[han]

Scoring: MP

(3S)-p-p-Dbl
p-4D-all pass

---

[mike777]

Prefer x with south hand and not 3nt.
Prefer 5D with north hand, partner asked me to bid my long suit, Yes? Partner assumes 7 working hpc but seems my hand is closer to 10.

[cherdano]

X-4NT(pick a minor)-6♣ -- or am I day-dreaming?
I like 4NT because partner's double will often be off-shape and 4NT at least makes sure we get to an 8-card fit.

However, in a style where balancing doubler has borrowed a king, I think 4♦ is enough, but then the doubler should raise.

Arend

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Oct 20 2005, 11:53 PM, said:

However, in a style where balancing doubler has borrowed a king, I think 4♦ is enough, but then the doubler should raise.

Arend

I disagree. Borrowing a king (some say ace) applies after a 1-level opening where RHO has shown weakness. It doesn't after a 3-level pre-empt where responder can be very strong with a misfit.

Double in this position should show full values, because you force the partnership to the 4-level. That is obviously not the case after 1x pass pass.

With the actual hand North should have done more. 4NT seems about right, and then South must be pretty close to jumping to the club slam.

Roland

[luke warm]

i'd double also... with 7 controls i'm thinking slam is possible... with north i prefer 4NT, and now i agree with arend (again)... i'd just shoot 6♣

[mike777]

I'm glad everyone but me was so sure what 4nt means here. .

[luke warm]

i don't know what else 4NT could be.. rho preempted, i'm a passed hand, partner doubled... i'm 2 suited always and minors usually (different folks play 4nt differently here)

[mikeh]

Good problem.

I place 100% of the blame on S for not bidding 3N.

The Ax♠, with no ♠ raise, suggests he can control the suit.

The 4 card ♥ suit is insufficient reason to look for ♥: even if partner holds 4 of them, 3N may play better given the probability of bad splits. Plus 3N requires fewer tricks and scores better when it makes the same number.

For all of those saying N ought to bid 4N: two questions.

1. Are you really, really certain both that 4N is the minors and that partner will take it that way? Before you rush to yes, consider what meaning you would give to 4♠. Also consider how you'd like to bid with AQ QJx KQxxx Jxxx: asuuming no stretch to bid 3N over 3♠, would you really just bid 3N now, leaving about a trick and a half of playing strength undisclosed, or pass 3♠, accepting your +300 opposite xx AKxx AJxx AKx

Having said that, I suspect that most players would instinctively view 4N as minors and I would take it that way with a new partner

2. More importantly, if you held xx AKxx AJx Qxxx as S, what would you bid over 4N? Which minus score do you prefer? Even if you were 1=4=4=4, would we always reach 5♦ on x AKxx Axxx Axxx? If so, please don't play against me: your powers of perception are way too good.
In short, the double did not provide 5-level safety and did not begin to suggest that NS would find their best fit.

South had a chance to tell his story of a big balanced hand with a ♠ stopper. Instead he made an ill-defined, wide range bid that found his partner with a difficult hand at a form of scoring that punishes minor suit contracts.

South should also have looked ahead: he had an in-between hand should partner advance with 4m. He'd like to bid game but he is not really strong enough to do so. Again, he could avoid that problem by an accurate bid the first time.

[mikeh]

Note that in my post, I did not assess blame for missing 6♣: all of that blame goes to the 3♠ bidder: preempts work sometimes, else we'd all be passing unless we held a full opener

[mike777]

I always wondered about bidding 3nt on these hand types, now I know, thanks learned something from this excellent post.

[hotShot]

I think that N is to strong to bid only 4♦over a 3♠ preempt S should only dbl with a good hand.
N should bid 4NT for the minors and if he's not sure about is, at least 5♦ is a better bid.

[Codo]

Why do you prefer 3 NT to X? Yes if you take the same tricks it will be better.
But why should it take the same tricks? You have just a single stopper and not yet a real source of tricks. Some finesse - if necessary, must be taken into Wests hand.

I am in doubt, if the upsides
- you bid it now or never
- you may still reach a suit contract if pd has the hand for it
-you describe your hand quite well in shape and strength

are sufficent reasons to bid 3 NT now.
If this hand had happened to me, I may still sit at the table and think about it.

Second, I dislike the 4 NT idea.
If I had been North, I would fear pd to double with quite many different hands, but I can see not many hands, where it is better to play in clubs, not in diamond.

So I think, 5 ♦ is the right bid as North and pd should/could bid 6 ♦. This is a shoot in the dark, I agreee, but after all, you have to pay a price for the preempt.

