4th Seat!

[Rossoneri]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq86hj96da75c9752&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p3cdp]133|200[/hv]

 

Matchpoints.

 

Your call.

[jillybean]

3♥, I don't want to sit for the double

[pooltuna]

while I am tempted to pass (MP only) I think first choice has to be 3♦

[ggwhiz]

while I am tempted to pass (MP only) I think first choice has to be 3♦

 

Agreed. I will raise 3M should pard bid it but if pard raises a 3♥ bid I'm waiting for the dummy in fear.

 

3♦ could be a silly contract but 3♣ doubled could be worse.

[JLOGIC]

Pass is ridiculous unless LHO is a known lunatic, having 4 to the 9 is quite bad when LHO has 7 clubs lol.

[aguahombre]

since I can't pass...and I can't? 3D is the most suspicious advance, IMO. Suspicious to pard, I hope; so, 3♦ I try.

[mikestar13]

Pass is ridiculous unless LHO is a known lunatic, having 4 to the 9 is quite bad when LHO has 7 clubs lol.

There are a fair number of lunatics in 3rd seat even at these colors--against the type of opponent who would try 3♣ on KJxxxx and out, pass is a standout--and I've played against guys like that, how about everyone on this board? The obvious example is Marty "vulnerability is for children" Bergen.

 

Against normal people, 3♦ is the best choice as it is less likely to get a raise then 3♥, and we sure as hell don't want to be in four of anything.

[the hog]

I don't think anyone would pass this. I will bid 3D. Bidding 3M is too encouraging to partner. Naturally a 3M bid gets raised to 4.

[peachy]

3D. I can't make myself pass and don't want to encourage heart raise if partner has 4 of them and extras.

[farrnbach]

3♦, perhaps p has extras (do not hang p, when he keeps the auction alive)

3M should normally show a 4 card suit, exept with something like xxx xxx xx xxxxx

[Free]

Agree with hog, 3M is too encouraging, so I'll just bid 3♦.

[JLOGIC]

There are a fair number of lunatics in 3rd seat even at these colors--against the type of opponent who would try 3♣ on KJxxxx and out, pass is a standout--and I've played against guys like that, how about everyone on this board? The obvious example is Marty "vulnerability is for children" Bergen.

 

Against normal people, 3♦ is the best choice as it is less likely to get a raise then 3♥, and we sure as hell don't want to be in four of anything.

 

They're second seat bro

[gnasher]

Even a second-seat preempt doesn't promise nine winners. The problem with 3♦, or 3-anything, is that it will play horribly unless we happen to hit partner's 5-card suit. It does depend on the opponents, but against most people I'd pass and hope it goes down. Maybe partner will score a singleton trump honour.

[mich-b]

Too often recently I have bid on hands like this 3♦ (which I think is correct) , only to play a silly 3♦ contract on a 4-3 or 3-3 fit, while noticing that I could go plus a number by passing against yet another LHO lunatic (they think they are "modern players"). Those lunatics too often get away unscathed..

[hotShot]

This is MP, so I seriously consider pass.

Since I hold 4 ♣ opps will often only have 8(or even 7) trumps, which means that our side does not necessarily have a fit at all.

Partner does not advertise a long suit and we can't win much playing a 7 card fit on the 3 level.

At IMPs pass is no option, because its to expensive if they make 3♣X.

[P_Marlowe]

3H.

 

The problem with 3D is, that we may play a 3-3 fit.

 

But in the end choose the right suit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gordontd]

3H.

 

The problem with 3D is, that we may play a 3-3 fit.

Why is this not a problem with 3H?

[MrAce]

Even a second-seat preempt doesn't promise nine winners. The problem with 3♦, or 3-anything, is that it will play horribly unless we happen to hit partner's 5-card suit. It does depend on the opponents, but against most people I'd pass and hope it goes down. Maybe partner will score a singleton trump honour.

 

 

 

Of course the preempter does not promise nine winners, he doesn't even promise 8 winners. Lets make it 7 then. But you are concerned that RHO will produce so many tricks in 3 something we play while you hope his hand will not produce the same tricks for declarer in 3♣ even when preempter has the deathwish 2227 shape, letalone some hands with 7-3 or 7-4

 

Pd's typical DBL is about 12-14 hcps and 4441 4432 5431 hands. Thats makes RHO sitting behind our partner with apprx 10-11 hcp and can not produce 2-3 tricks ? I am not even talking about hands where partner has a big hand with void ♣ and long major which was not good enough suit to start with a jump. I believe the outcome of pass is too random for me to pass.

