[jdonn]

helene_t, on Apr 5 2007, 09:27 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 5 2007, 12:37 AM, said:

Preempting carries much more of a message about suit quality than merely bidding a suit does. x Q86432 xx AKxx, if you want to open this with a preempt then by all means you are not alone, but passing is hardly ridiculous on a suit this lousy, and then of course there is no reasonable choice later but to bid 3♥. I think your agreement is fine for people who will preempt on anything that moves.

But you would be much more comfortable opening 2♥ with your example hand than making a 3♥ freebid with the same hand, wouldn't you?
- it's a level lower
- partner's 1♠ opening in your singleton is bad news
- 3♥ now has now preemptive effect
- The partner of the 3♦ bidder has a penalty double of 3♥ available and he will know when to use it

OK, make your hand somewhat more extreme, say x-xxxxxxx-(-)-AKxxx and I can imagine a pass followed by a 3♥ bid in this auction. But to me, 3♥ suggests a hand with which 3♥ now is at least as safe as a 2♥ opening would have been.

There are other factors beside safety. Are you saying that if you passed before, you wouldn't bid now since it's too dangerous? There are lots of players who would have passed that hand originally, but passing the second time around would just be stupid.

I am not more comfortable misdescribing my hand (given a partnership or player for whom opening 2♥ would be a misdescription).

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Apr 4 2007, 07:31 PM, said:

3♥ does not imply any sort of spade support at all. I know some people think it does but even they don't agree (some think 4 cards, some think 3, some think 2 card "tolerance"). There is no law that says you must open with a preempt on a very bad suit or two suited hand, but of course you still have to be able to bid your suit later. So easy 3♠ on this hand.

I think that there are there are several reasonable interpretations for a a 3♥ bid in an auction like

P - (P) - 1♠ - (3♦)
3♥

Option 1 The flawed preempt

3♥ shows a hand with sufficient playing strength for the three level which, none-the-less, was unsuitable to open or preempt in first seat. As Josh suggests, this will typically be some form of two suited hand that couldn't be shown. Alternatively, its possible that the partnership is playing some highly disciplined preemptive scheme in which a void or scattered side suit values would disqualify the hand for 2M or 3M

Option 2 The fit non-jump

Originally, the hand didn't evaluate as strong enough for a 2M or 3M opening, however, the hand has re-valued after partner's opening bid. The hand contains both a Hearts suit and a fit for partner's Spades

Option 3 Something completely artificial

In theory, one might chose to use 3♥ as some form of artificial response. For example, one could use an immediate 3♠ bid as strictly competitive, while 3♥ shows any one of a variety of different game invites

Moving on to the question of "Bridge Logic". Personally, I think that the definition for the 3♥ bid will very much depend on the nature of the opening system in first/second seat. For example, if I'm playing MOSCITO or some other light opening system with lots of two suited preemptive methods, the "flawed preempt" interpretation goes right out the window. There simply aren't enough flawed preempts to warrant allocating a bid to describe this rare a hand type. In a similar vein, if I were playing EHAA or - for that matter - Roth-Stone the flawed preempt interpretation doesn't seem reasonable. Alternatively, I'm sure there are some opening styles where the "flawed preemptive" interpretation makes more sense.

In a similar vein, lets compare the fit non-jump to the artificial "limit raise". I general, I prefer to be able to describe shape + values rather than simple showing values. Lets assume for the moment that the actual auction was

P - (P) - 1♠ - (3♣)
3♥

In this case, I'd very much like to be able to use both 3♦ and 3♥ as fit non-jumps. However, the actual auction is MUCH more cramped. If I use 3♥ as a fit non-jump, I can't show any other type of invitational hands. Its quite possible that the generic quantitative interpretation would be more useful.

Regardless, without any discussion, I'd assume that the fit non-jump interpretation to be more frequent than any of the others. maybe I just play in different circles.

I suspect that a BRBR study might shed some light on what type of hands people actually have for this auction.

[HeartA]

Unless I can be sure that my pd understands 3H, I would bid 4S, assuming pd has an average opening hand.

[the hog]

To my mind there is no hand that would not open with a pre empt and yet bid 3H now. 3H for me in auctions like this is logically ALWAYS a fnj. Having siad this, I agree that this suit is not suitable for a fnj, and I would bid a simple 3S.

[Fluffy]

The_Hog, on Apr 6 2007, 07:10 AM, said:

To my mind there is no hand that would not open with a pre empt and yet bid 3H now. 3H for me in auctions like this is logically ALWAYS a fnj. Having siad this, I agree that this suit is not suitable for a fnj, and I would bid a simple 3S.

But ron, partner could have only 4♠ and we could beong to hearts, doesn't that make 3♥ more atractive?

[dake50]

Let me follow this logic: hand wasn't an opener, nor H-preempt, BUT now is a 9-trick contract bid? WHAT promoted? ONLY S-fit. That's pure logic!
3H fit bid here.