Frequent situation

[aguahombre]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=saktxxhjtdqtxcktx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Partner opens 3C in first seat (Experience tells you 7-card suit 90% chance).

2nd seat passes.

Partner is usually a down-the middle preemptor.

What is your plan, if any?

 

New suits are thoroughly discussed as forcing, usually natural, and asking for Opener's length there. (Just in case 3S-or 3H :rolleyes: is your choice)

[Mbodell]

I pass. I have enough defense that I don't expect them to bid and make 4♥ very often. I don't have enough that I expect 4♠ or 3nt or 5♣ to make that often.

[pooltuna]

I pass. I have enough defense that I don't expect them to bid and make 4♥ very often. I don't have enough that I expect 4♠ or 3nt or 5♣ to make that often.

I'm a passer as well

[jdonn]

3NT and I don't think it's close, at imps in particular when either side might make game and the downside is a penalty at 50 a trick.

[Trinidad]

3NT. And I have the agreement that after 3♠, partner can only raise or bid 3NT. But if I bid 3♠, I am wrongsiding 3NT.

 

Rik

[655321]

3NT, agree with Josh that this is not close.

[woefuwabit]

Your side is not going to make any game unless you are facing weak defenders or your partner turns up with singleton diamond and ♠Qxx for 4♠, or a heart stop for 3NT. I think the odds aren't good so I'd pass, but 3NT does has its merits because it may preempt opponents out of a possible heart game, but since it isn't clear if opps can make 4♥ I think pass is better. If my hand were an Ace weaker, I'd be deciding between a 3NT bid or the obvious 3♥ psyche which isn't likely to fool experienced players these days.

[gwnn]

I hope 655321 won't mind if I quote him from an older thread (he was actually contradicting a post of mine and now I can see he was right):

 

(...)Bidding 3NT over partner's preempt is very useful. I like to be able to do this when I am very confident that 3NT is making, when I think it has a good chance, when it might make, when it probably won't make, and when I am very sure it won't make - i.e. on a wide range of hands, a continuous range if you like.

 

It is not always easy for the opponents to know when it is actually their hand.(...)

[aguahombre]

Hoping for a few more of the regulars to share their thoughts. This is not an uncommon situation and I am not sure the actual hand, when I give it will mean anything. This is a strategy question, no absolute right, maybe some less than optimum choices. How does someone feel about a simple raise? a 5C bid? Something else?

[jdonn]

Your side is not going to make any game unless you are facing weak defenders or your partner turns up with singleton diamond and ♠Qxx for 4♠, or a heart stop for 3NT. I think the odds aren't good so I'd pass, but 3NT does has its merits because it may preempt opponents out of a possible heart game, but since it isn't clear if opps can make 4♥ I think pass is better. If my hand were an Ace weaker, I'd be deciding between a 3NT bid or the obvious 3♥ psyche which isn't likely to fool experienced players these days.

They aren't allowed to make the wrong lead? Why do the opponents have to be weak defenders to lead from QJxxx of spades instead of Qxxx of hearts when his partner has AKxxx of hearts?

 

Or they can't make the wrong switch? Partner has x xxx Kx AJxxxxx, and LHO leads a diamond to his partner's ace. If RHO plays a spade from QJx instead of a heart from KQxx does that make him a weak defender?

 

Or, partner can't actually have a heart honor? Would that be so strange? And it's when he doesn't have a heart honor that the opponents are more likely to have game.

 

I'm reiterating myself, but opposite any sort of normal preempting style you are making a really bad error to do anything but bid 3NT here. Your opponents can be experts and still not defend perfectly, expert doesn't mean 'can see all the cards'.

[jdonn]

Hoping for a few more of the regulars to share their thoughts. This is not an uncommon situation and I am not sure the actual hand, when I give it will mean anything. This is a strategy question, no absolute right, maybe some less than optimum choices. How does someone feel about a simple raise? a 5C bid? Something else?

4♣ is not ambitious enough. 5♣ requires too many tricks, and is easier to defend since your hand is hidden, and there is still a chance of ending up there later if you start with 3NT and the opponents do something.

[hanp]

Vul = E/W, (Experience tells you 7-card suit 90% chance),

Partner is usually a down-the middle preemptor.

LOL?

[gnasher]

This is an unusual problem for me, because I don't know anyone whose first-seat preempts at green are 90% likely to be a seven-card suit. By the way, if that's "down the middle", what would a conservative preempter have?

 

I certainly wouldn't pass. They can almost certainly make 3♥, and there's no chance that LHO is going to pass out 3♣. Why should I make it easy for them to work out how high to bid and what suit to play in?

 

I'd probably bid 4♣, which may give LHO a choice between bidding an inadequate heart suit and making a takeout double with inadequate spades. In either case he may also be uncertain as to whether he has adequate values. If you only ever raise to 4♣ on hands where you think they can make game, you make life very easy for the opponents.

 

I don't think it very likely that we can make 3NT. That needs partner to have a heart honour and ♣A, and even then we'll need the diamonds to be a stop. The main advantage of 3NT is that it may intimidate them out of bidding their game - I have enough in high cards to make 3NT plausible. Against that, I don't necessarily want them to stay out of their game. 3NT has the disadvantage that well-prepared opponents may be able to exploit the extra space, perhaps using double as takeout and 4♣ as a two-suiter.