 

Another thing, there is a guy at the table who (upto our hand) has 7-8 card good ♣ suit, pd is short in this suit, and i have xxxx. Playing a 4-3 fit at 3 level can not be worse than letting this guy's trumps to be played in this deal. He has 6-7-8 tricks if we let him, he has 0-1 tricks once we take out this DBL and other 3 players will play the rest of the hand. I maybe wrong of course, but i strongly feel something wrong with passing.

[hotShot]

Playing a 4-3 fit at 3 level can not be worse than letting this guy's trumps to be played in this deal.

 

Can't be worse?

How do you expect the trumps to break, if preemptor has a max. of 2 cards in that suit.

How many rounds of ♣ do you intend to ruff with the north hand (because that the only suit short enough for a ruff) knowing that RHO is short in ♣ and has 4+ trumps too.

Sine 3♣X= is 670, you should not go down 3 dbled, so you need to make 7 tricks.

South gets the A♦ and maybe ♠Q and ♥J are useful, but since finesses are most likely off, north needs to have about 5 tricks in his hands.

 

If north's semibalanced hand can produce 5 tricks although finesses won't work and although RHO can overruff or promote his trumps,

than 3♣ won't make and going down is too expensive.

[whereagles]

My gut feeling was to pass, but you guys above indoctrinated me into 3D LOL.

[MrAce]

Can't be worse?

How do you expect the trumps to break, if preemptor has a max. of 2 cards in that suit.

How many rounds of ♣ do you intend to ruff with the north hand (because that the only suit short enough for a ruff) knowing that RHO is short in ♣ and has 4+ trumps too.

Sine 3♣X= is 670, you should not go down 3 dbled, so you need to make 7 tricks.

South gets the A♦ and maybe ♠Q and ♥J are useful, but since finesses are most likely off, north needs to have about 5 tricks in his hands.

 

If north's semibalanced hand can produce 5 tricks although finesses won't work and although RHO can overruff or promote his trumps,

than 3♣ won't make and going down is too expensive.

 

Yes everyone who reads "to bid or not to bid" or "LOTT" comes with this response. We are all aware that if you get doubled there are hands that will cost you more than -670. This aint one of them though imo. And even if it is, you are not doubled yet ;) And yes i insist in the long run with this hand, playing a 4-3 fit will bring better score than playing 3♣ doubled. Yes RHO has short ♣ too, does he have 4 trumps ? Let him have it, then they score 1♣+2 overruffs+ an extra natural trump winner + 2 more tricks. What does that make ? -500 still looks better to me than -670. If they are taking more than this in defense when our suit is on charge, they will probably make 3♣+1 doubled when you let their 7-8 card solid suit to be on charge.

 

In this hand to bid or pass is not even a close decision to me. And we did not even mention the big hands yet pd may have, whichever suit he has we have great fit with no wasted values in his shortness.

 

I understand the fear of losing trump control, but the matter is it won't matter since the guy with long trumps will be RHO. Disaster scenario is if 3♣ opener has 3-4 of of our trump and we lose the trump control, which again won't matter because then we will play undoubled. It matters if we were defeating them of course but there is no perfect decision on this. I still believe in bidding to be superior in the long run.

[JLOGIC]

Even a second-seat preempt doesn't promise nine winners. The problem with 3♦, or 3-anything, is that it will play horribly unless we happen to hit partner's 5-card suit. It does depend on the opponents, but against most people I'd pass and hope it goes down. Maybe partner will score a singleton trump honour.

 

Of course it doesn't promise 9 winners, but he has a partner too. It's not like we have a ton of defense. There is also the chance that partner is about to double and bid something. If that is the case, our hand is perfectly fine, and we don't have to hit his suit immediately. This doesn't seem that unlikely of a scenario either, and passing seems like a likely disaster then too (it might be good if 4M is down, but it doesn't rate to be). I am not thrilled by bidding 3D but I just don't see our chances of beating this as super high. Like you said, it depends on the opps, england and everywhere else pretty much seems to have much more aggressive preemptors than where I'm from, but unless they are known to be crazy it just seems like a huge gamble that imo will not work out often enough.

[jmcw]

Agree with 3♦. If partner rebids a Major I will reluctantly raise to game.

[Rossoneri]

What actually happened at the table: I bid 3♥ and this was raised to game by partner.

 

The ♣A was led and dummy was:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq86hj96da75c9752&n=sak94hakqdjt842cq&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p3cdp3hp4hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

West continued with the K, and I ruffed in dummy. J♦ led to the Q, A and 9. Now a second diamond to East's K, West following. East thought for a moment, and she eventually returned a ♥. Trumps broke 4-3, so I drew trumps and played off the established ♦, East could ruff in anytime she wished, but her hand only had ♠s left so I made my contract losing a trick each in ♦ and ♣ and a ♦ ruffed by East's fourth trump. Whew!

[JLOGIC]

Obv I would pass the X ;)