Bid on this motely crew?

[SimonFa]

White Vs red, MPs.

 

♠J8

♥Q876543

♦842

♣J

 

(1C)= P = 1(S) = ?

 

 

Interested in what other's would do here and why as part of the old learning curve.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Simon

 

 

 

 

I though about 3H but didn't and they bid and made 6C for a near top, 1 pair making 6NT. I have no evidence that bidding 3H would stop them but ....

 

 

 

[wyman]

I would pass. Q8xxxxx is not enough for a 3H jump overcall, especially now that the opponents have introduced two suits and are well-placed to make a decision having seen partner's pass.

[aguahombre]

1NT. I have an honor in each of their suits.

 

I don't think any number of hearts, though the bid might well screw them up, would come out of my bid box at the table. The spoiler seems to indicate it would have been successful, but I would just pass.

[wyman]

1NT. I have an honor in each of their suits.

 

I don't think any number of hearts, though the bid might well screw them up, would come out of my bid box at the table. The spoiler seems to indicate it would have been successful, but I would just pass.

 

♥

[mikeh]

I can understand the urge to bid. However, when contemplating action in these situations, it is essential to understand that you are only half of the partnership and that bidding conveys information to your partner (as well as the opps, of course) and that your partner is not only entitled but obliged to act on the basis of the information.

 

Ask yourself what is the strongest hand with which you would bid 3♥, assuming that such is the action you are now contemplating, and then ask whether, if the range in strength is as great as the range between that hypothetical hand and the one you hold, partner is going to be able to make an intelligent decision.

 

Here, there is in my view far too much risk that he will take a bad save or make a bad lead, and that these risks outweigh any gain from disrupting their auction.

 

And even if you survived this hand, by overcalling here, you will create difficulties for your partnership into the future......your partner will (should) always be worried, in future, about what kind of hand you are showing in similar sequences.

 

This post really addresses what is known as partnership discipline.....which often requires that we avoid action that might work on the specific hand because that action would violate partnership style or method, and cause issues later.....partner HAS to be able to trust our bidding, else chaos ensues, followed shortly thereafter by the breakup of the partnership.

[ggwhiz]

 

This post really addresses what is known as partnership discipline.....

 

My favorite quote from an old bidding contest... "Pass. I don't mind taking a poor result to maintain partnership harmony." Allan Graves I think.

[gwnn]

3♥ for me. The arguments of mikeh are compelling as always, but I don't agree with all his premises. In particular, I don't think my 3♥ bids have an unmanageably wide range. Partner sees that we are w/r with both opps bidding, he will raise me to make or to sac with heart length, he will double them if he has them set in his hand. It is possible that we will set them a few undoubled because my partner plays me for this and I have an extra king or two, but I'm fine with that, I think the annoyance we cause will make up for those losses.

[655321]

3♥ for me, the choice seems to be between 3♥ and 4♥, never pass.

 

Completely disagree with mikeh, the suggestion that we must not preempt w/r with bad hands lest partner thinks we have a good hand is not sensible.

[rogerclee]

Just bid according to your style, way too much energy is wasted on hands like this. It's either a 3H bid in your style or it isn't. This is not really an issue of judgment, just of staying within your system parameters. I'm sure that there is not a huge difference between the two styles.

[mikeh]

3♥ for me, the choice seems to be between 3♥ and 4♥, never pass.

 

Completely disagree with mikeh, the suggestion that we must not preempt w/r with bad hands lest partner thinks we have a good hand is not sensible.

ummm....where did I say we need a good hand to preempt?

 

It comes down to partnership style. Yours includes this (I assume at the low end). Mine doesn't. My point was more about staying within partner's expectations and while I may be out to lunch on this, I suspect that the mainstream would be that this is just a tad too light.

 

What would you do on Jx KQJxxxx x xxx?

 

If you'd bid 4♥, then that lowers the top of your 3♥ overcall and in that context, if you play fairly wide range, then 3♥ on the OP makes sense even to me.

 

What would you do on Jx KQ109xxx x xxx? I don't see this as a 4♥ call, but others may disagree. I do see it as a 3♥ call, and I see the actual hand as too far removed from that to warrant involving partner.

 

My main point wasn't to address the particular hand, tho I stand by my pass, but to try to explain the ideas that go into making the decision, which is what I thought the OP was seeking by his reference to the learning curve.

 

As for suggesting 4♥ on the OP, I do think that that is utterly misguided. I don't know how you ever expect partner to make any decisions at all. You're simply rolling the dice, and maybe it's a sign of my advancing years, but it seems closer to poker than it does to bridge, which (unlike poker) is a partnership game.

[ggwhiz]

Just bid according to your style, way too much energy is wasted on hands like this. It's either a 3H bid in your style or it isn't. This is not really an issue of judgment, just of staying within your system parameters. I'm sure that there is not a huge difference between the two styles.

 

In my neck of the woods a 3♥ bid is at least or more likely to push them into slam as not. I agree with the above as it's a matter of style and with mikeh that this style is more of a solo act.

 

The best player I ever knew never won anything of significance cause he couldn't keep a partner longer than a few weeks.

[655321]

We are talking specifically about a w/r preempt, and you have written a lot of words about partnership discipline etc, and no words at all about the difficulties a preempt will cause the opponents. That is a great demonstration of where (IMO, obviously) your chosen style has the wrong priorities.

[jdeegan]

:P Pass in tempo except against really weak opps. Against good players you are unlikely to hinder their auction, and you will tell them how to play the hand.

[mikeh]

We are talking specifically about a w/r preempt, and you have written a lot of words about partnership discipline etc, and no words at all about the difficulties a preempt will cause the opponents. That is a great demonstration of where (IMO, obviously) your chosen style has the wrong priorities.

