judgement off?

[wank]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq6hat65d932ca32&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2s3d]133|200[/hv]

 

no way to invite in your methods.

 

partner said i was ridiculous hence the pole

[Fluffy]

6♠, 2 aces, and whatever side card partner has, I can't see a 10th trick anywhere, so 3♠ is fine

[aguahombre]

If you did something other than bid 3S, lie to us and say you didn't.

[phil_20686]

3S and 4S both fine probably.

 

I mean you can certainly construct hands where 4S can make, give partner J9xH and the k of clubs or something, but feels like its some distance away. Not sure would race to criticise either.

[HighLow21]

It really does depend on my partner, and how well I know him; at this vulnerability it's possible we even have a trump loser! :-)

 

Still, I think it's reasonable to credit partner with KJ-sixth in ♠. That plus two aces yields 8, and partner is likely to have some other honor that can be set up for a trick. That's 9. 10th can come from:

(1) An undisclosed 7th spade (compensating for the obviously poorish suit for the weak 2-bid)

(2) Another honor worthy of a trick (for example, partner might be able to get 3 heart tricks with QJ(x) there).

(3) A length trick in hearts.

(4) A length trick in declarer's hand (or a ruff in dummy) if partner has any 4 or more clubs. This is especially promising whenever trumps are 2-2.

(5) An unlikely misdefence--> but definitely more likely if RHO has a decent hand with gaps and opens with the wrong gappy suit.

 

All in, fair chances for number 10 even opposite a minimum NV 2♠. I would not push to a thin game at matchpoints, but I think it's a winner at IMPs.

 

There is another benefit to this bid, however... what if spades divide 3-1? Then the opponents may be able to make a 4-level contract, and if there is a spade void, 5-level is feasible. They may phantom sac in 5♦. Granted, if the opponents do bid 5♦ over 4♠, it may be unbreakable; but it's also possible that neither contract is making.

 

Also, if their best fit is actually clubs or hearts, they probably won't find it over 4♠.

 

Finally, they're not likely to double you in 4♠ with no spade tricks and at most one ace, so down 2 undoubled is likely to be your worst possible result (barring a making 5♦ in spite of your game bid), and it's slightly better than giving up 4 of a minor or, egad, much better than 4♥ making!**

 

_{**A caveat: opponents may be more likely to double you speculatively at MP where the cost of a bad double is not enormous. Yet another argument in favor of a conservative 3♠ at MP.}

[bluecalm]

I think 4♠ is winning bid opposite reasonably sound 2S (which means always 6 cards and no KJTxxx and out or stuff like that).

Even if it doesn't make 50% of the time which it might they might compete or we might steal their 130 in 4♦.

I am glad you posted it because I would never consider 4S but once forced to think about it (ie. deal hands and looks at many of them) I can now see the light :)

[MrAce]

4♠ of course at imps. We have prime cards.

 

It never works good saying that 6♠+2 aces makes 8.

 

Kxxxxx

x

xx

QJTx

 

And i would like to be in game at imps. Sometimes pd can table something better than this too.

 

EDIT: In fact give pd a stiff, any stiff works for the hand we hold and give him a side Q or K we almost always have a shot at game. And those are all minimum hands with K 6th and side Q and nothing more. As i said there are times pd will have an ok or a good preempt too unless you agreed that 1st seat preempts can NOT be good (which is an inferior agreement imo)

 

Even when he tables 6331 hands

 

KT9xxx

QJx

xxx

x

 

We have a good shot.

[Fluffy]

EDIT: In fact give pd a stiff, any stiff works for the hand we hold and give him a side Q or K we almost always have a shot at game. And those are all minimum hands with K 6th and side Q and nothing more. As i said there are times pd will have an ok or a good preempt too unless you agreed that 1st seat preempts can NOT be good (which is an inferior agreement imo)

 

KJ10xxx

Kxx

x

xxx

 

what is your shot at game? missdefence and a lucky heart lie out? and I didn't cherry pick a heart stiff.

[MrAce]

KJ10xxx

Kxx

x

xxx

 

what is your shot at game? missdefence and a lucky heart lie out? and I didn't cherry pick a heart stiff.

 

Yes, if pd has this hand and opponents defend it well i go down.

 

I dont even understand what you mean by misdefend ? This is not an easy hand to defend.

 

-They need to stop playing ♦ more than once and switch or i can make when 3-3 ♥ or 3-3 ♣ if i can guess which one is.

 

-If they swittch which suit will they switch to ? Assume they switched to ♥, i duck and make again if 3-3 ♥

-If they switch to ♣, better ♣ be 4-2 for them or i can make if 3-3 ♣.

 

In fact it is undefeatable if i have friendly ♥ and ♣ breaks, if not it is not a picnic walk defense.

 

Now having said this about a 6331 hand lets cherry pick a ♥ stiff. Is it gonna be bad really ?

 

Kxxxxx

x

xxx

QJT

 

As i said there is no singleton that pd may hold which is bad for our hand. And there are also 6-4 hands and there are also good hands in regards to hcp. Of course game is not guaranteed and i predict from the OP that it went down. But i would almost always bid 4♠ with these prime cards and xxx ♦ at imps.

[Fluffy]

they will switch to clubs, good defenders will know that suit doesn't break 3-3 :), well, not for declarer at least

[mikeh]

Interesting hand given the current thread on LTC. While I don't use LTC as a main valuation method, it confirms my gut assessment.

 

A reasonable opening bid has a LTC of 7....indeed, one of the areas I use it is when I am thinking about a 1 bid or a 2 bid on a 6 card major hand.

