Responding to Partner's Preempt

[jdeegan]

Your bid?

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt752h7dakqt9caj&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1s4hp]133|200[/hv]

[Bbradley62]

pass. quickly.

[MrAce]

I am expecting solid ♥ from pd at these colors, unless he is a maniac. Easy 5♥ for me asking to bid 6 if has ♠ control.

[VM1973]

A week ago I would have said that you should pass in tempo. However, after everything I've learned about the hands people will bid 4M on, I have changed my mind and I would say that it completely depends on your partner.

[the_clown]

I can see myself bidding 4♥ on x KJ10xxxx - KQxx or xx KQ9xxxxx x KQ, where 5 could be too high. Playing with a solid preempter I may try 5♥ if I am in the right mood.

[vianu2]

I am expecting solid ♥ from pd at these colors, unless he is a maniac. Easy 5♥ for me asking to bid 6 if has ♠ control.

 

And what is your plan now, when your "not maniac" partner says he has spade control bidding 6♥ ?

Ah! U are dummy. U will not suffering the offend to receive a spade lead to the ace and to get ruffed at the second tric

(or Kx is not control?).

Or u have any method (over 5♥) to get to 6NT?

:wub:

[ArtK78]

x KQJT9xxxxx x x

 

Your call over RHO's 1♠ opening at unfavorable vul?

 

I suspect that most, if not all, players would bid 4♥.

 

How does 6♥ look opposite this hand?

 

In any case, I pass my partner's 4♥ call. Maybe pard will have the right hand to make 6, but I doubt it.

[vianu2]

x KQJT9xxxxx x x

 

Your call over RHO's 1♠ opening at unfavorable vul?

 

I suspect that most, if not all, players would bid 4♥.

 

How does 6♥ look opposite this hand?

 

In any case, I pass my partner's 4♥ call. Maybe pard will have the right hand to make 6, but I doubt it.

Bleah. Being very imaginative i may think to bid 5h(not 4)but that doesn't help me to play the slam when it is right.

Experts may have methods for such offensive hands.

I lose that board but u lose many many others.

[pio_magic]

So if 5♥ may be too dangerous, why not use RK for Aces? Then you always can safely stop in 5♥. And if partner had - KQJT9.... ... ... he may bid 6H himself...

 

P

[ArtK78]

Bleah. Being very imaginative i may think to bid 5h(not 4)but that doesn't help me to play the slam when it is right.

Experts may have methods for such offensive hands.

I lose that board but u lose many many others.

That was just an example.

 

There are so many hands where there is a trump loser and an outside ace (or two outside losers) to lose that it doesn't make sense to risk a minus score by looking for slam.

 

Many of those hands involve very long heart suits with one or two losers and an offsuit cashing ace.

 

Sometimes, when partner preempts, he doesn't have a strong hand. :)

[vianu2]

That was just an example.

 

There are so many hands where there is a trump loser and an outside ace (or two outside losers) to lose that it doesn't make sense to risk a minus score by looking for slam.

 

Many of those hands involve very long heart suits with one or two losers and an offsuit cashing ace.

 

Sometimes, when partner preempts, he doesn't have a strong hand. :)

 

Sir,

When my partner bid a game red vs white and i have 6 trics in my own hand i don't care of playing on the level 5.

My only problem is to count losers, and if there are 2 then we will play it on the level 5.

Of course i don't know a method to ask the shortness spade or the control ( Kx or Ax) in that special case.

That's why im still waiting for our dear friend mrAce to elucidate that question and let us take advantage of his fascinating and definitely worth knowing.:blink:

[pooltuna]

6♥ I'm responding like this is IMPS and if partner doesn't have 8 tricks at these colors shame on him.

[vianu2]

6♥ I'm responding like this is IMPS and if partner doesn't have 8 tricks at these colors shame on him.

 

Man but your partner may have Kx spade and u go down 6H what 's the problem with u all? Did i misread it and the opening was 1CL? Wow!!

[Phil]

And what is your plan now, when your "not maniac" partner says he has spade control bidding 6♥ ?

Ah! U are dummy. U will not suffering the offend to receive a spade lead to the ace and to get ruffed at the second tric

(or Kx is not control?).

Or u have any method (over 5♥) to get to 6NT?

:wub:

 

I would expect partner would bid 5N over 5♥ with ♠Kx.

