[gnasher]

 paulg, on 2012-August-27, 07:53, said:

My first thought is that it is completely insane. Reading the comments I see others are less convinced or more diplomatic.

Or we just answered the question that was asked. If there is any argument in favour of opening 4♥, that means it has some merit.

[ArtK78]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-August-27, 11:06, said:

Opening 4H?

OK. I don't disagree with you. Others have at least some sympathy for the 4♥ opening, even to the point of providing a detailed history of the success or failure of opening 1♥ vs. opening 4♥ in high-level competition (no pun intended). So, while it would never have occurred to me to open 4♥ on this hand, the issue does not appear to be free from doubt.

[Phil]

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-27, 10:53, said:

Could you be a little more specific? For example, what are you referring to by "This?"

Could you be a little more trollish?

[awm]

Pavliceks examples are interesting. At some point I used bridge browser to analyze hands opening 4M with 7+M and 13-15 hcp and got similar results (4M a big winner) with a much weaker field but a much larger sample size. Same if restricted to tables of four "good players" by Lehman rating.

Certainly this can happen (missed slam). But opponents can also go for a number, or misdefend on the low info auction, or fail to find a sacrifice (or even making game).

I think the 4h bid here is fine.

[ArtK78]

 Phil, on 2012-August-27, 11:35, said:

Could you be a little more trollish?

Phil, what is your problem? Your comment is completely out of line. If you have a problem with my comment, you can address me directly. But since you did this publicly, I am responding publicly.

[Fluffy]

4♥ must be bid with a very wide range of hands or else opponents knwo to bid 4♠ over it as a double shot.

I don't do it on weak fields since I feel superior to both the field and my opponents, but if things are even or opponents are better than me there is a lot to say about it.

[Phil]

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-27, 11:42, said:

Phil, what is your problem? Your comment is completely out of line. If you have a problem with my comment, you can address me directly. But since you did this publicly, I am responding publicly.

Justin said "It (4♥) is awful". A preponderance of prior responses from posters qualified to post in this forum already gave substantial reasons for why it is not an acceptable call.

Yet, you choose to press on with (emphasis added):

Quote

OK. I don't disagree with you. Others have at least some sympathy for the 4♥ opening, even to the point of providing a detailed history of the success or failure of opening 1♥ vs. opening 4♥ in high-level competition (no pun intended). So, while it would never have occurred to me to open 4♥ on this hand, the issue does not appear to be free from doubt.

You asked a question, and you got some clear answers. You decide to press on by being a Devil's Advocate for 4♥. Within this forum, its annoying, sorry.

Don't take it personally.

[ArtK78]

Phil, perhaps you misread my posts.

I have a lot of respect for my partner who made the bid, but I still thought the bid was awful. The reason for my initial post was to find out if anyone disagreed with that conclusion. Some do.

And it is hard not to read a comment "Perhaps you could be a little more trollish" in any way but personal.

[gnasher]

I didn't know what "This is awful" referred to. I could understand it being any of the 4♥ opening, the original question, or the thread as a whole.

[sathyab]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-27, 11:10, said:

Or we just answered the question that was asked. If there is any argument in favour of opening 4♥, that means it has some merit.

IMHO, asking a question like this which obviously can work some of the time, invariably gets you the mix of responses you see here. People rarely follow the sage advice they dispense to others. Probably more productive to search play records of top events and look for hands that're a close approximation to your problem hand.

Ask someone here if they'd overcall 3♦ BOTH Vul, when RHO deals and opens a multi-2♦ holding ♠Q ♥AT ♦KT9xxx ♣K8xx. Chances are most people would not recommend it. But look up the play records of the final two segments of World Mind Sports and you'll see someone did

[mfa1010]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-27, 07:45, said:

If I opened 4♥, the objective would be to encourage the opponents to misjudge by taking away their bidding space, rather than specifically to keep them out of 4♠. If they get to 4♠, it doesn't mean they have done the right thing - they may go for 800, or maybe neither game makes.

The opening obviously has some merit, because it may succeed in this objective. But I think it's also a bad bid, because it has too much slam potential, and more defence than partner will expect.

