[pclayton]

Playing in a 12 board team game against very good opponents you pick up red on white:

Scoring: IMP

---

RHO opens 1♦.

What is your call? If you choose a certain action, briefly discuss some of your follow-up actions based on a few continuations by partner and or the opponents.

FWIW, this partner you can trust, if you choose to consult him on any decisions.

Thanks.

[ulven]

I'm a 1S-bidder. Let's "walk the hand" and gather some info.
I doubt we'll shut them out anyway.

[pbleighton]

4S. I think it was Marty Bergen who said that if the opponents opened the bidding at the one level, you will save yourself a lot of trouble by forgetting about slam.

Though this hand is definitely tempting

Peter

[hotShot]

I'll just bid 4♠, there are only 14- HCP left for the other 2 players and if partner does not have ♣KQ or ♣ single with a lot of ♠s, we won't make slam.

[awm]

I like 1♠. I'm not worried so much about missing slam (although this is a possibility), more about the auction:

1♦-4♠-5♦-P-P? or
1♦-4♠-P-P-5♦?

With a hand like this one I wouldn't have much idea what to do in this auction. Sure partner is still there, but he doesn't know that we hold good cards or about the ridiculous distribution. Doubling might cause partner to sit with various hands including a bunch of clubs where 5♦ is ice cold.

Bidding only 1♠ tends to slow down the auction, and I may get a chance to bid my clubs later on, or at least to get to 4♠ having shown some values.

[Codo]

I am with adam, I do have the boss suit, no need to force them to 5 Diamond at once.

[Fluffy]

I'd bid 1♠.

But I am thinking of 2♣ as an alternative. If partner rises you have hit gold . Sadly if he doesn't you are playing at elast 1 trick higher than you should hehe.

[kfay]

awm, on Aug 20 2007, 03:01 PM, said:

Bidding only 1♠ tends to slow down the auction, and I may get a chance to bid my clubs later on, or at least to get to 4♠ having shown some values.

I think that playing against good opponents the auction is just as likely to proceed 1♦ - 1♠ - 5♦ than if you bid 4♠ directly.

I think I'd start out with a double and then bid spades at my next opportunity (unless partner bids clubs). Partner only needs 1 of 3 cards (with some clubs) to make slam very very favorable.

[awm]

kfay, on Aug 21 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

I think that playing against good opponents the auction is just as likely to proceed 1♦ - 1♠ - 5♦ than if you bid 4♠ directly.

I think I'd start out with a double and then bid spades at my next opportunity (unless partner bids clubs). Partner only needs 1 of 3 cards (with some clubs) to make slam very very favorable.

The first is not necessarily true. Certainly a pure diamond preempt will bid 5♦ directly, but I actually feel more comfortable with the auction 1♦-1♠-5♦-P-P-5♠ than with bidding 4♠ directly. There are many hands though which are not "pure diamond preempts" and would start with a negative double, 2♥ bid, or 2♠ "strong diamond raise" over a 1♠ overcall but would bid 5♦ over 4♠. Also the hands where opener will rebid 5♦ will typically take some other action in order to establish a force and/or show long diamonds (i.e. 1♦-1♠-P-P-2♠ or even 1♦-1♠-X-P-3♦); I'm not sure I've ever seen a good player open 1♦ and then jump to 5♦ at second turn when the auction is only at the one or two level.

As for doubling, I'd be afraid partner bids hearts, or that partner tries to penalize thinking we have more defense than we've shown. I prefer to limit my "power doubles" to hands where I have a serious fear that the hand will pass out if I make a simple overcall, which seems unlikely here given the distribution (and lack of hcp values).

[jdonn]

awm, on Aug 21 2007, 12:18 PM, said:

kfay, on Aug 21 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

I think that playing against good opponents the auction is just as likely to proceed 1♦ - 1♠ - 5♦ than if you bid 4♠ directly. 

I think I'd start out with a double and then bid spades at my next opportunity (unless partner bids clubs).  Partner only needs 1 of 3 cards (with some clubs) to make slam very very favorable.

The first is not necessarily true. Certainly a pure diamond preempt will bid 5♦ directly, but I actually feel more comfortable with the auction 1♦-1♠-5♦-P-P-5♠ than with bidding 4♠ directly. There are many hands though which are not "pure diamond preempts" and would start with a negative double, 2♥ bid, or 2♠ "strong diamond raise" over a 1♠ overcall but would bid 5♦ over 4♠. Also the hands where opener will rebid 5♦ will typically take some other action in order to establish a force and/or show long diamonds (i.e. 1♦-1♠-P-P-2♠ or even 1♦-1♠-X-P-3♦); I'm not sure I've ever seen a good player open 1♦ and then jump to 5♦ at second turn when the auction is only at the one or two level.

As for doubling, I'd be afraid partner bids hearts, or that partner tries to penalize thinking we have more defense than we've shown. I prefer to limit my "power doubles" to hands where I have a serious fear that the hand will pass out if I make a simple overcall, which seems unlikely here given the distribution (and lack of hcp values).

Perhaps responder is not nearly as likely to bid 5♦ after a 1♠ overcall, but you may well be inviting the auction to go something like

1♦ 1♠ 2♦ P 5♦

or something descriptive like

1♦ 1♠ 2♥ p 3♠

instead of

1♦ 4♠ p p p or X p p

Just food for thought.

