How do you like opponents preempts (2)

[xx1943]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=skt5ht93d74cak842]133|100|Scoring: IMP

LHO opens 4 hearts, partner bids 4 spades.

Any idea, what to bid?[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

-  - Pass Pass

4♥ 4♠ Pass    ????????????

[hrothgar]

I'd bid 5♣

 

This is not an attempt to improve the contract...

[whereagles]

Without having seen pard's hand: pass.

 

Having seen it:

7 clubs :D

 

[mikeh]

AQJxxx x AQJ xxx: we'd bid 4♠: now, on a ♥ lead and a ♦ back, we are probably down in 5♠, so there is no 5-level safety here, which is my most-used tool for deciding whether to push beyond game.

 

OTOH, AQJxxx x Axx QJx and this hand, with the same hcp and distribution is virtually laydown in slam.... so my other main guide (is there a non-weird minimum on which slam is cold) says to bid on.

 

I think that the chances of there being a biddable and making small slam are good enough that I have to risk the 5-level: Heck, give him AQJxxx Ax Ax Qxx, and he's still only overcalling 4♠ and we may well take 13 tricks.

 

So I choose 5♣ which, as Hrothgar says, is not an effort to improve the contract.

 

My main worry is some uncertainty as to how partner will interprete my 5♠ signoff over 5♦: am I saying bid slam with a ♥ control? I don't think so, I think that my sequence ought to suggest that 5♣ was a potential source of tricks as well as a mild try, but this may be wishful thinking: a result of the common bridge fault of assigning to our bidding the meaning that most closely resembles our hand.

[whereagles]

how partner will interprete my 5♠ signoff over 5♦: am I saying bid slam with a ♥ control? I don't think so

I don't think so too. If hearts were all you were worried about, you could have bid 5♠ instead of 5♣.

[mikeh]

how partner will interprete my 5♠ signoff over 5♦: am I saying bid slam with a ♥ control? I don't think so

I don't think so too. If hearts were all you were worried about, you could have bid 5♠ instead of 5♣.

The problem with that concept is how do you bid with K10x xx xxx AKQJx, for example: you can hardly afford an immediate 5♠, since partner should bid slam with AQJxxxx x KQx xxx and they cash two Aces. This is in fact a hand on which you would like to bid 5♣ and then, over 5♦, ask for a ♥ control :(

 

I see the problem, but there is insufficient bidding space in which to cater to all advancing hand types, so I, for one, would simply take the risk that we are off two Aces with my example, but I can see the logic to the other approach.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Pass, wtp ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe.

[EricK]

I pass.

 

Pre-empts work, but at least this way we get a plus score. Nothing encourages pre-emptors more than when you overbid and go minus.

[Free]

I'd bid 5♣. At this vulnerability, partner should have a great hand. Blacky doesn't give us the info we need, so lets start controls...

[whereagles]

I pass.

 

Pre-empts work, but at least this way we get a plus score. Nothing encourages pre-emptors more than when you overbid and go minus.

True. Though if there's a passed hand where it's relatively ok to press on, this is it, or at least pretty close to it.

 

Still, I'd stay fixed and take my sure plus in 4♠. I don't like to double-cross pard when his 4♠ might already be a brave attempt at trying for some 'action'. 5♠ might already be off on a ruff or bad breaks. I might try 5♣ (fit + control, obviously) if I was in dire need of a swing.