Jump after an pre-empt

[Ant590]

1♥ - (3♠) - 5♥

 

What sort of hand does the 5♥ bidder typically have?

 

How would this differ to a hand that bids 4♥ then 5♥?

 

Does the vulnerability make a difference?

 

Thanks in advance!

[rogerclee]

Responder is asking partner to bid slam with a stiff spade, 5N with a guarded SK, pass with 2 fast losers in spades, and cuebid with the SA/void. This is a textbook auction for that jump. Responder usually has a hand with 2 spade losers.

[Finch]

I would say rather than responder is showing a general slam try, too strong for 4H. It's likely not to have a spade control, because 4S was also available to agree hearts, but a spade control should not be the only thing opener looks at.

[OleBerg]

Nobody would expect it to be anything but strong, as it is one of the most widely accepted terms that "you do not preempt against preempts".

 

But it really should show a weak hand, something like:

 

♠ -

♥ 8765432

♦ 65432

♣ 2

[H_KARLUK]

I do not think 5H is a "constructive" one since clear cut 3N, 4S cue or 4NT RKCB even 4H were still biddable. I know nothing abt sys or pship agreement or "th style" of that 5H bidder.

 

As far as my bridge repertoire reminded me it would be a "destructive" one. Sorry yet i do not know "gray". So far it seemed me trying to block a possible 4S of 4th seat player.

 

[EDIT] Even "double" available

[Codo]

And again there is more between earth and sky then I can imagine.

 

To me this simply asks for a spade control: Bid 6 with second round, cue with first round and pass else. So I thought that the first answer said it all.

[Simplicity]

rogerclee gave the textbook answer to a textbook situation

[han]

He did. 4S is available as cue (since both clubs and diamonds can be bid in a forcing way 4S is an unambiguous heart raise) so 5H denies a spade cue.

[ArtK78]

rogerclee gave the textbook answer to a textbook situation

I agree with that explanantion.

 

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said. The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited. But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

 

If someone sprung the 5♥ bid on me without discussion, I would assume that it asked for a spade control. But I don't know if that is what it should mean.

[InTime]

Responder is asking partner to bid slam with a stiff spade, 5N with a guarded SK, pass with 2 fast losers in spades, and cuebid with the SA/void. This is a textbook auction for that jump. Responder usually has a hand with 2 spade losers.

I agree with this explanation. In fact, it is discussed in the book "Modern Constructive Bidding by Marshall Miles" on page 204. I can scan and forward you this page if you want by forwarding me your email via your message in this forum.

Regards

[P_Marlowe]

General Slam try.

 

And the bid is not forcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jdonn]

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said. The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited. But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong.

[Free]

Depending on the vulnerability it can be a slam invite or a pre sacrifice. NV vs V I'd never take it as strong, V vs NV it has to be a slam invite.

[MickyB]

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said.  The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited.  But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong.

More to the point, what auction are you preempting against?

 

1H-3S-4H-4S

P-P-5H-P

P-5S?

 

It's rare for the preemptor to take another call, so there's no need to stop his partner from showing that he has a hand suitable for bidding 4S.

[OleBerg]

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said.  The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited.  But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong.

Which is why you have more, and lower, bids to show the stronger hands.

[OleBerg]

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said.  The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited.  But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong.

More to the point, what auction are you preempting against?

 

1H-3S-4H-4S

P-P-5H-P

P-5S?

 

It's rare for the preemptor to take another call, so there's no need to stop his partner from showing that he has a hand suitable for bidding 4S.

As it always is, the value of preempting is dependent on how well-arranged the opponents methods are.

 

In this sequence:

 

1♥ - (3♠) - 4♥ - 4♠

Pass - Pass - 5♥ - ?

 

What would a double be?

 

In my partnership it would show a hand that expected 4♠ to make, and is encouraging a 5♠ bid from the preemptor (though only on a quite suitable hand). So against this, you take away an option by bidding 5♥.

 

If the opponents have nothing but penalty-doubles on their repertoire, the value of a 5♥ call decreases, but doesn't disappear.

 

Moreover you take away Souths option of making a 5♥ call, or a 4nt call followed by a 5♠ bid.

 

And the use of the 5♥ bid in its classical meaning, is not very frequent.

[MFA]

I don't like the preemptive idea for these reasons:

 

1) We'll need a pretty extreme hand to make the bid, or we will fear that they might not compete with 4♠ over a 4♥-call. For all we know, partner might hold four spades. So there goes the frequency argument.

 

2) The value of bidding a direct 5♥ instead of 4♥->5♥ is very, very marginal in this sequence, if existing at all.

 

3) Having a natural strong 5♥ available is actually quite nice.

 

I think that 5♥ should be strong without a spade control.

Whether it should be forcing or not opposite a spade control is not so clear.

[jdonn]

Still, there is something to what OleBerg said.  The utility of a 5♥ bid asking for a spade control is very limited.  But the possibility that we have a large heart fit and need to preempt seems very real.

I think the likelyhood is the exact opposite of what you say. You are quite unlikely to be weak over the preempt, much more likely to be strong.

Which is why you have more, and lower, bids to show the stronger hands.

