[hrothgar]

I'm going agree with Ulf on this one

The South hand looks a bit weak for a game forcing response over a strong club. I recognize that passing with the South hand could easily lead to missing a good game. At the same time, streaching to bid 3♠ could easily lead to the partnership going overboard and bidding to a bad slam.

Let's pretent that there wasn't any interference. I'd never treat this hand as a game force. I admit that that the hand revalues after RHO show's Heart length. Even so, I'm leery about a 3♠ call.

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Apr 6 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

I'm going agree with Ulf on this one

The South hand looks a bit weak for a game forcing response over a strong club. I recognize that passing with the South hand could easily lead to missing a good game. At the same time, streaching to bid 3♠ could easily lead to the partnership going overboard and bidding to a bad slam.

I have never played strong club, but this sounds like you are putting slam before game on this kind of hand. I find it hard to believe that requiring a balanced 16-18 to act again at the 3-level is a sound strategy.
If we add an ace to this hand, and make a Jack a Queen, wouldn't we all act opposite a standard opening (even though we would not force to game without interference)? Since partner promises about 5 hcp more than a standard opener, doesn't this mean it is sound to act wit this hand in the given situation?

[ulven]

We have to weigh the alternative outcomes:

a/ We pass and partner doesn't act and we miss a game.

b/ We pass and partner doesn't act and we can't make a game, due to misfit/bad breaks (i.e we should just defend).

c/ We pass, partner acts but we miss a making slam.

d/ We bid and get overboard, i.e room is scarce and partner has such a good hand that he can't pass in time. We go minus at 5/6-level.

e/ We bid and get to a making game/slam which we wouldn't have reached otherwise.


By bidding, we're reaching for alt e (thereby avoiding outcome a & c).
By passing, we avoid b & d (and risk e).

How should we act then? What line of action gives us the highest 'expected value'?

This depends on the strategy used in re-opening by the 1C-opener. Let's say our RHO had been dealer and opened with a 3H-preempt and it goes pass - pass to partner. We now often bid 3NT or X with various hands because we expect our partner to have certain values.

Say we have 17 hcp, we count 3H-opener for say 8 and we infer that the remaining hands share the rest, giving us an expectation of about 7-8 hcp with partner. So we take action based on that. Sometimes partner has more, sometimes less.

After already having opened a strong C, we can't expect to find partner with 8+ hcp, but it would be really unfortunate to find partner with a bust (although the reasoning is a little skewed because preempter could easily have 10-13 hcp in this situation). In the example given in this thread, I think it clear to re-open with 3NT, expecting 4-6 hcp with partner. This he doesn't have that all the time, but as we all know, we play/bid the percentages.

So, I adopt a philosophy/approach that we don't stretch to make positive replies and we put a larger burden on opener to act again, which doesn't necessarily promise/imply extras.

I think the major gain for preempts vs strong 1C is pushing the opp's overboard. When we prempt, we really want them to bid on and hope for wrong level/strain. This is more likely to happen when we stretch as responder because there's so little room left to explore and/or limit ourselves later.

By my approach, I put empasize on constructive bidding to slam and risk being shut out on marginal distributional weaker hands. I do this by choice because my analysis/experience is that this is a sounder and more successful strategy.

As always, you can come to a different conclusion than I've done and choose a different strategy.

To assume that passing shows inexperience makes me smile. It may also be an indication of a lot a expericence.

[awm]

I think south needs to bid here. There are minimums for partner where game is quite good:

Axx
Qxx
KQx
Axxx

Not even a 16-count and game can make if spades are 2-2 or singleton honor. I wouldn't say this flat 15 is some "magic hand" although certainly you could construct a worse one. I cannot imagine north balancing on these cards, or even with an extra queen in hand.

Some general rules that seem good to me:

(1) When in doubt, the hand with shortage in the enemy suit should act. If you dealt me JTxxxx xxx ATx x, I would be happy to pass over 1♣-3♥. If partner has three hearts also and not a lot extra we're quite unlikely to be able to make anything on the marked heart lead. On the actual hand I have the singleton heart, so I would bid.

(2) It seems reasonable to bid more or less the same way I would over a natural 1♣ if I were about four-five points stronger. I think most of us would bid over 1♣(natural)-3♥ holding AJTxxx J JT9x Kx even though we wouldn't game force opposite a non-fitting minimum opener. It's just too likely partner has some hand like Kxx Qxx Axx Axxx where game has great chances and he's never going to find a balance.

(3) Partner should cut me some slack on slam tries in competitive auctions. Especially if I am likely to have shortage in the opposing suit, it can pay to go slow. Oftentimes everyone will be facing preemption, and it is hard to bid slams accurately in the face of a lot of competition. I'd rather miss the occasional slam after a preempt than miss fairly frequent game contracts.

[the hog]

North gets all the blame. I wouldn't bid with the South hand despite the fact that I hold 6S. The S suit is simply not good enough to force to game. Partner needs to strain to reopen, especially if short in their suit. Here of course, the 1C opener has a mandatory re opening.