We're a little high

[straube]

imps all vul

 

4C P 5C all pass

 

 

The 4C bidder...

 

.....x QTx x KT8xxxxx

 

The 5C bidder...

 

.....xxxx Ax KJxxx Q9

 

We played this undoubled for an imp gain. Down 3.

[aguahombre]

A benefit of not having 4C available would be removing the temptation to perpetrate it with that hand. 5C by pard was wrong if he agrees with the 4C bid.

[SteveMoe]

If 2-3-4 is a guide, opener has a rule 3 preempt. Responder needs 3 sure cover cards and does not have them. Would not argue against passing in 1st seat here. If opener held x xxx x KQ108xxxx there would be no question.

[nigel_k]

I think both are too much. It depends on style, but in my preferred style 5♣ is more of an overbid than 4♣.

[the hog]

I would not open 4C and I would not bid 5C.

[andy_h]

Was this teams? If so, did your teamies play in 1DX making two?

[Yu18772]

I think 4C stretched just a little, and 5C stretched a lot....

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

[Phil]

I'm surprised this isn't a 12 IMP gain. The vul opps have two 8 card fits, no club wastage and 25 hcp.

[trevahound]

Is the goal to never go set? Are our teammates of that mindset? Mine aren't.

 

I don't understand the conservatism from the replies below above. I can understand sympathize with not raising with responder's hand (maybe the preempt has already done it's work), but not the "not preempting" with a hand so empty in the M's. With responder's hand, if they bid 4M, do we think we're beating it with any regularity? Lordy, when they have the good cards, let them guess right now.

[akhare]

Is the goal to never go set? Are our teammates of that mindset? Mine aren't.

 

I don't understand the conservatism from the replies below above. I can understand sympathize with not raising with responder's hand (maybe the preempt has already done it's work), but not the "not preempting" with a hand so empty in the M's. With responder's hand, if they bid 4M, do we think we're beating it with any regularity? Lordy, when they have the good cards, let them guess right now.

 

+1...

[Cyberyeti]

Is the goal to never go set? Are our teammates of that mindset? Mine aren't.

 

I don't understand the conservatism from the replies below above. I can understand sympathize with not raising with responder's hand (maybe the preempt has already done it's work), but not the "not preempting" with a hand so empty in the M's. With responder's hand, if they bid 4M, do we think we're beating it with any regularity? Lordy, when they have the good cards, let them guess right now.

You can easily be beating 4M and going for a bucket in 5♣ if you raise on the sort of hand responder has, if you open the sort of hand opener has. It's a style thing, I don't object to either bid, but the two together are not really compatible.

[CSGibson]

Is the goal to never go set? Are our teammates of that mindset? Mine aren't.

 

I don't understand the conservatism from the replies below above. I can understand sympathize with not raising with responder's hand (maybe the preempt has already done it's work), but not the "not preempting" with a hand so empty in the M's. With responder's hand, if they bid 4M, do we think we're beating it with any regularity? Lordy, when they have the good cards, let them guess right now.

 

Brian, I think that there is a balance to be struck between offense and defence when preempting. I don't think anyone is suggesting not preempting the hand, or not seriously anyway; I think they are suggesting that the 4 level is rich at equal vulnerability when you have that many holes in your hand - partner will have a tough time evaluating correctly what you have, and not be able to judge what to raise with. More to the point, he'll be able to judge the amount of defense you have correctly, but will be unable to judge correctly exactly how many tricks you are going set at the 5 level because you do not have anywhere near the expected offensive potential for this bid.

 

All bids can work out badly, of course, but its obvious that this is not the type of preempt expected by partner when he raises to the 5 level - he's probably expecting down 2 par, with a chance at down 1 or down 3 (or making with a miracle, perhaps). In fact, I have no problem with the 5♣ bid if there is some table feel action going around that makes it more palatable, and I understand it even without that action. 4♣ is just playing poker, though; it shows that you don't give a damn about any of your 3 opponents.

 

Preempting at the 4 level would be the action I would take if I were trying to be a hero. Preempting at the 3 level is the action I would take to give partner the opportunity to be a hero. I think the latter is better by quite a bit in the long run.

[CSGibson]

deleted, double post

[trevahound]

My partners will have six or seven clubs for a 3 club preempt, and not a good hand for the M's (when I'm unpassed -- obviously when I'm passed all bets are off and preempts become more wide ranging). I would expect to find a 5 card club suit more often than an 8 card club suit. Also, if my partner opens 4♣, I know the following are very likely to be true: a) he doesn't like our chances in 3nt (suit usually sucks), and b) I need ~2.5 defensive tricks or so in my own hand to beat their M suit game.

 

The most important thing is to have an idea what partner's live (1st and 2nd seats) preempts look like, and what they won't look like. For mine, this is right in the wheelhouse for 4♣, and the advance save in 5♣ looks odds on to me. I don't understand how people make decisions what to do when partner preempts when partner can have 2-3 defensive tricks (ie when partner follows the rule of 2, 3, and 4). Suit quality is important to me at the 2 level, when we might have a constructive auction, but not at the 4 level, when I'm making a deliberate decision to make everyone guess, because I believe we are likely to be seriously outgunned this hand.

