Jump to content

Preempted by Partner


Echognome

Recommended Posts

Well, here is the link to the actual hand (don't look if you don't want a spoiler):

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...2896-1265956183

 

As you can see, 5 is the place you want to be.

 

So, the question is how do we think the other 3 suits might be distributed. For example, switch the length in the red suits and spades will play better (although both contracts will be off).

 

Also, as I mentioned in the OP, maybe there's not much to think about after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if partner's diamonds were xx instead of Jx then 5 would be down on a trump lead or switch. Obviously there is a danger here of them taking clubs if they get one round of trumps out, but we might have Qxx of clubs or something, we might have the spade ace, they might lead a heart, we might have a singleton or doubleton club. I still think it's silly to raise the level on a total guess, obviously diamonds is most likely to be partner's short suit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a diamond lead beats 5?

 

Declarer can ruff one heart, but then loses a trick in each non-trump suit. Or he can play a spade losing to ace, and then opponents play a club to ace and another diamond, and he cashes one spade pitching one heart, but south can ruff the next spade...

 

Of course, this requires the right lead and careful defense, whereas beating 4 is pretty easy unless a heart is lead for some reason. But even on this hand where 4 bidder had a very surprising Jx, both contracts are failing on best defense. If the 4 bidder had a more likely singleton diamond, then it's very probable that 4 will be best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pass?! Partner has something like KQJTxxx of spades and out. Even if he has the ace we still have two heart losers to worry about playing in diamonds, and he certainly won't have solid spades.

Why are we worried about heart losers if partner has all those spades?

 

I'm thinking "thanks partner, we just missed a slam". What a horrible bid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pass?! Partner has something like KQJTxxx of spades and out. Even if he has the ace we still have two heart losers to worry about playing in diamonds, and he certainly won't have solid spades.

Why are we worried about heart losers if partner has all those spades?

 

I'm thinking "thanks partner, we just missed a slam". What a horrible bid!

Um, which slam would that be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get all these complaints about partner's bidding without even seeing the hand.

 

4S showing a very long, internally solid spade suit with little outside that thinks 4S is the right place to play opposite the vast majority of opening bids. It takes up a lot of room, but that is OK because it is a very descriptive bid.

 

This hand is an obvious pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get all these complaints about partner's bidding without even seeing the hand.

 

4S showing a very long, internally solid spade suit with little outside that thinks 4S is the right place to play opposite the vast majority of opening bids.  It takes up a lot of room, but that is OK because it is a very descriptive bid.

 

This hand is an obvious pass.

Does the following hand qualify?[hv=s=sakqxxxxhxxdxxcxx]133|100|[/hv]

If it does, pass is not obv, if it is too good then pass becomes clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Others, above, have indicated the spade suit should not be solid, Pool.

 

"Internally solid" (Frances), is a nice description for AQJXXXX or KQJXXXX(X), it seems.

so let's get a firm definition of solid vs "internally solid." IMV that would be any holding that has no trump losers more than 50% of the time across the whole spectrum of partner's possible trump holding (assuming no ruffs). For example using this definition a trump holding of AKJ5432 ought to be good enough as with 4+ cards there are no losers, with 3 cards at least 75%, with 2 cards somewhere in the greater than 50% range, with 1 card need 32 break and finesse , and finally with a void you are in "deep doo doo".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the 4 bid shows very long strong spades missing the ace and no first round controls (no aces and no voids). This would be limited to hands like

 

KQJxxxx xxx xx x

 

or

 

QJTxxxxx xx xx x

 

The suggested spade suit of AQJxxxx is too good. The presence of the ace means that opposite hands like the one presented in the OP a slam might be possible. For example, opposite AQJxxxx x xxx xx 6 would be a near claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so let's get a firm definition of solid vs "internally solid."

 

I assumed "internally solid" meant KQJ-7 or QJT-8 in this context - you know how many tricks your suit is playing for, and it's the same number whether partner has xx or a void. (I think the 4S bid includes some of the KQT type suits though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pass?! Partner has something like KQJTxxx of spades and out. Even if he has the ace we still have two heart losers to worry about playing in diamonds, and he certainly won't have solid spades.

Why are we worried about heart losers if partner has all those spades?

 

I'm thinking "thanks partner, we just missed a slam". What a horrible bid!

What are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...