I just realised today that I am indecisive when it comes to raising 4m preempts

[gwnn]

Could you help with this perhaps?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt542hq95d63ca5&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=4cd]300|400[/hv]

 

If you pass:

 

as expected: 4♥ passed around to you. if you now bid 4♠, rho smacks it.

 

 

If you bid 4♠:

 

as expected: RHO smacks it.

 

 

If you bid 5♣:

 

the board is over, -300, a good save

 

[whereagles]

I would pass, on grounds that it's far from certain opps will bid and make 4H. Unless pard has like KQ 8th and out, 5C might very well be a phantom.

[daveharty]

Very hard to answer without knowing partner's preempt style. With a couple of my partners, I would probably bid 5C or at least strongly consider it, since it is a lock they have eight clubs and little to no defense. With some partners though, or with an unknown sitting across from me, I would pass; there's a decent chance of cashing two clubs or partner having some assorted useful junk.

[rogerclee]

I think saving is really weird, aren't we expecting to give partner a spade ruff about half the time? I guess it's right to save opposite the set of hands that contain 8 clubs missing the ace and out since we can prob only beat them on spade, spade ruff, club, and a heart trick or another spade ruff/promo, but that's not what I consider to be the "average" hand for a first seat w/r 4C opener, even if it is the textbook hand.

 

That said it could be a double game swing opp Qxx x x KQxxxxxx lol.

[han]

So let's say they make 4H only half the time. Does that mean that we shouldn't bid 5C? I don't think so, as 5C won't often go for more than -300 and will regularly go for only -100. And sometimes something good will happen, like the opponents guess to bid 5H and go down.

 

Assuming that the form of scoring is MPs and partner almost always has 8 clubs, I think that there is a lot to be said for bidding 5C directly.

 

Although 4S could conceivably make when 5C goes down, I think it is quite unlikely.

[Siegmund]

It does depend on partner's style, but I expect them to make 4H much more than half the time. The only way we'd beat it is if our aces score, and partner gets a ruff, AND I get my HQ; or if partner turns up with a side ace and they all cash, i addition to the the ruff and/or HQ. They won't always bid it, certainly, so I think it's reasonable to pass the first time and then try 5C if they do bid 4H rather than bidding 4H immediately -- but against aggressive opponents, there is a lot to be said for the immediate 5C, since we WILL beat 5H considerably more than half the time; that's where our big gains come from, when they guess wrong at the 5-level. Which is the best way to pressure your opponents into an indiscretion all comes down to how well you know the opponents.

 

I guess it's right to save opposite the set of hands that contain 8 clubs missing the ace and out since we can prob only beat them on spade, spade ruff, club, and a heart trick or another spade ruff/promo, but that's not what I consider to be the "average" hand for a first seat w/r 4C opener, even if it is the textbook hand.

 

Indeed not. 8 clubs to the KQ and nothing else opens five clubs at this vulnerability.

[aguahombre]

8 clubs to the KQ and nothing else opens five clubs at this vulnerability.

Well, I agree opening that hand 4C is a no-win choice. 3NT if Namyats available, 5C if not. 4C in-between doesn't really do anything. We neither sufficiently preempt the opps nor allow for a making 3NT.

[Zelandakh]

One solution to this kind of issue is to use 3NT as a good 4m preempt and 4m as a bad 4m preempt rather than Gambling, Namyats or the other alternatives. This allows you to remove the 4m preempts that you opened 3m because you might want to play 3NT from the 3m opening as well as making decisions over a 4m opening simpler.

[pooltuna]

Just do the math! If declarer needs to succeed only 40% of the time to bid 4M then you need to beat him 60% of the time to break even. Given your cards I don't think 60% is very probable; so time to think sacrifice now do the math on the sacrifice side and see where the balance lies.

[gwnn]

Just do the math! If declarer needs to succeed only 40% of the time to bid 4M then you need to beat him 60% of the time to break even. Given your cards I don't think 60% is very probable; so time to think sacrifice now do the math on the sacrifice side and see where the balance lies.

do the math?!?! 40% is comparing to 2♠ to 4♠ (should we bid game or stop in a partscore), it is not comparing 4♥ to 5♣x.

[Trinidad]

I obviously don't know partner's hand, but my feeling is this:

If it would be good to save with this hand then partner has bid too little.

 

Rik

[pooltuna]

do the math?!?! 40% is comparing to 2♠ to 4♠ (should we bid game or stop in a partscore), it is not comparing 4♥ to 5♣x.

 

Not sure where we are in the forest but I was assuming the opps needed 40% chance or greater to make 4♥ consequently the difference from 100% is 60%(the probability you need to break even defending that contract). IMO your chances of breaking a 4♥ contract are significantly less than that, so thinking about a sacrifice is warranted. So now you attempt to determine the numerical cost of taking it. A -2 result in an Xed contract should be acceptable vs a 50% V game.

[PetteriLem]

I am used to play against weaker opposition that is why my view can be significantly distorted. I bid 5♣. I can see that we have chances to set them in 4♥/♦ or they could leave 4♣X in. I think that is wishful thinking. Clearly they have a good fit in a red suit at least and they found it. I just hate to guess should we defend 4♥ or not. I think I would still have to bid a cheap sacrifice, but it is just stupid after my initial pass. Essentially I think 5♣ is the cutting line where opponents have to make the right decision and they guess wrong too often. I admit I am wishful here, because they wont bid in this situation as often as I would like, because doubler is goign to be strong and responder too weak and balanced to bid himself other than double maybe. If I let them play 4♥ for 300 in the long run, I am giving them the same when I play 5♣X. I just get lots of extra chances for a much better score for free. I think a confident 5♣ is a big winner in situations like this.

4♠ was suggested also, but I think it is a very imaginative idea. I am going to look like a genious, if it gets doubled and we make it. Maybe there exists a layout where it could happen, but in real world partner is very short in spades and wont move, if it gets doubled. Should I bite the bullet and pass, I guess that is the plan.

[gwnn]

pooltuna: fair enough. I did the math. Assuming the only two outcomes from defending is +100 or -620 and our possible results are -1, -2 and -3, then:

 

if we go for -3 then we need 4♥ to make 12/(12+3)=80% of the time (or more)

if we go for -2 then we need 4♥ to make 9/(9+8)=53% of the time (or more)

if we go for -1 then we need 4♥ to make 5/(5+11)=31% of the time (or more)

 

It has little to do with the decision of "should we bid a vulnerable game or should we stay in a partscore", but I admit 40% is not far off.

[the hog]

Pretty obvious pass. I think bidding 5C shows a lack of judgement in hand evaluation. 4H may well not make - S ruff, and to expect the opponents to bid 5H is to assume you are playing against idiots.

[Fluffy]

I would reopen with 4♠, with a partner I know I xpect him to realice I am suggesting alternative place to defend, so I´d pass the double.

[JLOGIC]

I would pass then pass. Pretty reasonable chance we can start the defense with spade spade ruff club spade.

[mikestar13]

Unless you play super-sound preempts (and you shouldn't), either partner only has seven clubs or his eight carder is very broken and you have a lot of trump losers. With ♣ KQ eighth at this vulnerability, partner is going to open 5♣. Pass is quite reasonable on your cards. No reason to play partner for a hand he can't have. (If he does in point of fact have the hand I said he can't, he needs to learn how to preempt.)

[WellSpyder]

Seeing the title of this thread made me realise I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.....