I'm not sure that this hand demonstrates anything.

 

What is clear is that there are different approaches to bidding, and I doubt that you and I can prove the other to be wrong merely by exchanging posts claiming such to be true :D

 

My style works reasonably well for me, and I assume your style works reasonably well for you. I do think that for a B/I player, it is probably best to develop a relatively (and I stress 'relatively') conservative style and, if one's partnership is comfortable doing so, loosen up only after gaining experience. Using a wide-open style randomizes a game that is already difficult enough to play when one isn't very experienced. It may be more fun....I know that I don't collect or donate 1700s the way I did 30 years ago....but I don't think, on balance, that it is a good way to learn the game.

 

Your opinion is as valid as mine, and you are free to disagree, but don't pretend that any one hand, let alone this one, demonstrates that your approach is better (or worse) than mine.

[655321]

but don't pretend that any one hand, let alone this one, demonstrates that your approach is better (or worse) than mine.

 

Nothing new to say so normally I wouldn't post again, but just clarifying my previous post which has apparently been misunderstood.

 

I wasn't claiming that the hand proved anything, I was trying to say that the fact that you spent so many words on partnership discipline (IMO a very low priority when talking about w/r preempts) and so few words (no words at all) on the effect the preempt would have on the opponents (pretty much the whole point of a w/r preempt IMO) gave a big insight into the way your style prioritises these things. I then tried to say that I disagree with these priorities, I wasn't claiming to have proved them to be wrong with this hand.

[mikeh]

Nothing new to say so normally I wouldn't post again, but just clarifying my previous post which has apparently been misunderstood.

 

I wasn't claiming that the hand proved anything, I was trying to say that the fact that you spent so many words on partnership discipline (IMO a very low priority when talking about w/r preempts) and so few words (no words at all) on the effect the preempt would have on the opponents (pretty much the whole point of a w/r preempt IMO) gave a big insight into the way your style prioritises these things. I then tried to say that I disagree with these priorities, I wasn't claiming to have proved them to be wrong with this hand.

Ok, I promise that this is the last I will write on this topic.

 

Had the post been on a hand on which I would preempt, then I would have devoted the bulk of my answer to why on that hand I felt a preempt was warranted, and would likely have referred to the risks as 'I understand the risks but....'.

 

As it was, I began my first post by expressly stating that I understood the urge to preempt, and I trust you will agree that the urge would be based upon the undeniable disruption that such preempt may cause the opps. Since the OP was asking, as I saw it, for not only the choice that posters advocated but also, and crucially, the reasoning behind that choice, I focussed on why I would pass rather than on why I would bid. It may have been reasonable for you to infer that I don't really care much about preempting, but I can assure you that such an inference is mistaken.

 

Sorry for the diversion away from what I thought was a useful post in the B/I forum.

[VM1973]

I personally believe that one should never preempt if they would be embarrassed by their partner being on lead and starting K from Kx in the preempt suit. So that rules out pretty much all J10xxxxx hands. This one is close... I can see arguments on both sides and I don't know what the right call is.

[mikestar13]

What's really the issue is discipline. It's perfectly OK to agree to preempt on this sort of hand on these colors if you will never bid a good preempt in this situation. Marty Bergen, for example, is fanatically aggressive--but he always has a bad hand when he preempts.

[Phil]

3♥.

 

Let's fix the opponents for a change.

[jonottawa]

I have the best hand at the table (even if it's a poker hand.) 3♥

 

To bid like this, as stated, you should agree with partner that it's up to the original preempter to act aggressively at these colors and that partner should be reluctant to hang you with a flat cheesebox.

[han]

I'd bid 3H. We're white against red and partner has passed. These colors make preempting most attractive, and the fact that partner has passed means that we can bid on a wider range of hands. We are not preempting partner, it's their hand, and the fact that partner didn't bid makes it more likely that he is somewhat balanced and doesn't have heart shortness. Partner can also recognize the circumstances and knows that we won't necessarily have a text-book preempt here.

 

The arguments of ggwhiz and jdeegan are non-sensical. Of course good opponents bid better when they have two extra levels of bidding room. It's especially the good opponents that can use this bidding room. Yes, they may bid a slam after us bidding 3H, but there is no reason to think that they'll be right. They'll certainly be right more often if we give them the room to explore.

[ggwhiz]

The arguments of ggwhiz and jdeegan are non-sensical.

 

Fair enough that we disagree but there is a reason.

 

Anytime I bid 3♥ and lho has xxx in the suit, I've given him a serious upgrade and probably roadmapped the 1♣ bid as a serious suit. Anytime pard has ♣Qxx or 10xxx she will never score that trick but had a chance if I sit in the weeds. Line of play at 3nt etc. there is a downside.

 

Not enough offence for me to come out swinging but I don't object to those that prefer that style. Since my pard passed 1♣ I might have my fun with a 7th best ♥ lead and try to win the board on defence.

[SimonFa]

Thanks everyone, some interesting thoughts, including partnership cohesion, which is as valid a reason not to pre-empt as any other, which was the question I asked.

 

As it happens the full biding was:

 

(1C) = P = (1S)= P

(3C) = P = (6C) All pass

 

So a pre-empt may have been disruptive.

 

Perhaps I should have also said that these were Acol players so that initial 1C did promise 4Cs.

 

 

Simon

[MrAce]

Just bid according to your style, way too much energy is wasted on hands like this. It's either a 3H bid in your style or it isn't. This is not really an issue of judgment, just of staying within your system parameters. I'm sure that there is not a huge difference between the two styles.

 

I think exactly what is written above, but explained better than i would have :)