[pclayton]

I chose 1♠.

No one has really convinced me that a 4♠ call is superior here. The auction isn't dying, and we are just asking the opponents to sac over your vul game. As Adam mentioned, you have an unsolvable problem with the expected 5♦ on your left.

I love pressure bidding. But I hate giving myself the last guess in these situations, and thats what 4♠ gets you.

At the table the auction proceeded (x) - pass - (1N). I pressed on with 4♠, which in retrospect feels wrong. LHO sacced in 5♦, which we beat 300, although 6♠ is cold (♣KQx comes down and LHO can't lead a trump). 5♠ is the best spot for us.

I think my best follow-up call is 4♣. 3♣ is possible, but I wouldn't treat it as forcing (would you?). One of the reasons for slowing the hand down is to engage partner and see if we have a club fit, which will have a big impact on the number of tricks we can take. ♣Qxxx and nothing else gives us a great slam. Should 4♣ create a force through 4♠? I think it should - similar to a strong leaping michaels call.

At the other table I believe they doubled with my hand. LHO bid 1♥ and pard passed. RHO bid 1N and now this hand jumped to 3♠. LHO competed to 4♦, which partner doubled on: xx, Axxxx, KTxxx, x. My hand pulled to 4♠ , which our teammates allowed to play.

I hate doubling on this hand, but it does tend to slow the bidding down even more, don't you think?

[Fluffy]

3♣ not forcing, but 4♣should be forcing.

♣Qxxx doesn't make slam good, you still need an entry to dummy for finese, ♣Kxxx is better.

[Free]

I'm also a 1♠ bidder

[benlessard]

4♠ we might not stop them from bidding 5♦ but at least im giving myself good odds for stopping them from finding 5♥. Ill pass over 5♦ without regrets. Its a R vs W 4level preempt. Partner will better placed then myself over 5♦ (he can X pass or bid 5♠)


Sandbagging is showing no respect for the opponents.

[awm]

benlessard, on Aug 22 2007, 02:39 AM, said:

Sandbagging is showing no respect for the opponents.

I'd counter this by saying that preempting on a three-loser, two-suited hand is showing no respect for partner. By bidding 4♠ and then passing 5♦ we're saying that we don't want partner's input as to whether we should compete to 5♠, whether we can make 6♣, whether we should be doubling 5♦. We're refusing to describe our hand in any meaningful way, trying to push the opponents around while taking partner out of the equation, perhaps because we don't trust his judgement?

[jdonn]

awm, on Aug 22 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

benlessard, on Aug 22 2007, 02:39 AM, said:

Sandbagging is showing no respect for the opponents.

I'd counter this by saying that preempting on a three-loser, two-suited hand is showing no respect for partner. By bidding 4♠ and then passing 5♦ we're saying that we don't want partner's input as to whether we should compete to 5♠, whether we can make 6♣, whether we should be doubling 5♦. We're refusing to describe our hand in any meaningful way, trying to push the opponents around while taking partner out of the equation, perhaps because we don't trust his judgement?

I totally disagree with this comment, because there is very little hope of describing this hand to partner anyway.

I would certainly not bid 4♠ and pass 5♦, I would double when 5♦ comes back to me.

[ArcLight]

This hand can make slam if pard has 0-2 spades, and a few clubs including the K (if RHO has the Q), or KQ. (with 0 its only 35% chance of a 3-3 spaed split)

Something like: (give or take a heart, and maybe add the club Q, with enough clubs, you can play for the drop)

♠ x
♥ x x x x x
♦ x x x
♣ K x x x

[Fluffy]

If partner has ♣Kxxx nobody would be surprised to see 7♣ making.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Aug 22 2007, 08:00 AM, said:

awm, on Aug 22 2007, 10:48 AM, said:

benlessard, on Aug 22 2007, 02:39 AM, said:

Sandbagging is showing no respect for the opponents.

I'd counter this by saying that preempting on a three-loser, two-suited hand is showing no respect for partner. By bidding 4♠ and then passing 5♦ we're saying that we don't want partner's input as to whether we should compete to 5♠, whether we can make 6♣, whether we should be doubling 5♦. We're refusing to describe our hand in any meaningful way, trying to push the opponents around while taking partner out of the equation, perhaps because we don't trust his judgement?

I totally disagree with this comment, because there is very little hope of describing this hand to partner anyway.

I would certainly not bid 4♠ and pass 5♦, I would double when 5♦ comes back to me.

Yes, but there is a big issue about misdescribing our hand to partner. For me, a direct 4♠ at these colors shows an 8 bagger with or without a little shape, or a lot of 7-4's. If you overcall 4♠ and double 5 red, you are revealing a hand with some unpromised defense - AQJxxxxx, Ax, Kxx, x. The subject hand has a lot more shape and a lot less defense than this.

If I'm jamming this with 4♠ and pard can't double 5♦ on his own, I think I like 5♠ better than a x.

I haven't made this argument in a long time, but do hold the boss suit, and we aren't getting outbid.

After sleeping on this, I still prefer a 4♣ at my second turn. This hand reminds me of Boehm's article in the BW a few years ago: "Science at the Freak Show".