How many spades?

[ahydra]

3S, second seat preempts are meant to be more solid than 1st or 3rd.

 

ahydra

[mr1303]

What happened? Did 4S go for a lot? Or did 3S miss a good game?

[PhilG007]

3S, second seat preempts are meant to be more solid than 1st or 3rd.

 

ahydra

It seems to be forgotten that in duplicate,the real opponents sit in the same

direction as you and your partner. Thus although it might not be odds on to make,I will try

to be in the par contract i.e. the one that the majority of the field will be in. Thus I would rather overbid than underbid.

especially if a game contract is borderline. 55-60 per cent is always a good board score.

[Zelandakh]

The par contract is the one where neither side can improve their score by bidding further. If we can make 9 tricks in spades and they can make 9 tricks in hearts then the par contract is 3♠= if they are vulnerable and 4♥X-1 when they are NV. In this case, bidding 4♠ is likely to be a mistake. Sometimes overbidding is just as bad as underbidding. Whether the theoretical par contract is in any way connected to the most common one being played in the given room is another matter altogether. It is not uncommon to have a board where the par contract is almost impossible to find.

[Jinksy]

What happened? Did 4S go for a lot? Or did 3S miss a good game?

 

Neither. P had a strong hand, and if (s)he took an optimistic view of a second seat 4♠ bid, you'd end up in a poor slam that happened to make. A moral story for us all...

[kenberg]

Neither. P had a strong hand, and if (s)he took an optimistic view of a second seat 4♠ bid, you'd end up in a poor slam that happened to make. A moral story for us all...

 

Ain't it the truth?

 

I recall an opponent being in a far-fetched slam. A finesse worked and a side suit split 3-3. I asked him "Do you need anything else?" He said yes, he did. And his luck held. We still won the match.

[ArtK78]

Ain't it the truth?

 

I recall an opponent being in a far-fetched slam. A finesse worked and a side suit split 3-3. I asked him "Do you need anything else?" He said yes, he did. And his luck held. We still won the match.

 

One of my favorite hands of all time. Playing in the first day of the national finals of the GNT, my partner, Dave Treadwell, bid up to 7♦ virtually on his own after I opened the bidding. I put down a big hand which included the Qxx of diamonds (when I put down the dummy there was an audible gasp from one of the kibitzers). Dave won the opening lead and ran the DQ successfully, followed by drawing trump (Kx of diamonds onside). Eventually, with Jxx of hearts in the dummy, he led the J of hearts off dummy towards his AK9xx and ran it - winning! Qxx was onside, 10x was offside. Scoring up 1440.

[ArtK78]

I've never heard of a single suited hand being described as "constructive"

That's a new one on me (!) ;)

Perhaps "sound" would be a better description than "constructive."

 

I would open 3♠ on this hand in second seat.

[Phil]

In 1st seat this is a wtp 4S call. In 2nd I don't mind 3, only because I have an immense amount of defense and I'll be happy if partner doubles. Also, if I open 4S RHO who has already passed will probably float 4Sxd on general principles and I'm not at all sure I like that.

[MrAce]

I've never heard of a single suited hand being described as "constructive"

That's a new one on me (!) ;)

 

Sweetheart..... this game is a new thing to you regardless of how many centuries you have been playing it. It is like that for some people, never changes!http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif