Preeeeeeeeeeemptsssss

[kfay]

IMPs, Red vs White, Second Seat

 

♠ATx ♥Kxx ♦QJT9 ♣432

 

(P) - P - (3♣) - Dbl

(P) - ?

[helene_t]

3♦. Don't want to play 4M in a 4-3 fit when trumps will often split badly. 3NT might work but I think the odds are against it. If p is (54)13, as he could easily be, I lost.

[mike777]

pass.......my best guess...yours may be better.

we are vul ...opp nv?

[gnasher]

Pass. 3♦ would work if partner is planning to bid again; anything else is at least as likely to lead to a minus score as not.

[Finch]

I really hate pass. We have three low clubs, we are at red vs white at imps, why can't partner have a 5431 18-count?

 

I bid 3D. If partner bids over this, nothing bad should happen, we have plenty of high cards, we having nothing wasted in clubs. If partner passes 3D I don't see why that should be a disaster.

 

Passing out 3C deserves to be +300 rather than +1370 opposite KQxxx AQxx AKxx x

[655321]

3♦ for me.

 

I would like to bid more, but with no 4 card major and 432 in their suit, no other bid seems sensible.

 

Not keen on Pass with 432 of trumps and a suit to bid, but I agree that we will sometimes be able to cash 5 or 6 tricks against 3♣X with no game on.

[the hog]

I also really hate the pass -this is a real crucifixion call.

3D for me.

[dake50]

When double is restricted to only mundane distributions, not 5-5, 6+suit, not 5440, pass is acceptable as best shot for plus. My partnership does restrict double.

[OleBerg]

3♦

 

Another thing that really makes me dislike pass, is that with our intermidiates, it is unlikely that we will be doubled, even if thrumphs break badly.

[ASkolnick]

I agree with Dake50. This is a discussion I always get into partner with about "flexible" doubles on odd-shape take-outs. The problem is not with the hand that makes the takeout, it is with the responder's hand type of hand, it could be dangerous to sit.

 

But I sit anyway. Yes, I could miss slam and we also could have 28 points and no game.

[Finch]

I agree with Dake50. This is a discussion I always get into partner with about "flexible" doubles on odd-shape take-outs. The problem is not with the hand that makes the takeout, it is with the responder's hand type of hand, it could be dangerous to sit.

 

But I sit anyway. Yes, I could miss slam and we also could have 28 points and no game.

We can discuss whether passing is a good idea or not on this hand (I've given my opinion) but it's really nothing to do with the possibility of an off-shape or odd-shape 'flexible' double opposite.

 

The idea that partner shouldn't be allowed to double on a void is also a different discussion, a 4450 is not usually considered to be 'off shape'

 

Even playing absolute textbook take-out doubles, and even saying that partner isn't allowed a club void, I am not yet convinced that pass is the percentage action. I don't have time to do a proper simulation, but I'm worried about this boring type of hand:

 

KQxx

QJxx

Axxx

x

 

I would expect to be making 3D comfortably opposite that, but if dealer has the DK, 3Cx is likely to be making.

 

If partner has an 18-count I expect to be making game. The problem is that I'm not going to bid it. Again, nothing spectacular, but

 

KQxx

AQxx

Axx

Kx

 

(note wasted club values). 4H is a pretty good spot, although I'm not going to be able to get there.

 

Hey, I'm almost persauding myself into a 4C call rather than a 3D call. But not a pass.

[mikeh]

I agree with Dake50.  This is a discussion I always get into partner with about "flexible" doubles on odd-shape take-outs.  The problem is not with the hand that makes the takeout, it is with the responder's hand type of hand, it could be dangerous to sit.

 

But I sit anyway.  Yes, I could miss slam and we also could have 28 points and no game.

We can discuss whether passing is a good idea or not on this hand (I've given my opinion) but it's really nothing to do with the possibility of an off-shape or odd-shape 'flexible' double opposite.

 

The idea that partner shouldn't be allowed to double on a void is also a different discussion, a 4450 is not usually considered to be 'off shape'

 

Even playing absolute textbook take-out doubles, and even saying that partner isn't allowed a club void, I am not yet convinced that pass is the percentage action. I don't have time to do a proper simulation, but I'm worried about this boring type of hand:

 

KQxx

QJxx

Axxx

x

 

I would expect to be making 3D comfortably opposite that, but if dealer has the DK, 3Cx is likely to be making.

 

If partner has an 18-count I expect to be making game. The problem is that I'm not going to bid it. Again, nothing spectacular, but

 

KQxx

AQxx

Axx

Kx

 

(note wasted club values). 4H is a pretty good spot, although I'm not going to be able to get there.

