[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Oct 7 2005, 04:07 PM, said:

Although there are two opponents to fool, but you and partner are the ones who miss game when you have too much for your bid or get overboard when you have too little....so who ends up looking the fool?

Another way to look at this is that you are on the last board of a 96 board match and it's all tied up....would you want partner to try to determine the outcome of all the other 5 player's investement of time and energy and effort by violating the partnership's agreements by making a gunslinger preempt because he has two oppenents to fool.  He may have two opponents, but he has five teammates to whom to he must explain.

Winston

If my partnership style allows for wide ranging preempts in certain situations (white v red is one in which my usual style does) then I cannot look like a fool when I make a decision based on my judgement. I can (and have been) wrong, but I can live with those outcomes without feeling foolish.

Furthermore, I try not to let my perception of the state of the match dissuade me from going with what got me there... unless I am absolutely certain that I am really stuck.

In fact, if the match is close, and is very long, then all the more reason to pile on the pressure with a wide range favourable preempt and an aggressive advance. I have played some long matches: they usually come at the end of a long event, and everyone is very tired.. I have never seen an exception to that statement. Tired players make mistakes. Tired players under pressure (in the auction or in the play) make more mistakes.

If your point is that your partnership plays narrowly defined preempts, and therefore should not make bids out of range, that is a different matter.

Having said that I refuse to play a style that allows 3♠ on QJ9xxxx xxx xx x and forces a pass on KQJxxxx Qx xx xx

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Oct 8 2005, 01:20 AM, said:

Having said that I refuse to play a style that allows 3♠ on QJ9xxxx xxx xx x and forces a pass on KQJxxxx Qx xx xx

I hope noone wants to pass the latter. But certainly, many would bid automatically bid 4♠ with it. In fact, I would probably do so, so maybe I should reconsider my vote for 4♠

[Winstonm]

The only point I was trying to make is that if one opens both Q109xx, xxx, QJx, x and KQJxxx, xxx, Axx, x 2S at the same vulnerability then it is a crap shoot about who is getting preempted and everyone is guessing, including pard.

But then I'm not Canadian, so this makes sense to me.

[Double !]

I elected to bid 4S.

3 quick tricks, 3 card support, a potential ruffing value: who knows? Diamond king is probably paper, maybe not!

If partner has garbage for the 3S bid, well, we might not make 4 but, then, what can the opps make?

DHL

[Gerben42]

4♠.

This hand could be worth as much as FIVE tricks for partner.

The first 3 are obvious: AAK
Then the ♦K is worth half a trick.
The third trump may help avoid a trump loser.
The doubleton ♦ may provide a ruff.

You want to be in 4♠ opposite this:

---

[Walddk]

Gerben42, on Oct 8 2005, 11:25 AM, said:

Then the ♦K is worth half a trick.

A priori yes, not on the auction. It is significantly less than half a trick now that you know that LHO has 12+ hcp and a diamond suit.

Roland

[Gerben42]

Agree with that, but I wasn't counting it as one of the 5 possible tricks I might have for partner either.

[inquiry]

This problem wasn’t interesting to several of the panelist, as they wondered about their partnership preempting style. Luis took this the to the greatest limit, abstaining on this problem.

Luis Abstain. Depends on partnership style about the 3♠ overcall. Some play constructive some play destructive, in my partnerships I pass and expect my pd to go down 1 or make 3♠ on the nose. I really can't find the attractive in problems that are just a matter of knowing your partnership style.

Others commenting on preempting style question were the only panelist voting for Pass (Sergey), 3NT (Jeffrey and Frances) and three of the majority voting for 4♠ (Justin, Sergey, and Ng).

Sergey Pass at MP. Decision depends rather on style of our preempting in favorable. At IMP's might risk 3N hoping for AQxxxxx.

Jeffrey and Frances 3NT. Very close between 3NT and pass with 4S a near contender. Obviously this is partly a matter of partnership style: with some of the 3S pre-empts I've seen, I would be happy to make 3S. There is a theory that pre-empts should be sounder at matchpoints than at imps, which encourages me to bid game here. The upside from 3NT is that partner may have some diamond length, or if I bid it quickly and confidently they might lead the wrong thing.

Jlall 4S. Much of this decision depends on my partner and his tendencies at these colors, so this is a tough problem to answer. Opposite myself who I consider aggressive but not crazy, I would bid 4S. It is easy to automatically discount the diamond king as useless, but just because they open 1D it doesn't mean that they have the ace and that partner does not have the queen. Many normal 3S bids produce game so I'm going to bid it. 3N is not on the radar as it is a huge, needless gamble that is risking your whole board prematurely.

Roland BPO-006D: 4S. Pure guessing. How weak can partner be at these colours? QJ10 to seven and out? In that case 3S is high enough. However, if he promises 6 tricks, 4S is a fair shot despite being positionally wrong.

