spades

[mtvesuvius]

R vs W at IMPs you hold:

 

KQxxx

xx

x

9xxxx

 

(P) - 1♠ - (2♦) - ?

 

Is there a difference in your answer if it is MPs instead?

[hrothgar]

R vs W at IMPs you hold:

 

KQxxx

xx

x

9xxxx

 

(P) - 1♠ - (2♦) - ?

 

Is there a difference in your answer if it is MPs instead?

If I were to bid some number of Spades, 4 seems obvious.

 

However, its far from clear whether I want to bid some number of spades.

[Lobowolf]

R vs W at IMPs you hold:

 

KQxxx

xx

x

9xxxx

 

(P) - 1♠ - (2♦) - ?

 

Is there a difference in your answer if it is MPs instead?

If I were to bid some number of Spades, 4 seems obvious.

 

However, its far from clear whether I want to bid some number of spades.

Don't be tempted by the 9 of clubs. It's a red herring.

[jdonn]

Is this question really here?

[JLOL]

Textbook 4S bid

[neilkaz]

Textbook 4S bid

Yes and in spite of the vulnerability.

 

I have not obtained good results from slow playing hands like this is comp. Nor have I obtained good results when PD's have slow played hands like this in comp due to the vul. This hand has some distribution and is not some random 5332 where 4♠ is often down when the opps can't make anything and won't bid it if they can.

 

When you slow play here, you give the opps chances to exchange info and they are more likely to X you when you are wrong or bid 5♦ when it is correct.

 

By bidding 4♠ we may get a phantom 5♦ sac when we can't make and we make certain that the opps, who may have 8♥ (LHO can be just shy of a 1♥ opening aren't bidding them).

 

Sometimes 4♠ is rolling home when opener has hands that would quickly pass a preemptive or semi-constructive 3♠. I don't hate 3♠ but the problem is that you'll look very silly +170 rather than +620 and if you later compete to 4♠ it is lots easier for the opps to decide to sac or X.

 

4♠ belongs in the textbook for good reasons.

[mtvesuvius]

I bid 4 here, but it just didn't feel right.

[rogerclee]

However, its far from clear whether I want to bid some number of spades.

LOL

[NickRW]

I bid 4 here, but it just didn't feel right.

You don't sound convinced. Apparently, since you bid 4, you've read the text books - but there seems to be something telling you they are wrong. Rather than launch into a long justification of why 4 is right, it might help if you said what your concern is.

 

Nick

[neilkaz]

Here's my hand from a related situation. Opps are advanced players playing 2/1 and I am with a supposedly adv. SAYC (slim pickings) pickup for a few hands before bed.

 

All White and...

LHO opens 1♣, PD overcalls 1♠, and RHO doubles.

 

I have ♠T8xxx, ♥Jxx, ♦ATx,♣Kx. This looks like a good time for 4♠ but I am so flat and don't want to go for 3 or 500 vs opps having nothing or worse yet getting set. So I wimped it with 3♠. I lucked out in the the doubler had a good 8 HCP with 5♥ (not enuf for most in comp to bid 2/1) and opener rebid 4♦ which was passed into a 4-3 fit which was cold. However, the opps also had a cold 4♥ or 5♣ (only reasonable line makes 5♣)

 

PD really had a classic weak 2 jump overcall and that was the action at many boards with my counterparts going for 500 in 4♠x taking 7 tricks.

 

As it was -130 is a good score, but my point is that even though I was sure my SAYC PD would expect 3♠ to be at least constructive and carry on to game with a good O/C, when one considers the opps are cold for game in a rounded suit as PD had a minimal O/C, maybe I am supposed to follow the LAW and just go to the 4 level with at least 10 trumps in comp.

 

My example here is just to show that on Adam's hand, 4♠ is best due to distribution.

 

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[neilkaz]

I bid 4 here, but it just didn't feel right.

If I may suggest a few things.

 

Do a sim of how often 4♠ makes vs typical hands for this sequence. Better yet, deal out 50 conforming hands and look at them with your PD (I assume this was a regular one).

 

I think you'll find that your IMPs ahead from 4♠. There will be times when the opps miss game. There will be times when the opps sac 5♦ when you can't make. You may also go -100 rather than -130. Sometimes you'll make double. Sometimes you'll be +500 vs 5♦x on hands where you aren't bidding 4♠ if you slow play.

 

I've seen you take online lessons with some seriously experienced and skill people so ask them also.

 

Once again I feel it is your distribution that calls for 4♠ at these colors. It may get you screwed, but I think vs good opps (you shouldn't play weak ones at your level(note to self..don't waste time in weak games)) you'll be IMPs ahead in the long run.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[hanp]

4S should feel right.

[andy_h]

Quatre. Cherish the 5-5 shape.

[skjaeran]

4♠. Really don't see any alternative.

[mtvesuvius]

I'm not really sure why it didn't feel right... lol

 

I thought that maybe 3♠ was enough at these colors, but ignored that... I'm honestly not really sure why it didn't feel right. Partner made 4 on a misdefense btw.

[NickRW]

I'm not really sure why it didn't feel right... lol

 

I thought that maybe 3♠ was enough at these colors, but ignored that... I'm honestly not really sure why it didn't feel right. Partner made 4 on a misdefense btw.

OK. It seems as if it is the colours that is what is bugging you.

 

Sure, if 4♠ was purely and only preemptive, then, yes, the colours have something to do with it.

 

But there are reasons to call 4 regardless of the colours. Chief amomngst them is the quite reasonable possibility it will make:

 

1) Assuming this 1♠ was 5 cards, then you have 10 total trumps and quite likely half the deck = bid 4. Simplistic I know.

 

2) The losing trick count is not to everyone's taste, but it does work quite well in fit situations - this hand is 7 losers in support of spades. An opener is normally no worse than 7 losers. 2 openings = game (well, not in a minor possibly). Most Acol (4cM) players I know would be bidding 4 on that basis even without the certainty of 10 trumps.

 

3) If point count systems are your thing - well there seems to be no universal agreement on what to count for what in situations like this - and I won't bore you and everyone else with my pet system, but - extra trumps and shortages are huge and tend to elevate this hand immensely.

 

Then there are the competitive reasons which others have mentioned in this thread too. There is a good chance you won't be doubled - these preemptive raises do often make after all - and even -100 versus -130 could be good for you and so on.

 

Nick

[bill1157]

R vs W at IMPs you hold:

 

KQxxx

xx

x

9xxxx

 

(P) - 1♠ - (2♦) - ?

 

Is there a difference in your answer if it is MPs instead?

so if you bid 3♠and it goes 4♥-p-p now what?

 

Bill

[BillHiggin]

so if you bid 3♠and it goes 4♥-p-p now what?

 

Bill

Now we are in to my area of expertese.

 

Others may carefully choose each call in turn and expertly march on to the optimum contract. I, on the other hand, am constantly dealing with the fact that I made the wrong choice on the previous round of the auction and need to find the best corrective action (which invariably I will regret next round).

 

My strategy is to now assume that my foolish choice last round was actually a stroke of non-idiocy and procede accordingly.

 

In this case, I will assume that my failure to make what now seems so obviously the correct bid of 4♠ was actually correct. Therefore, I will now pass. Note that if I now try to "fix" things by making the catch-up 4♠ call that I will have lost some of the preemptive value but will still have all the risk and maybe a little more.