[655321]

I am fine with the 4♣ bid, to me an 8 card suit to the KT seems more suited to a 4 level preempt than a 3 level one (extra length, but not ready to run in 3NT).

 

I don't much like the 5♣ bid, hopefully it was not bid with any hope of making 5♣, but instead expecting the opponents to make 4♥ and thinking that Qx in partner's suit is nice. As a rule I don't like furthering preempts without trump length, partner should have already preempted to the limit and therefore more trumps (not just Hx) are needed.

 

(Like andy_h I am curious about teammates 320...340 result!)

Edited September 24, 2012 by 655321

[CSGibson]

 

The most important thing is to have an idea what partner's live (1st and 2nd seats) preempts look like, and what they won't look like.

 

Agree completely with this, rest is really matter of style (and yes, I know your style is to preempt in a manner that would make Kit Woolsey proud, if I were playing with you I would expect you to preempt this hand at the 4 level all day, and not raise with the other hand).

[the hog]

My partners will have six or seven clubs for a 3 club preempt, and not a good hand for the M's (when I'm unpassed -- obviously when I'm passed all bets are off and preempts become more wide ranging). I would expect to find a 5 card club suit more often than an 8 card club suit. Also, if my partner opens 4♣, I know the following are very likely to be true: a) he doesn't like our chances in 3nt (suit usually sucks), and b) I need ~2.5 defensive tricks or so in my own hand to beat their M suit game.

 

The most important thing is to have an idea what partner's live (1st and 2nd seats) preempts look like, and what they won't look like. For mine, this is right in the wheelhouse for 4♣, and the advance save in 5♣ looks odds on to me. I don't understand how people make decisions what to do when partner preempts when partner can have 2-3 defensive tricks (ie when partner follows the rule of 2, 3, and 4). Suit quality is important to me at the 2 level, when we might have a constructive auction, but not at the 4 level, when I'm making a deliberate decision to make everyone guess, because I believe we are likely to be seriously outgunned this hand.

 

Do you realise that it is all vul? If your partners will have 6 clubs and a crappy hand for a vul 3C bid can we please arrange a money game?

[CSGibson]

Do you realise that it is all vul? If your partners will have 6 clubs and a crappy hand for a vul 3C bid can we please arrange a money game?

 

 

My money goes on Brian if this happens.

[trevahound]

Do you realise that it is all vul? If your partners will have 6 clubs and a crappy hand for a vul 3C bid can we please arrange a money game?

 

 

I thought the vulnerability was UI, not AI. At least my partners think I treat it as UI. :)

[lalldonn]

I think 4♣ is too much and 3♣ is enough vul. They are generally very willing to defend a 4 minor opening which is not at all what I want with a suit and hand like this. In the context of the shape and strength, it has a very high defense/offense ratio.

 

I like 5♣. If we give partner the same shape but AK of clubs and out, in other words closer to what a 4♣ bid should look like vul, then the opponents easily make 4 of either major but will often be down in 5, and we are down 2 in 5♣X but maybe down 1 or even making if they misdefend, such as 2 rounds of spades on the go, or ace of diamonds opening lead.

[aguahombre]

I like 5♣. If we give partner the same shape but AK of clubs and out, in other words closer to what a 4♣ bid should look like vul, then the opponents easily make 4 of either major but will often be down in 5, and we are down 2 in 5♣X but maybe down 1 or even making if they misdefend, such as 2 rounds of spades on the go, or ace of diamonds opening lead.

Finally a voice of reason about the 5C bid. IMO, that QTX of hearts was the key, disabling partner's ability to make a reasonable judgement.

[jogs]

I like undisciplined preempts. 4♣ is my call. Only aces count toward raises. Partner should pass.

[gszes]

i am not that happy with the 4c bid but my main dislike is the 5c bid.

There is little overall concern with the opps bidding a slam so the concept

would appear to be is 5c always going to be a good sac. We just dont know

and there is little sense in risking -800 when it is possible the opps will let

us play in 4c.

[lalldonn]

i am not that happy with the 4c bid but my main dislike is the 5c bid.

There is little overall concern with the opps bidding a slam so the concept

would appear to be is 5c always going to be a good sac. We just dont know

and there is little sense in risking -800 when it is possible the opps will let

us play in 4c.

The concept would be 5♣ is a good sac, or the opponents bid 5 of a major and go down when 4 was making, or 5♣ is allowed to make. I'm not sure what hand partner would have where we are likely to go for 800 but maybe my idea of a 4 minor opening vul is old fashioned for this crowd.

[Zelandakh]

If you want to open this kind of hand 4♣ then a useful convention might be using a 3NT opening as a good 4m preempt. That makes the weaker (direct) 4m preempt more defined and thereby easier to handle.