[AL78]

MPs, playing Acol 3 weak twos, weak NT with an inexperienced partner, first seat no-one vuln, what do you open with this hand?

♠94
♥Q
♦J9
♣AKT96543

[P_Marlowe]

4C, and you are done with the hand.

If you go with 5C, someone will make a T/O, and you will play it there, 500 is a
bid to much.

The problem with 1C is, that you wont let them play below 4C anyway, and
do you have the nerves to pass 3NT from partner, hoping he has at least 1 club?

[Gilithin]

Either 3NT or 5♣ depending on the partner and the opps.

[pescetom]

5C looks like much risk for little possible gain. I'd rather punt 3NT, if partner will not be regular (it would be an illegal agreement that we open such hands NT, at least over here). I'm still trying to get a feel for 4C having always played Namyats, but I guess it fits the bill.

[Tramticket]

Gilithin, on 2023-October-06, 10:41, said:

Either 3NT or 5♣ depending on the partner and the opps.

Neither of these. I need at least the queen as well for 3NT, even with an 8-card suit. Not 5C either for the reasons given above by P_Marlowe.

[StevenG]

I will attract all sorts of opprobium for this, but 3♣. I know it's "wrong", but, in my experience, 4♣ or higher will get you a bottom whenever partner can reply 3NT to your opening bid. I would guess AL78's partner would be bamboozled by a 3NT opener and it's not solid enough for me, anyway.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2023-October-06, 10:57, said:

Neither of these. I need at least the queen as well for 3NT, even with an 8-card suit.

You don't need the Q (or J, or even a doubleton) if the split is 2-2-1 which is about 40% as I recall. And you can probably add another 20% from other useful splits.

Of course they aren't likely to lead clubs, but it's still a decent punt in my eyes.

[shyams]

Agree with P_Marlowe. I too would open 4♣

[P_Marlowe]

StevenG, on 2023-October-06, 11:02, said:

I will attract all sorts of opprobium for this, but 3♣. I know it's "wrong", but, in my experience, 4♣ or higher will get you a bottom whenever partner can reply 3NT to your opening bid. I would guess AL78's partner would be bamboozled by a 3NT opener and it's not solid enough for me, anyway.

I ruled out 3NT due to inexp., ..., besides I dont like it, and it is a matter of agreement, if the suit is running.
Partner should only keep you in 3NT, if he happens to have a card reaching you, and with 9 cards the suit is reasonable solid.

I dont mind 3C for your stated reasons, take your pick, ...
If you agreed to play solid suits 2 of 3 top honors to invite partner bidding 3NT with a holding that may make the suit run,
why not, ..., the 8th club makes such holdings less likely, but why not.

The question to answer when playing with an inexp. p, do you deviate from the book / system bid ( what ever this may be ) to
improve your chances for getting a good score or not?
I try to ignore the fact "inexp." as long as I can, the fact played a role in ruleing out 3NT.

[pescetom]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-October-06, 11:12, said:

The question to answer when playing with an inexp. p, do you deviate from the book / system bid ( what ever this may be ) to
improve your chances for getting a good score or not?
I try to ignore the fact "inexp." as long as I can, the fact played a role in ruleing out 3NT.

For me it depends a lot on how inexp the inexp p is, and why we are playing together in the first place.
If he is a beginner, or a slow learner but I am mentoring, I would never deviate from system and 4C would be automatic here.
If he has talent and we agreed to have some fun and know we will not play together often, I would go for the punt and explain it later.
In any case I would never stress partner just to get a good score.

[Tramticket]

pescetom, on 2023-October-06, 11:09, said:

You don't need the Q (or J, or even a doubleton) if the split is 2-2-1 which is about 40% as I recall.

I want partner to be able to rely on the clubs running, even with a singleton club. But with a singleton, he now needs a 2-2 break.

Note that partner is in charge after a 3NT opening and will judge the final contract, including making a possible calculated gamble. Partner can only do that if you can be relied upon to deliver your seven (or eight) tricks.

[Gilithin]

Tramticket, on 2023-October-06, 10:57, said:

Neither of these. I need at least the queen as well for 3NT, even with an 8-card suit.

It is quite a popular agreement, that I have used with a number of partners, to play a 3NT opening as a good 4m preempt. This hand is an excellent example.

