Responding to Partner's Preempt

[JLOGIC]

 

 

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).

 

If only this were true, bridge would be so easy

[JLOGIC]

Random thought of the day: Bidding something like 5N might be good against the right RHO, they probably won't lead a spade? But RHO will be short enough in spades that that is unlikely to work... if your partner doesn't have AKQ of hearts and bid 7 then RHO will think their best shot of beating 6 is to get a heart trick and a 2nd round spade trick. This would be a better bid if you had shortish spades since RHO would probably have some length and think a spade is futile.

[jdeegan]

:P Lots of good comments. Thanks. I think my point is that bidding is conversational. Particularly on preemptive hands, the question is often necessarily ambiguous. In this case it's both ♠ control AND ♥ suit quality. There are no rules, per se, but you should be able to look at your hand and know what to do. You know you have enough tricks on this hand. The question is whether you have two losers. There is a clear negative inference in that you didn't make some other slam try bid.

[whereagles]

Even if you play 1♠-3♠ as any AKQxxxx and out, pard might have preferred to bid 4♥ with that suit if he has a spade singleton/void.

 

But it's a bit of a guess. Bid 5/6♥ if you feel lucky. Else just pass.