 

3♠ will work very well when it works. If partner has three spades we definitely don't want to defend 4♥. However, that won't happen very often. It may also help to get partner off to the right lead. However, it's unlikely that we need a spade lead to beat the contract - if there's a spade ruff to set the contract, a club lead and a spade switch should work just as well. Like 3NT, 3♠ has the disadvantage of giving them too much space.

 

Having typed all that, I'm now even more convinced that 4♣ is right.

[aguahombre]

Vul = E/W, (Experience tells you 7-card suit 90% chance),

Partner is usually a down-the middle preemptor.

LOL?

if you mean "little ol lady", I prefer "spouse"

[hanp]

I meant it as something in between "you must be joking, right?" and "WTF??"

[aguahombre]

I guess you don't approve of traditional 3m openings, and would prefer they be more undisciplined, but I don't see that as helpful in deciding what to do with this hand, opposite this partner.

[nigel_k]

I was going to say 4♣ for reasons similar to gnasher's but jdonn has convinced me 3NT is better.

[Phil]

I was going to say 4♣ for reasons similar to gnasher's but jdonn has convinced me 3NT is better.

Funny, Gnasher convinced me 4♣ is better.

 

3N seems to aim for the tails here: when we can make 3N (either legitimately or not) or when they can make 4♥ (and we've talked them out of it). Both of these seem like relative long-shots. Have we forgotten that one of the goals of IMPs is to try to get a plus?

 

No disrespect to any of the 3N bidders here, but against good opposition you rate to get a red suit honor led. If its a heart, you are toast. If its a diamond, you might live, but you probably won't. If I were playing in a weaker game, I would bid 3N in a flash, since I'm as likely to get a low spade lead, or the wrong shift which lets it in.

[jdonn]

I was going to say 4♣ for reasons similar to gnasher's but jdonn has convinced me 3NT is better.

Funny, Gnasher convinced me 4♣ is better.

 

3N seems to aim for the tails here: when we can make 3N (either legitimately or not) or when they can make 4♥ (and we've talked them out of it). Both of these seem like relative long-shots. Have we forgotten that one of the goals of IMPs is to try to get a plus?

If that's your goal why aren't you passing? You are very likely to be off 4 red suit tricks. 4♣, if bid, is clearly an attempt to get a small minus when the opponents had a much better option available, with the times it happens to make as a bonus.

 

Btw I don't think gnasher is wrong since it seems like he is answering opposite his own preempting style, which is a lot more aggressive than what I believe the OP is playing.

[aguahombre]

The usual thoughtful considerations by most of the usual suspects. It was an IMP pairs on OKB. the actual hand is about what Gnasher and others imagined after reluctantly accepting the conditions I gave.

 

Datum=minus 320, and the big issue was how to get past 4th chair, after getting past 2nd chair already. 4C got past him (QJXX AKXXXX XX X) twice and failed twice. It was a 20 trumps/20 tricks hand. But one time when 4H was bid over 4C the opps got to 5H down one.

 

-620= minus 8

-100= plus 6

-50= plus 7

-200 (3NT down four, defense was too easy =plus 3

+130= plus ten

+100= plus 9

 

So, 3NT or another way of landing in 3NT seems to be the best action. It hamstrings the opps for a small gain.

 

The big losing action turned out to be passing, which allowed a 3H balance and a cue bid raise -- except from the one who passed until they got to 4H and then bid 5C. Me? I tried the 4C move and my lefty braved 4H. I sat for minus 8.

[Phil]

If that's your goal why aren't you passing? You are very likely to be off 4 red suit tricks. 4♣, if bid, is clearly an attempt to get a small minus when the opponents had a much better option available, with the times it happens to make as a bonus.

 

Btw I don't think gnasher is wrong since it seems like he is answering opposite his own preempting style, which is a lot more aggressive than what I believe the OP is playing.

Because I still want to raise the pot on a hand like this and I (like you I imagine) dread a 3♥ call.

 

Against the OP, his LHO simply guessed right over 4♣. He could have done so just the same over 3N.

 

I do agree this is a function of your partnership style. Against one partner I would expect a six card suit more frequently than a 7 bagger.

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=saktxxhjtdqtxcktx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Partner opens 3C in first seat (Experience tells you 7-card suit 90% chance). 2nd seat passes. Partner is usually a down-the middle preemptor.

What is your plan, if any? New suits are thoroughly discussed as forcing, usually natural, and asking for Opener's length there. (Just in case 3S-or 3H :(  is your choice)[/hv]

IMO 3♠ = 10, 4♣ = 7, _P = 6, 3N= 5.

If partner has a ♠ fit, then 4♠ may have some play. ♠ is also the lead you would like against 4♥ by opponents. If partner is short in ♠, you may prefer to play 4♣ or defend. 3N seems a cunning way of converting a possible plus score into a minus :)

[Jlall]

3NT, agree with Josh that this is not close.

?! I was gonna mock josh but then I saw your post... wow.

 

I would pass and think its not even close and would bet a simulation backed it up even if I spotted you .5 imps for the declaring bonus.

 

edit LOL I tghought it went p 3C ? and you were overcalling 3N hahaha

[gwnn]

the actual hand is about what Gnasher and others imagined after reluctantly accepting the conditions I gave.

Nobody was reluctant to accept the conditions you gave. hanp merely pointed out that down-the middle means something else than 7 card suit 90% of the time. Nobody would have protested if you had only said one of those two expressions.

[aguahombre]

justin, I waited a while to see if you or adam would venture an opinion....glad i didnt wait longer :)