Ng 4S. I would like to know my partner’s style. If he is very aggressive bidder (Qxxxxxx, xx, xxx, x), I pass. But even with many moderate hands, game has a good chance (AQxxxxx, xx, xx, xx or KQxxxxx, xx, xxx, x, or AJxxxxx, x, xxx, xx; and on a good day with something: KJxxxxx, Jx, xx, xx, ...), so I bid it.

However, most of the panelist (7) who voted for 4♠ didn’t appear to worry (too much) about the nature of the preempt. Fred, once again, gave a thoughtful response taking into account a number of issues.

Fred 4♠ 3NT is tempting, but if partner's spades are running it is likely that we will make 4♠ as well. However, if we have a spade loser, 3NT is probably down and 4S might still be excellent or even laydown. Furthermore, the field will not be bidding 3NT so making this call will put us in a position to get either a top or a bottom. That is something I try to avoid (unless of course I think the odds of ending up with a top significantly outweigh the odds of us getting a bottom - that is not the case here).

mikeh 4♠. 3N works only when partner has no ♠ loser. I don't want him worrying about bidding 3♠ on KQJxxxx Qx xx. Pass is too unilateral. Toughest problem, with 3 reasonable answers (pass being reasonable only at mps)

Fluffy 4♠, I can easily see the hand where 3NT goes quick 1 or 2 off while 4♠ makes.

ritong 4♠ I expect there will be few to the play, so I make what looks to me a reasonable gamble. I’m not for junk preempts

Beto 4♠. I would bid 4♥ only if RHO had bid something.

Gerben42 4♠. You should be sure what this shows in your partnership. Discipline here means that you know partner has a terrible hand. The ruffing value in ♦ suggests that 4♠ will at least have a very good chance, so I bid that.
reisig D. 4♠ ...I've been down before ..and I don't have to play it!

With 10 votes, 4♠ is a clear winner on this question. Because Luis’s discussion dealing with down one or making 3♠ on the nose, and the discussion by several members that bid or pass depends upon concern about the partnership quality of preempts, I have upgraded pass.

4♠     10   100
Pass    1   70
3NT     1   50

[luke warm]

i was surprised at the number of 4S bidders, given this is MPs, but i do like to read their reasoning

[pclayton]

By the way, Chris Larsen apologizes for not getting his answers in. He did mention that he passes on this one, and went with the majority on A and B, but splintered on C. I didn't ask about E and F.

What should we expect out of partner's hand? In my regular partnership where this hand came up, we haven't discussed Rule of 1/2/3 or Rule of 2/3/4 (my other partnerhsip is strict on 2/3/4, and that sometimes includes making weak 2's on 5 baggers if the hand fits in the guidelines).

I think modern preemptive style is 2/3/4. Accordingly at this vulnerability we should expect FIVE tricks from pard (or, roughly speaking, an 8 loser hand).

All of the following qualify for a 3♠ call IMO:

KQJxxx, xx, xxx, xx
QJTxxxx, x, xxx, xx
AQxxxx, x, xxxx, xx

Game is a big underdog across from any of these, but certainly not impossible. Unfortunately, add the ♦Q to any of these, and our chances go up immensely.

At the table I passed, and honestly said at the table "I hope this is enough". Well it was as pard's hand was: KJTxxxx, void, Axx, xxx! . We were an embarrasing +230. I can't understand how a partnership can define any of the hands I gave above along with the actual hand as both 3♠ calls.

Side note: in the partnership were this hand came up, a 2♠ call is 2 suited, so sometimes we have to make preemptive calls on hands that don't quite 'fit'.

[Winstonm]

[QUOTE] At the table I passed, and honestly said at the table "I hope this is enough". Well it was as pard's hand was: KJTxxxx, void, Axx, xxx! . We were an embarrasing +230. I can't understand how a partnership can define any of the hands I gave above along with the actual hand as both 3♠ calls.


I don't blame you - I was a passer, too. In fact, I was surprised at how often in this set of problems the experts disagreed with me - I thought they bid better than that!

Still, the hand posted is IMO way too strong to make a 3S bid - voids and Aces are too powerful to be making weak bids. Imagine how much easier your decision would have been over a simple 1S overcall.

Winston

[Winstonm]

When you construct hands "within 4 tricks of the bid", which seems to be the modern style NV vs Vul, the opposing hand needs 4 covers to ensure the contract and 5 covers to raise. This hand holds IMO approximately 4 covers: AK, A are 3, the xxx of spades is about .75 and the Kx of diamonds poorly situated is about .25.

I would think that if you gave exact parameters of an opposing hand that could not hold better than this, the panelists would almost surely vote for pass in unison.

What we seem to have in the voting is the belief in the likelihood of partner holding a hand better than promised, and that makes me wonder about the mental/tactical aspects of the game.

How often do players at the top mildly violate their agreements in order to put pressure on the opponents, and how do their partners compensate for these moves? Do they violate the agreements the other way, that is hold a hand weaker than expected?

Winston

[JLOGIC]

Passing is nuts