Only a 3club preempt

[cherdano]

You hold x QJTxx AJ98xx x in 3rd seat, all non-vulnerable, IMPS.

 

Partner opens 1S, RHO preempts 3♣.

What do you do? If you double, please give your plan in case partner bids 3N.

 

Thanks.

[mikeh]

Double, puke, bid 4♦, in that order.

 

Partner has rights over 4♦... we may even scramble to a making 4♥. I am NOT passing 3N.

[Guest Jlall]

very ugly problem. My gut instinct is to just bid 3D, and then 4H over whatever partner bids. If LHO bids 5C we may get shut out of hearts, but I will have bid my longest and strongest suit and not have overstated my spade tolerance. Of course I am risking getting VERY high on a misfit board with only half the deck and also can never reach 3N.

 

Another option is to X, planning to raise red suits to game(or cue or something) and pass 3S, and pull 3N to 4D. This risks missing 5-3 heart fits though, and if LHO further preempts partner might bid 4S expecting better tolerance (I CAN have a stiff spade, but usually don't) and we have no shot of getting to 5D on many hands where it's right if LHO bids 5C. I'm worried partner might pass the double when it's wrong, but it might be right.

 

I think I'll stick with my gut and risk getting ridiculously high in the name of bidding out my 6-5.

[goodwintr]

I am the other 3D bidder (so far -- it is early in the polling). I'm not so sure I am bidding 4H next if partner rebids 3S: I think I'll just let that go. ("Go down," probably.) I have a chance to find a 4-5 heart fit, but concede that 5-3 is going to get away.

[Guest Jlall]

I am the other 3D bidder (so far -- it is early in the polling). I'm not so sure I am bidding 4H next if partner rebids 3S: I think I'll just let that go.

Well, 3S is forcing, but I still kind of understand it...partner might not be amused though :)

[jillybean]

Double, puke, bid 4♦, in that order.

 

:)

[HeartA]

My first thought is to bid 3D. After seeing all the options, I chose to dbl and then 4D.

[pclayton]

Double then 4♦ over 3♠. I fantasize that pard can bid a heart fragment over this.

[Impact]

People who double with 65s and wilder distribution deserve what they get....

 

lucky sometimes but also missing 9card fits and double-fits believing they have defensive values....

 

When you make a double at less than stratospheric level partenr has the right to treat it as negative or informative - but the concept that you have 2 good suits to bid, and negligible defence does not augur well.

 

3D - and hope to survive (albeit I have some sympathy for 3H followed by D, much more than for the double!)

[mikeh]

People who double with 65s and wilder distribution deserve what they get....

 

lucky sometimes but also missing 9card fits and double-fits believing they have defensive values....

 

When you make a double at less than stratospheric level partenr has the right to treat it as negative or informative - but the concept that you have 2 good suits to bid, and negligible defence does not augur well.

 

3D - and hope to survive (albeit I have some sympathy for 3H followed by D, much more than for the double!)

people who bid 3♦ and then 4♥ on misfitting 8 counts get what they deserve :)

 

Let's face it: the preempt causes a big problem to which there is no 'right' answer: only a balancing of costs and benefits.

 

I prefer the double because:

 

1) if partner passes, we are probably going plus and may well not have missed a game,

 

2) if he bids a red suit, we are going to be happy to raise to game without fear of having overbid or of his going nuts on us thinking we have a better hand than we do: he may play us for more hcp, but not for more playing strength than we have

 

3) if he rebids 3N, we pull to 4♦, describing at least 10 of our cards and our approximate strength. We may still reach either red suit game, altho it is entirely possible that we will be scoring +150

 

4) if we bid 3♦ then 4♥, please explain how partner can tell that we have this hand rather than, say, x AJxxx AKJxxx x? As part of the process, tell us how one should bid that hand differently over 3♣? Explain to partner why he should move to 6♦on Axxxx Kx Q10x Kxx opposite the big hand and correct to 4♥ on the weak hand (with no assurance that this makes on bad breaks...5♦ likely down off the top)

 

I understand the 3♦/4♥ choice....but I think it is second best.

[Impact]

Mike,

 

1) of your numbered points, I don't accept the first but like the way it is couched

 

The whole argument to me reflects what I would describe as a disease of American expert bidding: always make the most flexible bid to find out information from partner because good things could happen and then I (emphasis on the first person nominative singular) will be in a better position to make a, or the , decision.

