SF3

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=s87hakqt762da87ck&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=3dp?]133|200[/hv]

 

What is your plan?

[Bbradley62]

4♥ and 5♦ over (4♠) or (5♣). I suppose that could vary based on form of scoring, but probably not.

[jillybean]

why not 3♥?

[Bbradley62]

To make it harder for opps to bid.

[PhilKing]

Clear 4♥ bid.

[paulg]

why not 3♥?

Because you do not want, or need, to invite your partner to the party.

[SteveMoe]

I would bid 3♥ if partner would show ♠ shortness by bidding 3♠ or doubling their ♠ bid. I think showing shortness by the opening preempter when fitting responder's new suit is useful.

 

However failing that approach bidding 4♥ directly has a lot to recommend it.

 

6 of a red suit seems to require much from partner: x xx KQxxxxx Axx - maybe on a good day...

[broze]

Does anyone play 4♥ as kickback meaning that to play in hearts you have to bid 3♥ first? What rules do you kickbackers have?

[mike777]

Does anyone play 4♥ as kickback meaning that to play in hearts you have to bid 3♥ first? What rules do you kickbackers have?

 

 

 

over 3d....4c would be rkc in d.

4h would be natural to play.

[SteveMoe]

over 3d....4c would be rkc in d.

4h would be natural to play.

Playing 4♣ RKB over 3-level preempts with responses something like" 0, 1, 1+Q, 2, 2+Q ??

Good idea!

[Hanoi5]

Isn't 3♥ forcing? That's what I'd bid. If partner supports I'm tempted to bid 5♣ which might take us too high, so maybe a pass is better. If partner bids anything else I'm bidding 4♥ anyway. Yeah, the 5 level might be too high for us if they don't intervene but if they do partner will have a better idea of what my hand looks like.

[jillybean]

Partner held QJ6 V QJT5432 JT5, 3♦ is all you can make.

[the hog]

I guess it is possible for partner to have

x

xx

KQJxxxx

Axx

 

However this is extremely unlikely. I would bid 4H and expect to make.

 

(Just saw Steve's post - same example hand).

[Codo]

I would always commit myself to 4 ♥, partner does not often have the worst possible hand....

[P_Marlowe]

3H - forcing, followed by 4H.

 

4H would be a fit jump for us.

[gszes]

to make 6 we need p to have essentially

void x Kxxxxxx xxxxx

x x Kxxxxxx Axxx

 

there is almost no distributional leeway here so

that is TWO hand out of umpty ump. It is such a tiny

chance of reward that making it more difficult for the

vul opps to find their black suit fit is much more

important. This is a rare hand where we do not

value p opinion of their hand and we merely bid what

we think we can make while preempting as much as

possible.

 

4H (even if we were togo down there is a huge chance the

opps can make 4+ of a black suit and it will be a ton easier for

them to bid if we pass or bid 3h).

[jillybean]

I was in a hurry when I posted the other hand QJ6 V QJT5432 JT5, so nothing works here.

I come from a aggressive preempt style (thanks Ben) where W vs. R this is a fine preempt.

My partner on the other hand, likes 1st and 2nd seat to be conservative, solid, 2 of the top 3 honors.

 

I know preempts are very effective against weaker players and obviously less effective against

stronger players. Is there any benefit in adjusting your preempt style according to the level of

the opposition, is it legal?

[jeffford76]

I know preempts are very effective against weaker players and obviously less effective against

stronger players. Is there any benefit in adjusting your preempt style according to the level of

the opposition, is it legal?

 

Yes, it is legal, but I'm not sure that doing it in the way you suggest is right. I think it's right to preempt more aggressively against the strong players. They are more likely to get to the right spot if given a free run, and you frequently are on track to win the board against weak players anyway.

[Bbradley62]

[hv=pc=n&s=s87hakqt762da87ck&n=sQJ6dQJT5432cJT5]133|200[/hv]

"We don't make anything" is not the same as "nothing works". Since we haven't seen the opponents' hands, we don't know what scoring opportunity they may or may not have missed. North looks like a crystal-clear w vs r 3♦ opener to me.

[MrAce]

I'd bid 4♥

[awm]

The actual partner hand is quite unlucky. If partner had as little as xxx - Kxxxxxx xxx you have quite decent play for game (even better if partner has singleton heart instead of void). Even the actual hand has a bit of play (stiff DK with hearts breaking? Maybe opponents lead a stiff small diamond hoping to ruff?)

[Phil]

I guess the recommended strategy on this hand is to bid a forcing 3♥ and hope partner violates system and passes!

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=s87hakqt762da87ck&n=sQJ6dQJT5432cJT5]133|200[/hv]

"We don't make anything" is not the same as "nothing works". Since we haven't seen the opponents' hands, we don't know what scoring opportunity they may or may not have missed. North looks like a crystal-clear w vs r 3♦ opener to me.

I'd bid 3♥ (4♥ is kickback, 3 then 4 is a 4♥ bid), partner's 3♠ or 3N would make me think, and 3N is not actually a bad contract in the real world although terrible on paper.

[jillybean]

Yes, it is legal, but I'm not sure that doing it in the way you suggest is right. I think it's right to preempt more aggressively against the strong players. They are more likely to get to the right spot if given a free run, and you frequently are on track to win the board against weak players anyway.

 

Yes, you are right. I had that completely around the wrong way.

[broze]

I'd bid 3♥ (4♥ is kickback, 3 then 4 is a 4♥ bid)

 

This is what I was referring to above in my post. This is the way I play it but is it usual or even best? I'd quite like to just bid 4♥ on this hand. I imagine many expert kickback pairs switch to 4♣ keycard here.