[ArtK78]

---

IMPs. Favorable vulnerability. You are in third seat after partner passed and RHO opened 1♦. Partner has guaranteed less than 10 HCP from his failure to open the bidding (you play light openings at this vulnerability). He could have opened 2♦ or 2♥ weak (3-9 HCP) with a reasonable 5 card suit.

[mtvesuvius]

Edit, see below

[JLOGIC]

Would not consider anything but 2S

[ArtK78]

Sorry - changed initial post after your response. RHO opens 1♦. Everything else is the same.

[mtvesuvius]

Ah ok, then yeah, definitely 2♠.

[Phil]

Saw the change late too. 2♠ for me too.

[Gerben42]

All the juniors bid 2♠ and I bid 3♠. What has become of the youth?

[mfa1010]

This might be a good time to try something cute like 1♥ or whatever, because an honest-Joe 2♠ might help the opponents more than it harms them when we have don't have any kind of surprices for them at all and partner needs a special hand for us to have a really cheap sacrifice in spades.

[gwnn]

sometimes you have a normal 2♠ bid. I don't understand 3♠ really.

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on 2011-February-02, 10:05, said:

sometimes you have a normal 2♠ bid. I don't understand 3♠ really.

3♠ is simple! The opponents are 50+% to have a makeable game so you force them to bid it. I mean why would you want to give them the option to bail out at the 3 level?

[gnasher]

I'd bid 3♠. Obviously the shape and the ace of spades make this less attractive than it might be, but it pays not to have too narrow a range of hands for a 3rd-seat preempt.

Quote

sometimes you have a normal 2♠ bid. I don't understand 3♠ really.

I don't believe you. You understand 2♠: the idea is to take away the opponents' bidding space, thereby making their bidding less accurate, whilst striking a reasonable balance between risk and reward. The purpose of 3♠ is exactly the same, except that it results from a different estimate of the likely risks and rewards.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-February-02, 10:27

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2011-February-02, 10:25, said:

I'd bid 3♠. Obviously the shape and the ace of spades make this less attractive than it might be, but it pays not to have too narrow a range of hands for a 3rd-seat preempt.


I don't believe you. You understand 2♠: the idea is to take away the opponents' bidding space, thereby making their bidding less accurate, whilst striking a reasonable balance between risk and reward. The purpose of 3♠ is exactly the same, except that it results from a different estimate of the likely risks and rewards.

Except its more than that. Partner isn't on mute and will want to participate in the decision to save in 4♠ or possibly 5♠ and will have a different expectation of our hand.

[nige1]

ArtK78, on 2011-January-31, 12:36, said:

IMPs. Favorable vulnerability. You are in third seat after partner passed and RHO opened 1♦. Partner has guaranteed less than 10 HCP from his failure to open the bidding (you play light openings at this vulnerability). He could have opened 2♦ or 2♥ weak (3-9 HCP) with a reasonable 5 card suit.

---

2♠ = 10. 7NT is also worth consideration because opponents probably have a game and that may rob them of the bidding space they need to find their best strain

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2011-February-02, 13:27, said:

Except its more than that. Partner isn't on mute and will want to participate in the decision to save in 4♠ or possibly 5♠ and will have a different expectation of our hand.

Why would my partner not expect me to have this hand?

[gwnn]

sure gnasher I understand 3♠. I would also understand 4♠ - it has the same upsides as 3♠ and the same downsides, give or take a few (of course, the upsides and downsides have different weights). usually I see almost all upsides and downsides of calls in bridge*, since usually they are the same. thus when I say "I don't understand ...", I actually mean "the downsides of this particular style/call seem quite a bit significant than the upsides - I don't understand why people are choosing it".

*clarification: I could list them but I probably mis-assess their relative importance repeatedly

[han]

Gnasher, instead of asking questions, I would appreciate it if you could tell us what your partner does expect for your 3S bid. And what would you bid with similar honors and 6133, 6142 or 7222 shape?

[mcphee]

To bid 3S with this is just not my style, basically its a classic weak jump o/c and given the conditions I see no reason to make all the decisions for our side.

[bluecalm]

One of my partners likes playing jumps here as very wide range (so it won't be raised usually even with 3-2-4-4 or something) but I prefer classical preempts. My goal is to find good save if it's available. Taking space is just a bonus. 2♠.

[peachy]

I bid 2S. There are days when they don't have slam or don't even have game and we go for 800 in 3S. For bidding 3S. I should at least have a singleton somewhere if suit is only six cards. If my partner bids 3S with this and if it leads to -800 against mere game, I will understand and hope he won't do it again or if he will, he is lucky:)

[whereagles]

2♠. As canonical as they can be.