If we did open 4♥ I think we would have to follow up with X'ing a 4♠ overcall ourselves. Of course this requires that we play a style where X would show values and not something fancy like a strong suggestion to bid 5♥.

[JLOGIC]

my initial comment was unclear, sorry

[JLOGIC]

 sathyab, on 2012-August-27, 14:04, said:

IMHO, asking a question like this which obviously can work some of the time, invariably gets you the mix of responses you see here. People rarely follow the sage advice they dispense to others. Probably more productive to search play records of top events and look for hands that're a close approximation to your problem hand.

Ask someone here if they'd overcall 3♦ BOTH Vul, when RHO deals and opens a multi-2♦ holding ♠Q ♥AT ♦KT9xxx ♣K8xx. Chances are most people would not recommend it. But look up the play records of the final two segments of World Mind Sports and you'll see someone did

Opening 4H in first seat with 15 points is hardly comparable to a marginal decision like opening a 5-5 10 count overcalling a bad 6-4 12 count, etc. On top of that, as has been said we then have to hammer 4S which may work great or may work horribly. Just seems like an awful style of bridge to me.

I also disagree with your theory that people would recommend on paper to pass with the 6-4 hand over multi but would do it irl. There is huge risk of passing hoping to balance that you will just get blown out by LHO when it is your hand, we are 2-1 in the majors after all. Obviously we might get hammered if we overcall but I don't see why people would do something irl than they would on the forums on a hand like that, at the end of the day its just a marginal decision either way.

[FrancesHinden]

There's no discrepancy between saying a bid is awful and saying it has some merit.
Any bid that might work has some merit, as gnasher observes. It can still be an awful bid.

[JLOGIC]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-August-27, 15:23, said:

There's no discrepancy between saying a bid is awful and saying it has some merit.
Any bid that might work has some merit, as gnasher observes. It can still be an awful bid.

True of course, but basically every single bid has some merit, so answering whether a bid has any merit at all is not likely to give any useful information and is probably just being too literal. Generally even if someone asked if a bid had any merit, wouldn't you think they at least really meant how much merit does it have, if not whether it is a good bid or not?

[gnasher]

Quote

Generally even if someone asked if a bid had any merit, wouldn't you think they at least really meant how much merit does it have, if not whether it is a good bid or not?

I think Art was hoping that we'd say it had no merit at all.

[SteveMoe]

Absent agreements, even awful is too kind. Too much defense. Too wide ranging. Too undisciplined.

However, playing Reverse Namyats this is a max for 4♥ - 4 losers and solid suit. Partner should count 12 tricks so slam will not be missed.

The problem with 4♥ on this hand? This bid is now too wide ranging. How can partner double 4♠ with confidence holding only 2-3 defensive tricks? Partner will never expect 2-3 defensive tricks in opener's hand...

Do singleton ♠s scare us that much?

[Mbodell]

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-27, 09:52, said:

In my experience, when a good player makes a big preempt intending to make, if the opponents bid over it opener will double to indicate that the preempt was bid on power and not solely on distribution, and then partner makes the decision whether to bid on or defend. The double has nothing to do with trump, and not strictly speaking with defensive tricks - it merely states that the opening bid was made expecting to make and not just as an obstruction bid.
So, on this hand, if the opps had bid 4♠ (or anything else for that matter) and it came back to opener, he would double.

I would have expected opening preemptor's double to mean extra distribution and a desire to bid on one more level.

[medtor]

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-27, 06:52, said:

I am not going to ask you what you would open with this hand. I suspect that 99% of you would open 1♥. But the question is: Is there any merit to this call?

First seat, all vul. Matchpoints. You hold:

x
AKQTxxx
QT9
Ax

My partner, a good player, opened 4♥. On account of his opening, we missed an easy slam, as I held:

AKxxx
xxxx
Ax
xx

When I asked him about his opening bid, he said he was trying to shut the opps out of a spade contract.

So I ask you, is there any merit to the opening 4♥ call?

[medtor]

Partner may be a good player but bidding needs some work! This hand is too strong..yes shuts out opponents but shuts you out too!!