[mtvesuvius]

5♥ is standout here IMO. Partner's bid here is fairly wide-ranging and I certainly don't expect to make slam all the time, but I think that we rate to be making slam fairly often... Even when partner has AKJxxxx or something, we still have play. I don't think that 5♥ will be going down that often, and I think it gives us the best chance of finding slam when it is right. Of course partner will bid 5N with Kx, although we may occasionally play 6N down 5.

 

It won't be the first time I bid one more and went down, and I suspect that it won't be the last.

[vianu2]

5♥ is standout here IMO. Partner's bid here is fairly wide-ranging and I certainly don't expect to make slam all the time, but I think that we rate to be making slam fairly often... Even when partner has AKJxxxx or something, we still have play. I don't think that 5♥ will be going down that often, and I think it gives us the best chance of finding slam when it is right. Of course partner will bid 5N with Kx, although we may occasionally play 6N down 5.

 

It won't be the first time I bid one more and went down, and I suspect that it won't be the last.

 

And if u invite with 5♥ having x trump, what is the meaning of 5cl/5d/4sp?

And how do u act when u have some heart support and need a cue? let's say spade?

What are your agreements?

Added: how will decide your partner to pass/ not pass 5h?

[ArtK78]

Is anyone else as tired of this as I am?

 

Every action chosen has an upside and a downside. None is perfect. Reasons for each have been presented.

 

Enough already.

[JLOGIC]

I don't think that 5♥ will be going down that often

 

I disagree about this, if partner passes 5 hearts he will have a doubleton spade... if he has a doubleton spade his hearts have to be REALLY solid to avoid a possible trump promotion (or we have to be a little bit lucky). Meh.

[vianu2]

Is anyone else as tired of this as I am?

 

Every action chosen has an upside and a downside. None is perfect. Reasons for each have been presented.

 

Enough already.

 

NO i find it very interesting, i never knew how to bid on the high levels to reach a slam , i'd like to learn from other opinions than open a book because i"m very lazy . I'm really interested to know the answer to my questions posted before.

[JLOGIC]

On that note, I think 5H is not a good bid if you want to bid, I presume most play it as demanding partner to bid 6 with a spade control. Inferentially this would mean we could just cuebid if we wanted to invite partners judgement with a hand that had a spade control in it. I don't think it's possible to cuebid with no control in spades and another minor, so partner will not be worried we have no diamond control if we bid 5C (and certainly when he has solid trumps and a spade control he will not be thinking that).

 

I would pass though.

[ArtK78]

There are now 12 votes for pass and 11 votes for something other than pass.

 

Counting Justin (who did not vote) there are actually 13 votes for pass.

 

Clearly, there is a divided opinion on this issue. The issue is not going to be solved here, despite the fact that some of the posters feel very strongly about their choices. Personally, I am very much in favor of passing, but I concede that I will miss some making slams. Some believe the 5 level is safe, but others disagree.

 

As Justin notes, any simple new suit bid is a cue bid. Whether cue bidding will accomplish what you want to accomplish is debatable.

 

A number of posters chose 5♥. Some explicitly state that they are looking for a spade control, and that they expect partner to bid 5NT if he holds Kx of spades. Others don't really say much, but it seems that they are looking for a spade control. Apparenly all of the 5♥ bidders expect partner to hold solid or near-solid hearts for the 4♥ bid at unfavorable vul.

 

In any event, the issue is partly one of style (how good must the heart suit be at this vulnerability). In my opinion, the bidding side can be off two cashing aces - one of which is the trump ace. I gave the example of x KQJT9xxxxx x x as a hand on which all(?) would bid 4♥. If there is someone out there who won't bid 4♥ on that hand, how about x KQJT9xxxxxx x --? The point being that one cannot rely on the heart suit being 7 or 8 solid even at unfavorable vulnerability.

 

So, take your best shot.

[Phil]

Art, the fact that you have a very divided group means that this is probably a good problem, because it usually means its a close decision. It could also indicate the bidders play a sound preempting style, or that one group is demonstrably more experienced than another.

 

I didn't express an opinion, and I hope that my comment about 5N isn't construed as such.

 

If I'm playing with a sound preemptor whom I can count on for a really good suit and some shape - x, AQJTxxxx, void, xxxx or x, AKQJxxx, x, Qxxx, then even though slam isn't cold, its reasonable on the 1st and excellent on the 2nd, then I would be tempted to try, and it might be a SOTM thing.

 

If I am playing with a knucklehead who doesn't respect colors, then pass is totally obvious.

 

In the end, I think I'd pass.

