Grand Aspirations

[Cyberyeti]

change the fact that the system has defined the call. lamford and the players he polled obviously accept a definition of a jump overcall that includes hands weaker than you or MrAce will accept.

 

MrAce claims (I agree) that the best use of a 4♥ bid in the given situation is "a self sufficient suit and not much sympathy to play in another suit". I'd like to know from lamford, or anyone else, why another systemic definition will yield better results over the long term.

 

I think pretty much everybody agrees what they'd like 4♥ to be but you then have to adapt it to what you're dealt.

 

The principle that a jump overcall over a preempt is a one suited good hand is not really in dispute, it's a question of how good and how good a suit is required.

 

AK 7th is borderline on suit and the side 4oM is a possible issue. This was what I was saying about judgment rather than system, make the hand Axxx, AKJ10xxx, Jx, void and I suspect you'd get much more agreement on 4♥ so it's not that far away.

[Joe_Old]

 

AK 7th is borderline on suit and the side 4oM is a possible issue. This was what I was saying about judgment rather than system, make the hand Axxx, AKJ10xxx, Jx, void and I suspect you'd get much more agreement on 4♥ so it's not that far away.

 

AKxxxxx being "borderline" is a judgment call. Personally, I don't think it's good enough. The strong 4 card ♠ suit (and imo any 4 card ♠ suit headed by an Ace), however, takes this hand completely out of the definition. There is also the matter of the hand not being quite strong enough (6 tricks opposite a useless dummy). If this is only a judgment call, then the 4♥ bidders are using very poor judgment because they settle for a ♥ game where East can make 6NT and either hand can make 7♠ or 7♦.

 

But, I'm not willing to state that lamford and the players he polled are purely wrong. I'd like to hear why they feel the usual definition of the jump overcall over a pre-empt should be modified, because so far I haven't seen any good reasons expressed. My position is that even considering that the example hand qualifies for a 4♥ call requires a major adjustment to the definition.

[Tramticket]

AKxxxxx being "borderline" is a judgment call. Personally, I don't think it's good enough. The strong 4 card ♠ suit (and imo any 4 card ♠ suit headed by an Ace), however, takes this hand completely out of the definition. There is also the matter of the hand not being quite strong enough (6 tricks opposite a useless dummy). If this is only a judgment call, then the 4♥ bidders are using very poor judgment because they settle for a ♥ game where East can make 6NT and either hand can make 7♠ or 7♦.

 

But, I'm not willing to state that lamford and the players he polled are purely wrong. I'd like to hear why they feel the usual definition of the jump overcall over a pre-empt should be modified, because so far I haven't seen any good reasons expressed. My position is that even considering that the example hand qualifies for a 4♥ call requires a major adjustment to the definition.

 

The opponents have pre-empted. You have many potential hand types to describe and limited space to make the descriptions. As I suggested above, I would bid 4♥ with the OP hand. I accept that this is a dead minimum and I accept that I am gambling that partner will have a little something to help. I also accept that this means that 4♥ covers a wide range of hands. It is of course possible to define the boundary between 3♥/4♥ a little higher. The trade-off is that a 3♥ bid is now a wider range (we don't like to sell out to a 3♣ pre-empt) and partner will sometimes be left with a guess whether to bid one more. As has been said, it is a judgement and I certainly wouldn't pretend that I get all judgements right!

 

Similarly it is a difficult judgement whether to double with 7-4 in the majors. If you bid hearts you might sometime miss a better contract in spades or no trumps. If you double, you may have to guess whether to show the hearts at a later turn. My judgement here is to show the seven-card suit.

 

It is a tricky hand - that is why we pre-empt.

[Joe_Old]

The opponents have pre-empted. You have many potential hand types to describe and limited space to make the descriptions. As I suggested above, I would bid 4♥ with the OP hand. I accept that this is a dead minimum and I accept that I am gambling that partner will have a little something to help. I also accept that this means that 4♥ covers a wide range of hands. It is of course possible to define the boundary between 3♥/4♥ a little higher. The trade-off is that a 3♥ bid is now a wider range (we don't like to sell out to a 3♣ pre-empt) and partner will sometimes be left with a guess whether to bid one more. As has been said, it is a judgement and I certainly wouldn't pretend that I get all judgements right!