[mikeh]

An easy 5C for me

Yes, the odds are that, if they double, I’m playing it there but so what? Those same odds say that I have 8 tricks in my own hand and why should I assume that (a) partner has nothing to contribute, and (b) when I go down 500 they don’t have a slam they could reach after a lower-level opening?

Bidding on the assumption that everything is bad for us AND that the opps, put under pressure, will do the (edit, I had written ‘wrong’) right thing is a good way to avoid winning.

Meanwhile, in the unlikely event that I catch partner with a very good hand, 5C will let himjudge my trick taking potential more accurately than would 4C. What would we open with the same hand but KQJxxxxx in clubs?

Admittedly, given the context of the OP,it’s almost surely irrelevant what partner has.

[AL78]

mikeh, on 2023-October-06, 13:49, said:

An easy 5C for me

Yes, the odds are that, if they double, I’m playing it there but so what? Those same odds say that I have 8 tricks in my own hand and why should I assume that (a) partner has nothing to contribute, and (b) when I go down 500 they don’t have a slam they could reach after a lower-level opening?

Bidding on the assumption that everything is bad for us AND that the opps, put under pressure, will do the wrong thing is a good way to avoid winning.

Meanwhile, in the unlikely event that I catch partner with a very good hand, 5C will let himjudge my trick taking potential more accurately than would 4C. What would we open with the same hand but KQJxxxxx in clubs?

Admittedly, given the context of the OP,it’s almost surely irrelevant what partner has.

At the table I opened 5♣ for the reasons given above, I know there is a chance I'll go for 500 and opps either don't have a slam on or can make slam but no-one in the room bids it, but you can't live life in fear. I was surprised when partner paused then raised me to slam, but it worked:

---

After a heart lead 13 tricks were trivial for 7/8 MPs. Three out of the other four pairs found the slam but two of them only made 12 tricks for reasons unknown.

[P_Marlowe]

The question is, would she also have raised 4C to 6C?

As it is, as long as you know you are risking a 0, I am fine with 5C.
I wont do it, I think it is too much (*), but if it works for you, it is ok.

(*) Our 10HCP mean, they wont bid a slam on power, the Queen of hearts is a card,
that they wont expect with me,and it is easy to see a declarer going for a safety,
loosing a trick to the Queen
And if I got it right 5C can go down 800, 500 being already the death sentence playing
MP requires already something from the distribution (not much, but something).

PS: With the hand MikeH gave, I would open 4C as well, and yes having AK in my suit, makes
the suit stronger, better for offense, but also better for defence.

[Tramticket]

Gilithin, on 2023-October-06, 13:19, said:

It is quite a popular agreement, that I have used with a number of partners, to play a 3NT opening as a good 4m preempt. This hand is an excellent example.

I wrongly assumed that you were playing 3NT as a Gambling 3NT - which would be the usage by the vast majority of UK players. This hand would not qualify. If it meets your criteria as a strong club-suit pre-empt, then fair enough.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2023-October-07, 02:33, said:

I wrongly assumed that you were playing 3NT as a Gambling 3NT - which would be the usage by the vast majority of UK players. This hand would not qualify. If it meets your criteria as a strong club-suit pre-empt, then fair enough.

I realised later you must be thinking about Gambling 3NT, whereas I had assumed 3NT would be agreed natural given the context (sorry to learn that the UK too is afflicted by that awful convention).

[AL78]

pescetom, on 2023-October-07, 10:46, said:

I realised later you must be thinking about Gambling 3NT, whereas I had assumed 3NT would be agreed natural given the context (sorry to learn that the UK too is afflicted by that awful convention).

What is so bad about Gambling 3NT?

[Gilithin]

AL78, on 2023-October-07, 12:07, said:

What is so bad about Gambling 3NT?

It comes up very rarely, and when it can be passed it wrong-sides the contract making the defence incredibly easy. There are a number of alternative uses that are almost certainly more useful.

[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2023-October-07, 12:21, said:

It comes up very rarely, and when it can be passed it wrong-sides the contract making the defence incredibly easy.

It also has relatively complex and unintuitive developments for such a low frequency convention (3NT-4♦;4NT-5NT; ? at 11pm...) and the strict requirement of at most a side Q stifles its ability to at least better define other minor preempts.

It's second only to 2♣ Crodo as the convention I gave up most happily

Spoiler

4♦ = shortage ask
4NT = short in other minor
5NT = call 7 if void