[vianu2]

I gave the example of x KQJT9xxxxx x x as a hand on which all(?) would bid 4♥. If there is someone out there who won't bid 4♥ on that hand, how about x KQJT9xxxxxx x --? The point being that one cannot rely on the heart suit being 7 or 8 solid even at unfavorable vulnerability.

So, take your best shot.

 

 

 

OK i can see that some of your arguments do have value and i can further amplify that value with some serious revision.

 

Given that hand, x KQJT9xxxxxx x --.and your 4♥ overcal , i will take a look to the E's hand

x - xxxxxxx xxxxx

opposite to

AKQxxx x - KQxxxx

 

Or u expect opps to be balanced when u have 11 red cards ?

You may even ruff a spade but is your lead))

Just for fun :P

[ArtK78]

Phil, there are two ways of looking at the situation.

 

One is that it is a good problem.

 

The other is that it is completely unsolvable and comes down to essentially a guess. You have some information - your partner's tendancies on preempts at unfavorable vulnerability being the most relevant item.

 

In my opinion, this problem comes down to almost a complete guess. Any action other than pass commits you to the 5 level and possibly the 6 level without sufficient information to be reasonably confident about the outcome. And, of course, pass eliminates any possibility of bidding slam which could be cold.

 

There are two camps of guessers. The first camp votes for Pass because it is too dangerous to try for slam, because slam is unlikely, or because there is no rational way of finding out the information needed to determine whether slam is likely (or a combination of the three), and the second camp bids on to try for slam. Within the latter camp is the discussion of how to best try for slam, which did produce some interesting ideas. I particularly like the comment about getting to 6NT rather than 6♥ when the 4♥ bidder has Kx of spades. One poster noted that this could result in going down 5 in 6NT.

 

The bottom line is - quoting from South Park - What did we learn here today? We learned that acting over preempts, whether by the opposition or by partner - is filled with uncertainty. This is nothing new. The fact that reasonable posters differ whether to pass or whether to act over partner's 4♥ bid doesn't mean that one side is wrong and the other side is right. Perhaps one side guesses better than the other side.

[Phil]

Art, what makes this an interesting problem (and you don't seem to agree) is that there is a finite set of hands that can make a r/w 4♥ overcall. Partner has the option of bidding 1♥, 3♥, and 4♥. Perhaps you play with a lot of different people that can have a very wide range for 4♥, and if thats the case, its truly a guess. But there's no need to call the situation 'unsolvable', because there are very few situations in bridge that are truly solvable, and some decisions are harder than others.

 

While we have uncertainty in continuing, the fact that partner's hand falls within a pretty tight range, makes a slam try a lot less speculative. For investigating to be wrong, the following need to occur:

 

- We make exactly 4♥. Not 5, 6 or 7, but not 3 either (although we'll probably get doubled in 5).

- We can't find out specifically what we need to know to reliably place the contract. Unfortunately partner's bid has robbed of this space. Accordingly, partner's call needs to be well defined.

 

With partners that I have discussed this with, a r/w 4♥ overcall shows 8.5 - 9 tricks (4 losers generally) and a maximum of one outside defensive trick. All of the following would be eligible:

 

- void AKQJxxx xx Kxxx

- x AQJxxxxx x Kxx

- Ax AKQTxxxx x xx

- void, KQJxxxx x Qxxxx

- xx, AQJTxxxx, void, Kxx

 

Slam is good opposite #1 and 3. With 2 its so-so, and with 4 its seriously anti-%. With 5 its unplayable. The 5 level its fine for 4 of these 5 hands, although you'd probably prefer not to be there on 4.

 

The nice thing is, a 5♣ cue will get us to slam on 1 and 3. Partner will probably counter accept on 2 with 5♦, which is LTTC, and I'd assume we'd retreat to 5♥. These examples also show why a 5♣ cue is far preferable to 4N, or 5♥.

 

With my partner that plays this style, I think an advance is OK and in my small set you'd gain IMPs, and you might even find the grand on 1. With a random expert, that pays less attention to colors, where a 4 level preempt just expects to deliver a 7-4 or an 8 card suit, I'd pass. But when I pass, I'm not saying, "oh crap, anything could be right, so I will get fixed and blame partner if its wrong", but rather its a more measured,

 

- "we haven't discussed this, and I've seen r/w 4♥ overcalls hands that make slam, and hands that take 10 tricks opposite a moose like this". Or,

 

- "I KNOW this person premmpts loosely, I hope I have enough"

 

but it is never 'unsolvable'.