 

Similarly it is a difficult judgement whether to double with 7-4 in the majors. If you bid hearts you might sometime miss a better contract in spades or no trumps. If you double, you may have to guess whether to show the hearts at a later turn. My judgement here is to show the seven-card suit.

 

It is a tricky hand - that is why we pre-empt.

 

The problem with your argument is that you are stretching to reach skinny games (against known distributional hands) when you're missing cold grands because partner is afraid to act. I don't think that's a satisfactory trade-off.

[GrahamJson]

Apparently there is a dispute between US and British (Acol?) players as whether to treat the example hand as worthy of a jump shift. A systemic argument. Here, a 3♥ call by a 2/1 player will get you to a makable slam. The actual 4♥ call didn't. A victory for 2/1.

 

One hand doesn't prove anything, but I haven't heard any theoretical arguments to make me believe that a jump shift on that hand is superior in the long run.

I play regularly with two partners. 2/1 with one and Acol with the other. However in this case system is irrelevant. It’s about coping with a pre-empt. 4H is the obvious bid for two reasons; if you don’t bid hearts no-one else is going to; you would overcall 3H on a much lesser hand, so can hardly make the same bid on this hand.

[lamford]

Oh and if pd passes with KQx xxx KQx QJTx, despite missing our 10 card fit, we collect a reasonable +500 or +800 instead of probably going down at 5 level

I think you would be as unlucky as Karapet to go down at the 5-level there. Given that 6H is cold as long as trumps are 2-1 and diamonds not 6-1. And if partner's trumps are worse, he will still pass and you may only get 200. And double followed by 4H shows a better hand than this in the UK anyway.

[rmnka447]

East really can't quite find a bid once West bids 4 ♥. The bidding has taken away too much space to determine that there are not 2 losers especially with East's void in ♥.

 

If, as lamford asserts, 4 ♥ would be the consensus bid and weaker than DBL followed by 4 ♥ bid, expecting to find the necessary black suit controls and ♥ quality seems like a stretch.

[MrAce]

If, as lamford asserts, 4 ♥ would be the consensus bid and weaker than DBL followed by 4 ♥ bid, expecting to find the necessary black suit controls and ♥ quality seems like a stretch.

 

Strain is much more important than how many little more beans you have or not for most top players. Bidding 4♥ with side 4 card spade is at best...bizarre imo.

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

Strain is much more important than how many little more beans you have or not for most top players. Bidding 4♥ with side 4 card spade is at best...bizarre imo.

 

There are a few problems I have with 4H.

 

First, it overstates the hand - a bit.

Second, it overemphasizes the heart suit - a bit.

Third, it unilaterally commits to a heart game when that may not be best.

 

A bid over a 3-level preempt should not be considered as competitive but as an attempt to reach game. When the goal is reaching game, finding the right game becomes important. IMO, 3H serves these goals better than 4H.

[MrAce]

There are a few problems I have with 4H.

 

First, it overstates the hand - a bit.

Second, it overemphasizes the heart suit - a bit.

Third, it unilaterally commits to a heart game when that may not be best.

 

A bid over a 3-level preempt should not be considered as competitive but as an attempt to reach game. When the goal is reaching game, finding the right game becomes important. IMO, 3H serves these goals better than 4H.

 

I don't get how this (3♥) will help when respondent had KQxx Void Jxxxxx xxx instead of AKQxxx ♦. (Or any other hand with 5-6 spades but not enough values to bid over 3♥) But I admit it is still much better than 4♥. for me.

[Winstonm]

I don't get how this (3♥) will help when respondent had KQxx Void Jxxxxx xxx instead of AKQxxx ♦. (Or any other hand with 5-6 spades but not enough values to bid over 3♥) But I admit it is still much better than 4♥. for me.

 

It doesn't get to a doubled contract - but it does get you to a 7-2 fit.

 

Nothing is perfect, eh?

[Lovera]

If you exclude more 3♥ than 4♥ it being a combo between them perhaps it will be more difficult for double or Michaels.(Lovera)

[Lovera]

Why does no one think that 5 ♣ can unblock the situation, meaning a good supporting hand obviously in ♦ and ♠? At the limit, 5 ♥ would be played. E's Kxx in ♣ perfectly displays S's hand (= 7-2-2-2 with A in ♣) while partner's 4 ♥ is read as AK 8.th at least.