Strong Enough

[masse24]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt73h7dkqca983&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2h]133|200[/hv]

 

What is your preference? :blink:

[wank]

3 spades - this hand is too strong for 2 spades and you want to emphasise spades more than X > 3s would.

[Finch]

3♠. Shows a good hand with 6+ spades, which is what you have. Second choice 2S, never double on what is basically a single-suited hand.

[lowerline]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt73h7dkqca983&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2h]133|200[/hv]

 

What is your preference? :blink:

 

Choice should be between double and 3♠... This hand is too strong for 2♠. I prefer 3♠.

 

Steven

 

 

[Statto]

X if we are playing Leb.

[ArtK78]

2♠. Direct actions over preempts should be sound. This hand is at the top of what I consider to be a simple overcall of a weak two bid.

 

One is allowed to have a little something in reserve for one's bid.

[aguahombre]

3♠. Shows a good hand with 6+ spades, which is what you have. Second choice 2S, never double on what is basically a single-suited hand.

Of course, both 2S and 3S show a "good" hand; now we need to define "good". Strongly agree with the 3S choice on this one. We start with an assumption when simply overcalling a preempt: that partner will have some nondescript 6-9. Partner, knowing this, will pass our mere overcall if that is what she has.

 

This hand really would like partner to continue to game with a couple kings or somesuch, and is therefore too "good" for 2S. No jokes about the heart king, pls :rolleyes:

[JLOGIC]

2S must be a joke, if I had to choose between 2 and 4 I'd definitely go with 4.