 

This style gets its come-uppance when two practitioners sit down: each KNOWS that HE will make the right decision if only partner will provide the information....it is not dialogue at all.

 

If you play a system which is mainly dialogue (as opposed to interrogation) therein lies madness - and indeed counters the point of the system.

 

I subscribe to a contrary position (unless playing with a client): that if I can describe a significant feature of my hand I should. To treat a 65 hand as if it was balanced (the typical hand for which he would play me) seems bizarre to me- but I understand your position if not its rectitude.

 

Nothing comes with guarantees but at least I won't be writing in -460 against our making game.....

 

The 4th point is unanswerable but I will take my plus (the pre-empt has done its work, and the difference between best result possible and best possible result) as opposed to risking the disaster...

 

We shall have to agree to differ - but as I said I think it comes down to philosophical differences in approach, and shows part of the flaw in making assumptions of "standard".

 

BTW I think your approach is most common in US, would have some support in Oz but very divided, and relatively little support in say UK which has been more influenced by Acol. This latter point has nothing to do with what is right, but notes geographic attitudes.

[the hog]

Very erudite Fred. The geographic influence on bidding is very evident in many areas. It frequently comes to light as one reads these forums. I would also bid 3D on the given hand, not with much confidence, but it is the best option.

[whereagles]

My feeling is to PASS this hand, hoping that it goes

 

1♠ (3♣) pass (pass)

3♠ (pass) 4♣ (pass)

4x

 

then if x = hearts, pass. Else bid 5♦.

[Codo]

I will never understand the X then 4 Diamond bidders. To me this sounds like a big hand, else, why didn´t I bid diamonds direct? If I double, I want to cooperate with pd. I show short clubs and both red suits. Yes my suits are longer then he believes, but why should I believe, that any other contract plays better then 3 NT?

 

I will pass 3 NT and hope. Second choice would be a pass instead of double, 3. choice 3 Heart.

[cherdano]

I will never understand the X then 4 Diamond bidders. To me this sounds like a big hand, else, why didn´t I bid diamonds direct? If I double, I want to cooperate with pd. I show short clubs and both red suits. Yes my suits are longer then he believes, but why should I believe, that any other contract plays better then 3 NT?

 

I will pass 3 NT and hope. Second choice would be a pass instead of double, 3. choice 3 Heart.

Negative-double-then-bid shows a hand not strong in enough for a forcing Freebid in standard. See the other thread.

[GaryFisch]

For those who would double then pass 3NT, how would you feel if partner had, say, ♠AKxxx,♥Kxx,♦10x,♣Kxx? No way you could keep them from running clubs unless they screw up (LHO surely has ♥A or RHO would bid 2♣ instead of 3♣. If they lead ♣Q and partner wins K, LHO has ♣ left when in with ♦ or ♥A. If you duck the club, RHO shifts to ♥ to A, and they finesse out your ♣K. Even replace ♦10 with Q and you still need a lucky diamond break - K10 or Kxx to your right, with that player holding at least six clubs. 3NT is a recipe for disaster.

 

Marty Bergen's Introduction to Negative Doubles gives the 5 and 10 rule for a 2 level new suit over an overcall - 5 cards and 10 HCP. At the 3 level, you need more, and you have only 8 HCP. You do have 6-5 but the 6 card suit is broken and your values are not so hot. Therefore, double is the appropriate bid, correcting to 4♦ if partner bids 3NT. Also, if partner bids 3♠, I would also bid 4♦. Partner may have something like ♠AKxxxx,♥K,♦K10x,♣xxx. I like my chances in 5♦ on that fit.

 

Note: I think LHO with three clubs and ♥A, will surely raise the preempt to 4, possibly 5♣. Then, after 2 passes, you have another decision. I probably bid 4♦ over 4♣ but pass 5♣.

 

BTW, what's with the convention of "T" for "ten?" What's wrong with just "10?" Much easier to read IMO.

 

Gary

[Foxx]

BTW, what's with the convention of "T" for "ten?" What's wrong with just "10?" Much easier to read IMO.

I very strongly agree.

[awm]

The reason for T is to avoid spacing issues. For example:

 

♠AK843

♥KQ1054

 

The spacing here really looks like more hearts than spades.

 

If you are giving a hand "in line" it makes sense to use 10, but writing suits one atop the other there are advantages to T. In any case most people stick to one method or the other.

[Apollo81]

Bid 3♦, then 4♥ next.