning contract. I don't want to preempt past that spot, or wrong-side it by bidding 3NT myself.

Obviously if partner expects a ratty suit or something for 3♦, I can't really make that call. But at this heat the same hand with one less diamond would be a quite normal 3♦ bid for me. Usually one extra diamond trick is not the difference between making 3NT and not (the issue is usually stoppers on these hands, not tricks).

[pclayton]

3N and I think its pretty clear. Pard is never passing with a void so were a minimum of 53 percent to run the suit. 3N has almost the preemptiveness as 4D and we dont bypass our favorite contract.

[han]

I would bid 4D or 3NT. I have sympathy for 3D though I would never bid it, but not for 5D which I think is just too much at these colors.

Agree that partner would never pass with a void btw so that is not a problem.

[655321]

Apollo81, on Jan 29 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

I'm not saying I'd bid this, but maybe 1♦ should have been in the option list?

I think I would open a Gambling 3NT if I were playing that convention, and 4♦ otherwise.  I don't think this hand is substantially different than AKQxxxx and out.  If partner has 1 you are better than 50-50 to run the suit, and if partner has 0 he won't pass 3NT.  I'd also open AKQxxxxx 3NT for the same reason.  Surely we are playing some sort of invitational method over this so that pard can find out whether we have 7 or 8 if he needs to know.

Agree 1♦ is a plausible bid, as is 4♦. I have opened 1♦ on this sort of hand with success.

3NT is of course possible too, but how can you say the hand is not substantially different from AKQxxxx? Opposite a singleton AKQxxxx will run 68% of the time, AKJTxxxx will run just over 50% of the time. Big difference. If partner finds out you have 8 cards, he will picture AKQxxxxx, 8 tricks opposite a singleton 90% of the time, rather than 8 tricks 50+% of the time.

[brianshark]

I would lean towards 3♦ because while underbidding the hand for sure, at these colours in 2nd seat, it is a smaller underbid than in any other situation. 4♦ should really imply a hand that can't realistically play in 3N... It definitely makes it near impossible to play game in NT no matter how good partner's hand is. And 3N is dangerous for the reasons Justin gave above, especially in other situations where pard has to guess whether your suit really is solid or not.

[kenrexford]

gwnn, on Jan 29 2008, 03:19 AM, said:

Another argument against Namyats.

???

Playing my version, this is a clear 3NT in Namyats. Two of the top three honors, with the Ace.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Jan 29 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

re opening 3N: Yes the suit will run slightly more than half the time opp a stiff, and almost always opp a doubleton. The problem is, again, that describing this suit as solid is misdecriptive. Partner, banking on a solid suit, would be very normal to pass with something like xxxx Axxx x Axxx. So here we are in 3N, partner gambling on a spade split or a non spade lead, you gambling on diamonds splitting, and it's a complete crapshoot against just playing 4D. Remember you are in down five territory if diamonds don't split. And what if partner has AKxx AKxx x AKxx and bids 7? etc. Basically it is dangerous to misdescribe your hand after a bid like gambling 3N where pard has to guess where to place the contract immediately, and may well be induced to misjudge. Also I think that 3N is not nearly as close in preemptive value as 4D. They get 2 shots now, and they get to start with X.

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

[Echognome]

Jlall, on Jan 29 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

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

Jlall, on Jan 29 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

re opening 3N: Yes the suit will run slightly more than half the time opp a stiff, and almost always opp a doubleton. The problem is, again, that describing this suit as solid is misdecriptive. Partner, banking on a solid suit, would be very normal to pass with something like xxxx Axxx x Axxx. So here we are in 3N, partner gambling on a spade split or a non spade lead, you gambling on diamonds splitting, and it's a complete crapshoot against just playing 4D. Remember you are in down five territory if diamonds don't split. And what if partner has AKxx AKxx x AKxx and bids 7? etc. Basically it is dangerous to misdescribe your hand after a bid like gambling 3N where pard has to guess where to place the contract immediately, and may well be induced to misjudge. Also I think that 3N is not nearly as close in preemptive value as 4D. They get 2 shots now, and they get to start with X.

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.

Amazing to me as well:

I didn't fancy figuring out the numbers on my own, so according to Suitplay:

AKQxxxx opposite x is 7 winners 67.8%
AKJTxxx opposite x is 7 winners 36.7%
AKJxxxx opposite x is 7 winners 33.9%

So what am I missing?

[Echognome]

Jlall, on Jan 29 2008, 04:58 PM, said:

gnome with AKJ there are 8

Well that explains a lot.

AKJxxxxx opposite x is 8 winners 53.1%, so there is our 15%.