[Antrax]

None vul, partner deals and opens 3♦, passed to you.
♠KQT864
♥86
♦93
♣AK4

I was the only one to bid 3♠ (forcing), which means it's probably a poor call. However, I don't understand why. The hand seemed suitable for play in spades if partner can product Jx or xxx, and at worst we end up on the 4-level with a 9-card fit. So, which considerations am I missing and/or placing too much value in?

[jillybean]

Partner has preempted 7-11, so the hcp are split fairly evenly. 3S may be better but we can't stop there and I don't want to be at the 4lvl, I will leave us in our 9 card fit.

[the hog]

Obvious pass. You very likely have at least 4 losers in 4 something.

[Antrax]

I planned to be in 4♠ opposite Jx or xxx - in either case, I probably have one spade loser. Two heart losers, and one diamond (the club will likely go away on partner's diamonds). Is it unreasonable to expect partner to cover one of them?

[mcphee]

Here is what I think you should consider. What you need covered to produce game might well be the case if partner holds the AQ of D. However H is the main consideration which is 100% the suit they will lead. It is quite likely you have 2 top losers there plus a sure trump loser. S is the suit partner is most likely short of and even a stiff J may not be enough to allow survival if your hand gets tapped. Partner is going to raise 3S to 4 with 2 small trumps, and may have only 1 landing your side in 4D, not exactly desirable. While your positive outlook to how things might go is good, the possible minus position is greater than the plus.

[AlexJonson]

You can hit a second round diamond ruff a lot of the time everything else works out. In addition a natural diamond loser is probably more likely than a club loser.

[Statto]

Antrax, on 2012-March-25, 04:36, said:

Is it unreasonable to expect partner to cover one of them?

You can expect partner to cover at least 1 ♦ loser. My pre-empts tend not to have much in the other suits. Also, if partner doesn't have ♠J you're quite likely to have 2 ♠ losers. So it looks like an easy pass to me.

[655321]

I like the 3♠ bid.

I don't expect to make 4♠, but I also don't expect to beat 4♥, and I would rather bid now than hope 3♦ gets passed out (doesn't seem so likely), or guess what to do over 4♥.

[Statto]

655321, on 2012-March-25, 19:12, said:

I like the 3♠ bid.

I don't expect to make 4♠, but I also don't expect to beat 4♥, and I would rather bid now than hope 3♦ gets passed out (doesn't seem so likely), or guess what to do over 4♥.

Maybe we have 2 ♣, a ♦ and a ♠ in defence of 4♥. Also, I'm not sure LHO is that likely to act, we have a lot of the HCP.

[ahydra]

I think it's a little light for 3S. Agree with mcphee above and wouldn't expect opps to make anything either.

An ace more (maybe even a king) and it's an obvious 3S bid.

ahydra

[ArtK78]

Give partner a typical 3♦ bid (and, since you have 6 spades, give him shortness there):

x
xx
KQTxxxx
xxx

What do you make in diamonds? In spades? And your 3♠ bid is forcing.

Yes, the opps MAY make 9 or 10 tricks in hearts. But will they bid over 3♦? Far from clear. And if you bid over 3♦, you may wind up in 4♦ or 4♠, possibly doubled.

You don't have a 3♠ call over 3♦. And it would not surprise me in the least that a 3♠ call led to a bad result.

Let partner's preempt work. Maybe they won't find their heart contract.

[Antrax]

(3♠ worked well, but that's besides the point)
I'm not sure I agree with the hand you gave, though. I can reasonably expect that with 10 hearts and 23 HCP between them, the opponents will find some action over 3♦, can't I? Moreover, with seven spades missing, isn't partner entitled to his share of them?

[the_clown]

I also think pass is quite obvious. How are they gonna make 10 tricks in ♥? We have AK of ♣ and KQ10 of ♠ and p has the ♦s. Of course if they both have distributional hands, 4♥ may as well make sometimes. But it will go down most of the time. If you decide to bid now, you will play at the 4 level with no sure fit and less than half the deck. And sometimes they will find the double. If p has a maximum like x Kxx KDxxxx Jxx 3NT has absolutely no play at all and 4♦ could also go down.

[mgoetze]

Antrax, on 2012-March-26, 07:38, said:

(3♠ worked well, but that's besides the point)
I'm not sure I agree with the hand you gave, though. I can reasonably expect that with 10 hearts and 23 HCP between them, the opponents will find some action over 3♦, can't I? Moreover, with seven spades missing, isn't partner entitled to his share of them?

Let's assume partner has 7 diamonds and opps have 4. This leaves partner with 6 spaces and opps with 22.

Probability for 0 spades with partner: (22*21*20*19*18*17*16)/(28*27*26*25*24*23*22) = 14.4%
Probability for 1 spade with partner: 7*(6*22*21*20*19*18*17)/(28*27*26*25*24*23*22) = 37.8%
Probability for 2 spades with partner: 21*(6*5*22*21*20*19*18)/(28*27*26*25*24*23*22) = 33.4%
Probability for 3 spades with partner: 35*(6*5*4*22*21*20*19)/(28*27*26*25*24*23*22) = 12.4%
Probability for 4 spades with partner: 35*(6*5*4*3*22*21*20)/(28*27*26*25*24*23*22) = 2.0%
Probability for 5 spades with partner: 21*(6*5*4*3*2*22*21)/(28*27*26*25*24*23*22) = 0.1%
Probability for 6 spades with partner: 7*(6*5*4*3*2*1*22)/(28*27*26*25*24*23*22) = 0.002%

=> Average spades partner is entitled to: 1.5

[mgoetze]

(Note that 1.5 = 7*6/28, but that would have been too easy.)

[aguahombre]

IMO, the answer to "Am I preempting the preemptor?" is no you aren't. But I agree with the posters who do not approve of the 3S bid.

The misnomer "preempting over a preempt" normally applies to an opponent acting with weak values over a weak bid.

[Phil]

Agree with 655321 and the OP - I like 3♠.

1. You might make 4♠. Not particularly likely, but its within the realm of reason.

2. More importantly, an auction that starts [preempt] - (pass) - [new suit] is notoriously difficult to defend against.

[jillybean]

Phil, on 2012-March-26, 10:03, said:

Agree with 655321 and the OP - I like 3♠.

1. You might make 4♠. Not particularly likely, but its within the realm of reason.

2. More importantly, an auction that starts [preempt] - (pass) - [new suit] is notoriously difficult to defend against.

We may not get to play in 4♠, partner could be forced to bid 4♦. Making a forcing bid on this hand seems wrong.

[pooltuna]

3♠ needs to be a non forcing call which in effect limits how strong your overcalls can be

Edit: sorry I mistakenly thought 3♦ was an opponents call. so 3♠ is forcing and IMO a correct call assuming ♦ tolerance or extra values

[Cyberyeti]

It can work, but it's not a good bid (give pd Jx, x, KQJxxxx, xxx and LHO enough to bid 3♥ but not enough to X or bid 4♥).