 

Hey, I'm almost persauding myself into a 4C call rather than a 3D call. But not a pass.

agree

[ArcLight]

I really hate pass. We have three low clubs, we are at red vs white at imps, why can't partner have a 5431 18-count?

Wouldn't pard bid with that?

[han]

Agree with Frances.

[MickyB]

I really hate pass.  We have three low clubs, we are at red vs white at imps, why can't partner have a 5431 18-count?

Wouldn't pard bid with that?

No, double would be clear - all five strains are possible at this stage, bidding would emphasise one of them far too much. Doubling then bidding a suit is typically 5431 with three cards in advancer's suit.

[Finch]

I really hate pass.  We have three low clubs, we are at red vs white at imps, why can't partner have a 5431 18-count?

Wouldn't pard bid with that?

There's also this type of hand:

 

Kxx

KQxxx

AKx

Kx

 

What do you do over 3C?

If you bid 3H, you feel you are a bit short on spades and a bit long on high cards.

If you bid 3NT, you feel you are a bit short on club stops and a bit long on hearts.

 

A common approach is to double, then bid 3H over partner's 3D, and 3NT over partner's 3S, to show doubt about the final contract (i.e. inviting partner to pull 3NT).

 

I agree this is another type of 'off-shape' double... and 3C is going off if partner has this hand (expectation is probably 500) but that is still imps out against our potential +690

[ArtK78]

Besides all of the "textbook" takeout doubles that partner might have, suppose he has a monster with a single suit that he feels is too strong to merely bid game (if the suit is a major) or just overcall either 3♦ or 5♦. Now you could be missing a slam AND 3♣x might be making.

 

How would you like that result?

 

I would bid 3♦ on these cards and I don't think it is a close choice. Pass might be the winner on some hands, but I will never pass on these cards.

 

For example, suppose pard had:

 

Kx

Axx

AKT9xxxx

---

 

Now, maybe this is not your idea of a double of 3♣. But it is possible.

[jdonn]

For example, suppose pard had:

 

Kx

Axx

AKT9xxxx

---

 

Now, maybe this is not your idea of a double of 3♣.  But it is possible.

Please, you are very close to being relegated to the jtfanclub "my example hands are not credible so please try not to laugh too hard at them" allstars.

 

As much as I hate to agree with anyone who uses that example hand, I dislike 3♦ but I dislike pass even more, so 3♦ it is. 4♣ is not without merit but seems like too big a position to take.

[pclayton]

For example, suppose pard had:

 

Kx

Axx

AKT9xxxx

---

 

Now, maybe this is not your idea of a double of 3♣.  But it is possible.

Please, you are very close to being relegated to the jtfanclub "my example hands are not credible so please try not to laugh too hard at them" allstars.

 

As much as I hate to agree with anyone who uses that example hand, I dislike 3♦ but I dislike pass even more, so 3♦ it is. 4♣ is not without merit but seems like too big a position to take.

Speaking of JT, where's he been hiding lately?

 

I'm a very reluctant 3♦ bidder. There's just too much upside here to pass, even though I will frequently pass a doubled preempt with a 4333.

 

I don't want to go back to my teammates with a plus 500 against their -1440 when pard happened to hold Kx AQJx AKxxx Ax

[rogerclee]

Kx

Axx

AKT9xxxx

In general, I create example hands and then use them to make a point. I think you are processing this in the wrong order.

[gnasher]

Passing out 3C deserves to be +300 rather than +1370 opposite KQxxx AQxx AKxx x

How many cards is that?

 

KQxx

QJxx

Axxx

x

 

I would expect to be making 3D comfortably opposite that, but if dealer has the DK, 3Cx is likely to be making.

Provided that declarer has seven clubs rather than six, and provided that he doesn't have a singleton diamond. What would you open, 3rd at green, with xxx x xx AQJ10xxx ?

 

Actually, you're probably the wrong person to ask this question of. Did you recently write an an article in English Bridge about the merits of sound preempts?

 

KQxx

AQxx

Axx

Kx

 

(note wasted club values). 4H is a pretty good spot, although I'm not going to be able to get there.

Yes. It's not clear to me that reaching 3NT is better than defending 3♣x.

[nige1]

IMPs, Red vs White, 2nd Seat ♠ ATx ♥ Kxx ♦ QJT9 ♣ 432

(_P)  _P (3♣) _X

(_P)  ??

IMO 4♣ = 10, 3♦ = 9, _P = 8

4♣ is risky but may get us to our best game.

[skjaeran]

Over a 3♣ and a t/o double I usually play the Herbert negative (it's the only place I do). Thus 3♦ would be unavailable. Playing that method I'd bid 3♥, showing values. I'd prefer a fourth heart for the bid, but that's life. We should have a reasonable chance to get to game when we should.

 

Playing standard methods, I'd take the low road and bid 3♦.