Jinksy

No. Raising third seat preempts at this colour on almost any hand is just asking the opps to penalise you. Why not trust that the preempt has done the damage?

I would, unless I was specifically playing to avoid swings* (though I would also not expect P to lead my suit if they had anything more promising available). It's also slightly more appealing against strong clubbers, since if I pass they're likely to have a tightly defined bidding sequence. * I try to persuade my partners not to invite on less than 2.5 of good support, shortage and a primey near max as a passed hand, and not to competitively raise without at least an extra card than they'd normally expect in the suit, and preferably distribution too.

I know rogerclee has a Twitch account, but I don't know how often (if ever) it sees use. That kind of live straming would probably be more interest to me than a podcast, and I expect less effort for the player, as long as they can remember to talk us through their thought processes during the play.

I'm quite surprised to hear that. Are there many strong players who'd consider an unfavourable overcall on KQxxx and out? Add a spade or even some distribution elsewhere and I'd expect to hear a few 2♠ calls, but I thought it near universal among competent players that a 1-level bid in this situation should have either a much meatier suit than this E can have or some outside values.

In my book a 1-level unfavourable overcall with KQ in the suit means more outside values than a bare jack. So if the ruffing finesse loses, I'd play for the drop. Might prefer the finesse if the opps are weak or young.

This is only true to the extent that you can rely on RHO playing randomly from KQ. Many weaker players would reliably play the lower honour in accordance with the general principles they've been taught, which I'm too tired to work out, but I think makes it about 50-50, all else being equal.

To me, without discussion, 2H looks like values and confirming a fit, so why not bid that? As well as suggesting game without forcing to the three level, it makes the opps less likely to compete when they have a decent sac on.

Sure it does, it preempts them out of their weak NT. Not such a big deal at IMPs (where P's also more likely to put you in a dodgy 2-3NT), but it can be 50% of the MPs here. (fwiw I'd open this hand at either form of scoring, though)

I do not think that word means what you think it means :P

Pass. Maybe I can uppercut.

Who?

I don't necessarily want to be in slam, even if P has both missing aces. Also, 4N to me looks more like two places (though far from sure about this. Could we just bid 4H, 5C or 5N with any such hand?). Anyway, for want of anything more descriptive/a clear idea of whether I'd be on the same page as P even if I'm on the same page as myself, I'll bid 4♠ and let him take the blamecredit.

I'm not worried about getting penalised at the one-level nearly as much as encouraging P to overcompete, or giving the opps info when they (likely) win the hand. At MPs especially, 2♥ or 3♥ -2 both look worryingly likely. The last thing I want is for P to 'put them under pressure' - there's too high a chance they'll succumb to it.

I'm also a passer, and to add to eagles' list, we have the death holding in clubs. Switch them with my spades, and I'd venture it.

Because you're a self-righteous puritan who thinks that actively trying to upset living people is a noble calling, but breathing the name of long-dead ones is a serious crime?

It sounds to me like you're entertaining the possibility that passing is better. You are allowed to do so, even playing Capp, even holding the OP hand if you think it's going to be a winner. For natural to be better, you'd have to gain more from overcalling a natural 2♦ (or 2♣) than from overcalling a 'both majors' hand (or for it to come up sufficiently more often).

What do you plan to compare them with? As Mike said, it's almost inconceivable to play anything other than natural that doesn't let you show both majors.

My main problem with weak NT opposite a passed hand is the possibility of P inviting when I'm bottom-end. NV I think the preemptive value in third is ok, vul it's probably more dangerous than it's worth, but I really want to be able to sensibly bid for the part score with a decent 12 or mediocre 13 safe in the knowledge that I can cut the auction off below 2N.

We might fluke our way there in a Fantunes auction: 1H 1S* 2C** 2D** 2S*** 2N 3H 3S 4C 4H 4N 5C 5D**** 6S 7S * 2H would show 4-7, so this is slightly too good. Take away the JD and it would start 1H 2H, which would make life harder, but 2S 3S doesn't sound like a farfetched continuation. ** Gazz *** Cheapest positive response **** Trump queen ask

What else can it be? 3♦ must show 5, so in a pinch you could raise that with 3 or a good two. With a two-suiter, even with longer Ds, surely it would make sense to bid his major first?

It bugs me when they do that. I'd rather just pay them the profits they want, and give 20% to my own choice of good causes. 7♠ looks dodgy to me. With only 4 entries, what can you do if hearts split 4-2 and the K doesn't drop? I'll opt for 6N, on the grounds that my bidding is better than my card play.

1 looks like a WTP 5♦ to me. I don't rate our chances of making 6 - assuming no D losers we'd need to ruff three cards in hand or find P with a working honour elsewhere, but five will have play. Meanwhile 4♠ may well make (and we might bounce them), so I'm not passing or Xing. 2 looked like a WTP til I read MrAce's analysis. I'd still bid 6, since as he says there's no reason P has to be so weak (or P could have longish spades instead of diamonds), but I wouldn't feel great about it. Also I would expect weaker opps to have fewer trumps than normal on this auction, so P rates to have something to ruff.

KT83 AKJ963 KT 7 You're playing 4 card majors and weak NT, at IMPs. Unfavourable all in third, the bidding goes P P 1♥ 3♦ P P What's your action? Assume no discussion about what Xing and then pulling 4♣ to 4♥ would be. At the table, this hand passed. Should any perceptive souls suspect any similarity between this and the other thread*, I'll add another question - who takes the lion's share of the blame? Or are both equally wimpy? * In the other thread I stated it was pairs. I've since found out is was X-IMPs (I didn't play the hand). Please say if that affects your ATB answer.

Thirdly, they might be right :P

You're playing 4 card majors and weak NT, at pairs. [hv=pc=n&s=s764hq2da6ckt9532&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1h3d]133|200[/hv]