Second of Several

[hrothgar]

IMPs

 

Red v Red

 

♠ Qxx

♥ A

♦ J9864

♣ KQxx

 

Auction starts with three passes and you decide to open 1D in fourth seat

 

(P) - P - (P) - 1D

(P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♠

(P) - 3♥ - (P) - ???

 

Whats your call?

Do you consider it close?

[rogerclee]

3♠, not particularly close.

[TimG]

I accept the invitation. I thought about it a bit, so guess it wasn't quite automatic for me.

[han]

I would have passed 1S.

[jillybean]

How sound are partners 2nd seat preempts?

♦ J9864 make me think 3♠ is enough

[Guest Jlall]

I would have passed 1S and I now sign off in 3S. I think I have the minimum number of trumps and minimum strength hand and my stiff is not as great with only 3 spades. If partner has something like AKxxx Kxxx xx xx (where game is not even good) he can bid game himself.

[pclayton]

I would have passed 1♠ and I don't think that's close. Stiff aces suck.

 

I sign off in 3♠, but it's easy to construct hands that make 4♠ with short diamonds, especially when the opps don't lead trump.

[whereagles]

I would have passed 1S.

Me too. This is probably overboard already and, if opps are alert, a trump lead might kill even 2♠ :)

[655321]

Pass 1♠, pass 3♠.

[cherdano]

Clear 3♠ now. One aspect hasn't been mentioned yet: Partner is more likely to have club shortness than diamond shortness, as many passed hands with diamond shortness would downgrade to pass 2♠.

I would also have passed 1♠.

[TimG]

One aspect hasn't been mentioned yet: Partner is more likely to have club shortness than diamond shortness, as many passed hands with diamond shortness would downgrade to pass 2♠.

Funny, I thought about it the other way around: partner is more likely to have diamond shortness than club shortness because many hands with a diamond fit (or partial fit) would upgrade and just bid game.

[cherdano]

One aspect hasn't been mentioned yet: Partner is more likely to have club shortness than diamond shortness, as many passed hands with diamond shortness would downgrade to pass 2♠.

Funny, I thought about it the other way around: partner is more likely to have diamond shortness than club shortness because many hands with a diamond fit (or partial fit) would upgrade and just bid game.

That doesn't make sense to me. Let's pretend the range for inviting with a normal shape is 10-12 hcp. Of course some hands with a diamond fit would bid game right away, but then there are still weaker hands (say, with 8-10 hcp rather 10-12) with a diamond fit that would invite. But if some 10-12 hcp hands with diamond shortness would downgrade, then there are not so many stronger hands (11-13 hcp, say) that would still invite, since some of them would have opened.

[TimG]

You may be right.

[jillybean]

Stiff aces suck.

why?

[pclayton]

Stiff aces suck.

why?

A lot of reasons.

 

Take this situation. Your diamond suit would be a lot more valuable as ♦AJ98x instead of ♦J98xx.

 

Remember Han's 3N hand last week where we had one entry to hand and ♠A opposite ♠KJT9xx? On that hand, a stiff Ace was actually a negative. Frequently singleton honors will lead to difficult communication issues.

[ArtK78]

Having made the borderline decision to open this hand, it is now a clear pass of 1♠.

 

Having made the dubious decision to raise to 2♠, it is now a clear sign off at 3♠.

 

Don't ask me what my call will be over partner's inevitable 4NT bid.

[awm]

I agree with the 2♠ bid. There are many passed hands that would make game opposite this. Of course, to some degree it's a matter of style since I'm sure some of you open hands like:

 

♠JTxxxx

♥Kxxx

♦x

♣Ax

 

♠AJTx

♥xxx

♦-

♣Axxxxx

 

♠AJTxx

♥xxx

♦x

♣Axxx

 

My style is not to upgrade aggressively for shape until a fit is found, and playing a "normal" system I would pass all of the hands above. All of them make game quite often; in fact the second hand will make 6♣ pretty often. And passing 1♠ will frequently lead to the opponents competing in hearts (who sells to 1♠?) giving a 2♠ call some obstructive value as well.

 

On the other hand, having opened and raised with this hand, I'll bid 3♠ now. Partner would've bid game himself with my first example hand and the latter two hands are making club game tries, of which I can surely find an accept.

[gnasher]

I'd have raised to 2♠ too. I don't think it should promise any more values than after a first-seat opening, and they're unlikely to let you play 1♠ anyway.

[Cascade]

I raise to 2♠ but now I wish I had passed.

 

3♠ not close.

[cherdano]

♠JTxxxx

♥Kxxx

♦x

♣Ax

 

♠AJTx

♥xxx

♦-

♣Axxxxx

 

♠AJTxx

♥xxx

♦x

♣Axxx

I will rather pass 1♠ and risk missing game opposite some

1. superfits with

2. diamond shortness and

3. something like xxx opposite my heart shortness,

and describe my hand well. Even if opponent's compete, it will help partner to judge what to do.

 

To join the game of constructing helpful typical example hands for partner let me point out that nobody would pass a 2♠ raise with KJxxx KQxx xxx J (in fact some of you would open this hand) but in fact you risk to go down in 2 spades on a trump promotion.

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

Here's the complete hands

 

[hv=n=sq87hadj10962ckq109&s=sak1092hj1085dq4c42]133|200|[/hv]

 

We produced the following auction

 

P - 1♦

1♠ - 2♠

3♥ - 3♠

[whereagles]

South should bid 3♦, not 3♥. With the spade fit guaranteed, there's no need to show a jack-high suit with a useful honor in pard's 1st suit.

 

3♥ would be the bid with

 

AKTxx

QJTx

xx

xx

 

and now your auction would be impeccable and you'd have reached the correct contract.

[gnasher]

South should bid 3♦, not 3♥.

I'd normally play 1♦-1♠; 2♠-3♦ as an invitation with exactly four spades and four diamonds - like a 2NT bid, but with four diamonds, so that when you stop in partscore you can play in the right strain. Is that an unusual way to play it?

[whereagles]

I don't know if it's unusual, but Richard apparently was supporting with 3 cards on a regular basis, and that's usually coupled to a 2NT relay for all invitational hands, so 3♦ now is probably a trial for spades. Hence my comment.

[foo]

IMPs

 

Red v Red

 

♠Qxx ♥A ♦J9864 ♣KQxx

 

Auction starts with three passes and you decide to open 1D in fourth seat

 

(P) - P - (P) - 1D

(P) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♠

(P) - 3♥ - (P) - ???

 

Whats your call?

Do you consider it close?

I don't have a problem opening this. Even at IMPs, you have to contest the partscore and the OP hand fits Peterson's Rule of 15

(HCP + number of Spades >= 15)

 

I try to avoid raising Responder with only 3 trumps, and this board demonstrates some of the reasons why.

 

Responder is going to be expecting 4 card ♠ support and very likely evaluated their hand based on that when they had to decide whether to make a game try or not. We could easily be too high already because of this.

 

Just as bad if not worse is the fact that Opener has never mentioned the best trick taking asset of their hand in this supposedly constructive auction. Why are we hiding our KQxx of ♣'s?

 

...1D-1S;2C-2H avoids this whole mess since 2H by a Passed Hand can not be 4SF and must be Natural and Invitational.

 

Opener can now take a preference to 2S and We are done.

 

On the days where one or both of Us have better hands, the more descriptive sequence I'm suggesting helps get you to the all important Red IMP game when it rates to be odds on enough (>= 34%. That's a 32 Trump break + a finesse or better in the play) .