Name one other slam try you can make, a single one, without a spade control.

 

I see now below you think this bid can be 4♠. I don't know how it's possible to have an intelligent auction if that neither shows nor denies spade control, but what can I say.

[OleBerg]

I don't like the preemptive idea for these reasons:

 

Hi there,

 

1) We'll need a pretty extreme hand to make the bid, or we will fear that they might not compete with 4♠ over a 4♥-call. For all we know, partner might hold four spades. So there goes the frequency argument.

 

I have deliberately not fielded the frequency-argument. If I have implied it, it was unintentional. To tell the truth, I wouldn't know what would be most frequent, as I have never seen a hand suitable for any of the two meanings of the bid. (Naturally, if I had the preemptive option, I'd bid it on unsuitable hands, but thats just me.)

 

2) The value of bidding a direct 5♥ instead of 4♥->5♥ is very, very marginal in this sequence, if existing at all.

 

Of course it exists, but I agree that it is not large.

 

3) Having a natural strong 5♥ available is actually quite nice.

 

Agree, but it is also nice to be able to bid with a weak hand with a great fit.

 

I think that 5♥ should be strong without a spade control.

Whether it should be forcing or not opposite a spade control is not so clear.

 

My argument is not, that "5♥-preemptive" is as frequent as "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", but that the "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", can be handled via a 4♠ raise.

[MFA]

Hi Ole

My argument is not, that "5♥-preemptive" is as frequent as "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", but that the "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", can be handled via a 4♠ raise.

How? It's a big problem to investigate the spade control, as I see it.

[OleBerg]

Hi again,

 

well, having reread my posts, I see that I might have played the "frequency-card", but it wasn't intentional.

 

Hi Ole

My argument is not, that "5♥-preemptive" is as frequent as "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", but that the "5♥-strong, no spadestopper", can be handled via a 4♠ raise.

How? It's a big problem to investigate the spade control, as I see it.

 

Indeed it is, but it isn't the only problem.

 

A 5♥-bid is in effect forcing to slam, if partner has a spade-stopper. So you have to be extremely good at guessing, facing an opening of 11-18 points. (You dont have to cater to 19+ hands, partner will probably act again over 4♥.) If you reserve 5♥ for "safe" hands, you will either have to put some raises without a stopper in with the 4♠, or you will have to miss a lot of good slams.

 

The point I am trying to make is, that there are nine sequnces that shows heart-support (excluding a direct 4♥ bid) from the opponents 3♠, before we are in 5♥. Eight of them goes via a 4♠-call, while one of them is the direct 5♥-bid.

 

My suggestion is, that one sequence, the direct 5♥-bid, is reserved for weak hands, while the other eight sequences are reserved for strong hands.

 

As I see it, there are three problems we should strive to solve here:

 

1) Do we have a spade stopper?

2) Do we have enogh aces?

3) Do we have enough playing strenght to make slam worthwhile?

 

I include possesion of the thrumph queen, as a subset of 3).

 

Using a four step, skip-scan-like device, I would organize it this way:

 

1. Step: An ace more than average. (In most cases, inclding this, 3 aces.)

2. Step: Stopper in opponents suit.

3. Step: Neither but two aces, and interested in slam.

Return to the Thrumph suit: We miss something crucial for slam.

 

(Í will make another post describing this treatment in depth.)

 

The steps are the same for both players, and if enough aces are present, we have a stopper and sufficient playing strenght, we can bid slam.

 

On a final note:

 

Obviously grand slam bidding has to take a back-seat to small-slam bidding and competing correctly, but it should still be considered. The "Textbook-approach" to these problems makes grand-slam bidding quite murky.

[pclayton]

I read Ole's side thread to this. There are some good thoughts; but if we are exploring new ideas, maybe we should re-introduce transfers in this auction. I remember seeing something like this here around 2-3 years ago, but I think (or it should) it went (go) something like this:

 

Double: General Values, but negative of course. I recall someone called this a 'thrump' double and it might have modified what 3N is itself. I could see 3N becoming clubs too.

 

3N: To play

4♣ - diamonds

4♦ - good heart raise

4♥ - to play

4♠ - clubs

 

Clearly the red suits become much easier to bid, while clubs becomes a little tougher, although the flexibility seems worth it.

[gwnn]

I read Ole's side thread to this. There are some good thoughts; but if we are exploring new ideas, maybe we should re-introduce transfers in this auction. I remember seeing something like this here around 2-3 years ago, but I think (or it should) it went (go) something like this:

 

Double: General Values, but negative of course. I recall someone called this a 'thrump' double and it might have modified what 3N is itself. I could see 3N becoming clubs too.

 

3N: To play

4♣ - diamonds

4♦ - good heart raise

4♥ - to play

4♠ - clubs

 

Clearly the red suits become much easier to bid, while clubs becomes a little tougher, although the flexibility seems worth it.

That doesn't sound bad, but I would still play 5H as asking for a spade control. It was still CHO who opened and RHO who preempted.

[han]

I know a Dutch pair that plays 1H-3S-4C = hearts and 1H-3S-4H = clubs. This is the only sequence in which they play this.