[Trpltrbl]

I bid 4NT, with North hand, pd should have full values for his double. He is forcing me to 4 level.
It seems all my points are working and we are 5-4 in minors, so let him pick his longest.

GBB

[MickyB]

Walddk, on Oct 20 2005, 10:59 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 20 2005, 11:53 PM, said:

However, in a style where balancing doubler has borrowed a king, I think 4♦ is enough, but then the doubler should raise.

Arend

I disagree. Borrowing a king (some say ace) applies after a 1-level opening where RHO has shown weakness. It doesn't after a 3-level pre-empt where responder can be very strong with a misfit.

Double in this position should show full values, because you force the partnership to the 4-level. That is obviously not the case after 1x pass pass.

Agreed - I tried to make this point elsewhere but failed

IMO the main reason for transferring a king over a 1 level opener is that 2nd seat expects his LHO to bid, so it often pays to keep quiet and let the opps bid on. Over a preempt you expect responder to pass (or worse still, make a preemptive raise) so there is as much reason for direct seat to get involved as balancing seat. That, of course, is assuming that the preempt was in 1st seat - if balancing seat is a passed hand, he can act on much weaker hands if short in the opps suit.

[whereagles]

I have faced decisions like these a couple of times and my experience tells me that 3NT is more often the winner.

[awm]

I love playing against people who bid 3NT on hands like this!

Yes, it works great when your opponents don't preempt with outside entries, and always raise with three-card support. But since I am well-known both to preempt with outside cards and pass partner's preempt with three trumps, I get way more than my share of good results against the 3NT bidding posse.

In fact, pushing opponents into "light" 3NTs that make because of communication problems on the defense might well be a good reason not to preempt on hands without outside cards -- quite the opposite of the approach some players seem to take.

As to whether 3NT is a good bid, well, on the actual hands you will miss a slam. In general it might work well if your opponents are of the "classic" preempting style. Not my cup of tea though.

[Free]

I'd also start with 3NT, partner can still stayman and I have a 4 card ♥ so there's no immediate danger. Might go wrong, but that's what preempts are all about: make it hard on opps...

[pclayton]

I think this is a bear of a problem over 3♠ and am surprised that Justin and Mike think its so clear-cut.

While I should be able to shut out the spade suit (no raise on right), I am far from confident about a source of tricks. And, it may turn out that diamonds becomes our achilles' heel on this hand, not spades. Getting to our 4-4 heart fit is a near impossibility after 3N. Even getting 5-4 hearts will be tough, as pard's suit rates to be rather weak with my nice intermediates, although a 5-4 oddly enough becomes a nice trick source for NT.

I like double but am not convinced either way. I disgree with Justin that this is the last chance for 3N, pard might (doubtful I know) have a stop.

If the 3N bidders are doubled do they plan to sit?

After the initial double, I also think pard has a real problem. In spite of what Roland says, I don't think its a 5♦ call. He has the death holding in spades. But IMPs is a bidders game, and I'll fly off the cliff in 5 of a minor via 4N (yes I'm confident about the meaning opposite a passed pard) if necessary.

I'd probably pass a double at MPs with this pattern. On the actual hand it looks like a quiet 300 which rates to be fair, but not a disaster.

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Oct 22 2005, 12:07 PM, said:

I think this is a bear of a problem over 3♠ and am surprised that Justin and Mike think its so clear-cut.


If the 3N bidders are doubled do they plan to sit?

None of the non-3N postings persuade me that 3N is not the best call. Is it so clear that I 'know' that it will work out best? Not at all. But my experience, which includes a great deal of reading as well as play, tells me that 3N is significantly better than any other call. I stick to my guns even when I can see that a combination of double and an aggressive 4N by partner will get me to an excellent 6♣ contract, while 3N will end the auction (even if partner moves, we will stop in 4N)

It is possible that Justin's agreement on this point is based on his playing with Bob Hamman: whose rule is said to be that if 3N is a possible contract, bid it. And Mr. Hamman's view is worthy of some respect

As for running: I redouble, showing doubt. This tells partner that I was not bidding 3N based on a running suit (Ax Kx AKQxxxx Kx.. I'd pass the double, and gamble partner has a trick... a lesser hand with a long suit, I'd run myself) or a truly huge balanced hand.

Playing redouble of pressured 3N as doubt showing is a useful gadget: I am not sure of its origin but I think it was invented by Meckwell (given their bidding proclivities, they need it more than most )