 

A reasonable 2 bid has a LTC of 8: AKJxxx xxx x xxx is a sound weak two even for the conservatives amongst us and it's LTC is 8. KJ10xxx Kxx x xxx is also 8, and so on.

 

We have a LTC of 7.....I think it is appropriate to count the spade AQx as no losers opposite a 1st seat weak 2 bid, but it your partnership thinks nothing of opening on Jxxxxx, then we have a LTC of 8.

 

Assuming a combined LTC of 15, we rate to take 9 tricks.

 

Obviously he could hold a better hand: KJ10xxx xxx x KQx is a LTC of 7 and now the LTC correctly predicts 10 tricks. Were we to exchange one of our black Aces for one of those black Kings, he'd open 1♠ and we'd always bid game.

 

Red v white, imps, I bid game because he rates to hold at least a decent weak 2 bid, and I'd expect to make 10 tricks enough of the time to make the gamble good....especially since no-one can possibly double when I hold 3 Aces and the trump Q.

 

Otherwise I bid 3♠.

[gszes]

makes perfect sense to try 4s at imps

you should come out ahead in the long run,

But (if its invitational) I would have no

problems if p bid 3s here.

 

At MP I am not so sure. As long as we play 3s

as invitational (and not just blocking) I

have no problem bidding 3s here. I need some

kind of extra juice from p to make game and

I am more than happy inviting and letting

p decide if their hand is good or not.

 

If 3s is blocking vs invitational (hardly uncommon)

we have a problem and I would have to bid 4s

just because it might still be better than

them making 3d (assuming no x).

 

getting p involved in the decision making

process has a tendency to work far better

than merely guessing.

[wank]

well i bid 4.

 

after i saw a fairly even split in the results on this thread, i told partner that it evidently wasn't so clearly ridiculous as he thought, but he was a little confused - apparently, when he wrote, "sorry 4s was a wank", it was a typo as he was meaning to apologise for his own 2 spade opener (i thought the 'sorry' in his message was some sort of cute humility for criticising my bidding lol).

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq6hat65d932ca32&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2s3d]133|200|

 

wank asks "no way to invite in your methods. partner said i was ridiculous hence the poll"

 

IMO (assuming imp scoring) 4♦ = 10, 4♠ = 9, 3♠ = 8.

This assumes that 4♦ shows only a high-card raise in the first instance. It could be a slam-going but, with a slam-suitable hand, partner is expected to board the last train with 4♥ rather than bid above 4♠. Without that special understanding I agree with MRAce's 4♠. [/hv]

[quiddity]

I'd just bid 3♠ but my partners won't always have a 6-card suit.

[MrAce]

I'd just bid 3♠ but my partners won't always have a 6-card suit.

 

 

3♠ is perfectly fine for me. I personally choose 4 but i dont understand the reaction of Wank's pd, as well as some replies here which implies that 4♠ is not an option. At imps i would think it is hell of an option whether u wld choose 3 or 4.

[inquiry]

I am not overjoyed with the poll choices. Let me answer the poll with words.

 

At imps, vulnerable, I would always bid 4♠. For surely the chances of game are great enough for that. The poll choice that mentions imps makes it imps versus MP without mention of vulnerability.

 

I actually think the chance of making 4♠ are at worst 50%, so in fact, here I would bid 4♠ always. Someone could run simulations with east having at least five diamonds, and not four hearts, and enough hcp (and diamond quality) to overcall, and south with six spades -- and for me, at least KT, and five to 10 hcp (I open 1♠ with 11 hcp), to settle this question. But, other than vul at imps, I wouldn't object if my partner holding this hand bid only 3♠, but I would not be too accepting of a complaint about my choice to bid four.

[rduran1216]

4S is extremely pushy IMO

 

KJ10xxx

x

Qxx

Kxx

 

has absolutely no play for 4S. Assuming opponents will misdefend is no justification for a call. Lots of people screw up defense, but there's a huge market of hands here where 4S has no chance in hell, none.

 

3S regardless of scoring.

[Trinidad]

Assuming opponents will misdefend is no justification for a call.

Wow, what an Unlucky Expert / Futile Willie statement! I am sure that Mr. Smug would bid game if he can foresee that the opps are likely to misdefend the hand and let the contract slip through.

 

I would rather be in a contract that should be beaten in theory but makes in practice than in one that I should make in theory but where I would go down in practice. And I am certainly not ashamed of that. Perfect bridge is for losers!

 

Rik

[Phil]

I cannot resist 3♥.

 

When partner supports hearts, we have a better shot of an additional trick in the suit, and obviously go back to 4♠. The windfall comes in when partner bids 3N, which my hand screams for.

 

Over 3♠, I'll pass at MPs, but bid game at IMPs.

[MrAce]

I cannot resist 3♥.

 

When partner supports hearts, we have a better shot of an additional trick in the suit, and obviously go back to 4♠. The windfall comes in when partner bids 3N, which my hand screams for.

 

Over 3♠, I'll pass at MPs, but bid game at IMPs.

 

 

Ken stop using Phil's account !! :P

[Flameous]

Ken would just bid 3NT cause stoppers are for losers. :lol:

[bigbenvic]

Ken would just bid 3NT cause stoppers are for losers. :lol:

 

3S for me but only as MY partner can be fairly weak for this bid, including having only 5♠ and I am a 4333. If playing more conventional (normal?) weak 2's I would probably bid 4 at imps and though I think 3 is fine at pairs, at the table I'd probably bid 4 as well.

[Poky]

Not bidding 4♠ at IMPs is a serious offense against bridge. Could understand (but not like) 3♠ at MPs, since the scores are field-depending.

[whereagles]

If I can't invite, 3S seems to be the percentage call, no?