[gwnn]

Jxxx
Kxxx
xx
KJx

Pard opens unfavorable 1st seat 4♣, RHO doubles. Opps are the best pair of the field.

edit: yes MP. ugh...

[Gerben42]

No, don't see the point. Also no raise if opps bid 4M now.

[bhall]

If partner typically opens 4♣ unfavorable on 8 ♣ and 7 tricks, pass is right. If his bid shows one more trick, 5♣ looks right, because we rate to fail by only one trick, while the opps should make 10 or 11 tricks. But pass could still be the winning action.

[pclayton]

Pass.

No aces and no singletons for pard. Even opposite a sound 4♣ opening, 500 or even 800 just looks too likely.

[Winstonm]

As you mention "best pair in the field", I assume it is matchpoints. I am not moving red vs white at matchpoints, as I must either be perfect, meaning down -1 against their game, or I must be sacrificing against a slam. Typically, at matchpoints, unless the slam is totally obvious I will get a poor result no matter what I do, so what is the point of going off -500 or -800 if no other pairs are even going past game?

This is a more interesting IMP decision - at IMP scoring I would surely bid 5C, as -500 versus -420 is not that significant, but -500 against -920 is a big pickup.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

yes, I have 2 tricks for partner, enough to raise
the bar by one trick, I assume unfav. means red
vs. green, in which case partner promised to go
at most -2.

He may even have a chance of making.

But to answer your question, pass could be right,
given the holding in the mayor suit, and because
partner may have some defence out side clubs,
afterall I hold KJ in his suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

I'd bid 5. Opps are favorites for having a slam, and since they're the top pair, they might very well bid it. Let's make it a bit harder for them.

[rogerclee]

This is actually a somewhat interesting point. In general, not on this problem, does 5C actually make it harder for the opponents to find their slam if one is available?

I think 4-level minor preempts in general are fairly awkward to bid over if it goes 4C-X-P-? to you and you have some cards and a major. A lot of opponents will simply sign off in 4M since they are unsure about the 5-level.

However, giving them an option to bid 5M over 5C does two things:

a. It allows them to explain their hand as having extras and that 5M is a reasonably good contract opposite an average takeout double.

b. It allows them to evaluate their club shortness very well.

I don't know the answer to this question, but it seems fairly often that my side's preempts convince the other side to make very good decisions.

[whereagles]

rogerclee, on Jan 13 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

it seems fairly often that my side's preempts convince the other side to make very good decisions.

doh!.. maybe that's because you always have your bid?

[miguelm]

I prefer to play with partners who usually have their bids

Having said that, I expect partner to have 8 playing tricks here (unfavorable vulnerability). In MPs, I am prepared to bid 5C.
This has several goals in mind.
First one is to increase partner's noise.... I can't figure out how we will beat a Major game and I also know we won't be ruined in 5C.
Second, 5C is more likely to make their job harder to find slam, at least in theory
Third, this shows a lot of partnership trust, and I am willing to get a bottom (if that is the case) to show it.

[ArtK78]

Raise. If they are going to guess what to do, make them guess at the 5 level.

[Richardrls]

There is really no way to give a clear, intelligent answer to the question, until you tell the readers what the nature of the partnership's four level preempts are all about. Assuming that the four level bid is simply a preemptive bid, such continuation of the preempt with this hand with adverse vulnerability looks like plain suicide to me.

[the hog]

Pass. Poor hand and no ruffing value. Maybe they will stop in 4M.

[beatrix45]

5♣. I think I must bid a bunch of something, probably now as opposed to later. For once, I have to go almost 100% with the 'old guard' and against the 'young guns' - at least given the paucity of analysis from the new generations' replies.

This deal strikes me as almost a tactical problem because the vulnerability plus my hand and the opponents' relative strength constrains partner's hand to something like AQ eighth with a side three bagger or AQ seventh with a side four or five bagger.

[gwnn]

Pard had some semi-random 2038 with nothing or close to nothing with AQT9... in trumps. I raised but the -500 was not very good vs. all the 4♥+2's.... I hope I can pass next time.