[kfay]

han, on Mar 23 2008, 10:40 AM, said:

7xxxxx

lol

[655321]

4♠

With 4 card support and a singleton I would rather bid 4♠ than show a mixed raise and stop at the 3 level. On this particular hand, holding 7xxxxx of hearts, you might get away with 3♠ because one of the disastrous results (opponents bidding a cold 4♥ and you and partner passing it out because you have bid your hands) looks impossible, but I still prefer 4♠.

[mike777]

3c...bergen on still


4 card support 8-11 support pts.

[jdonn]

han, on Mar 23 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

I bid only 3♠ which lead to a disaster, I need to grow some synapses. Next time though I will grab the bull by the balls horns.

Hehe. Honestly 3♠ would not occur to me. I think 4♠ really is a good bid, since no matter what you do you have no idea who can make what, and this could easily roll opposite a total min. Even if I had a mixed raise available I would sooner show this as a limit raise in competition. Although I do agree with Justin this is a textbook mixed raise, I tend to make my limit and mixed raises in competition much lighter than most when I have good shape.

Sorry Jillybean I don't see where you are taking offense. This looks like a case of offense-run-amok.

[pclayton]

I've had good luck treating 4 card support and a side 6 the same as 5 card support and a side stiff.

4♠.

[Cascade]

pclayton, on Mar 24 2008, 12:17 PM, said:

I've had good luck treating 4 card support and a side 6 the same as 5 card support and a side stiff.

4♠.

This is not much of a side six. It looks more like a four-card suit. Although I admit I am finding it difficult working out how come I have four-card support, a four-card side suit, a singleton AND not many cards in the remaining suit.

[sfbp]

3♠

There's lots of points left round the table, and 4♠ may easily be too much. If partner is bad we still may push them into something unmakeable. If he is good, then he may have enough to bid game.

[whereagles]

I would bid 4♠ and feel great about my bidding

[awm]

Depends on partner/agreements. I think this is a textbook mixed raise, and with many partners I play 3♠ here as a mixed raise at these colors. So 3♠ it is.

If partner expects me to bid 3♠ on say: ♠xxxx ♥xxxxxx ♦xx ♣x (i.e. four card support, a singleton, and no high cards to speak of) then obviously I need to select another call. If no mixed raise bid is available then I'll bid 2♠ planning to compete to 3♠ later if necessary, or accept any game try from partner.

Okay I need to edit my examples since we have diamond king. Take: ♠AQxxx ♥Kx ♦QJx ♣xxx. Totally normal opening, nothing wasted in clubs, we need takeout doubler not to hold the heart ace to make 4♠, for a much less than 50-50 game. And opponents probably can't make 5♣, might not even make 4♣ if spades 2-2, and haven't bid over 3♠ yet. And partner could easily have some "wasted" club values, say something like ♠AQxxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣KJxx.

[TimG]

awm, on Mar 24 2008, 11:02 AM, said:

If partner expects me to bid 3♠ on say: ♠xxxx ♥xxxxxx ♦xx ♣x (i.e. four card support, a singleton, and no high cards to speak of) then obviously I need to select another call.

I wonder if this is true. Isn't part of the idea behind a preemptive raise that it confuses things? A weak 2S opening bid wouldn't be as effective if it was known to always conform to a very narrow range of hands, would it? Can't the same be said for a preemptive raise?

Maybe the hand in question is so far wide of a typical preemptive raise to require a different call. But, in general, don't we want our preemptive raises to be sort of wide range as far as high cards go?

[whereagles]

The hand has 6 hcp and 7 losers. If we shoot at 4♠ now, LHO might not be able to bid 5♣. We have to look at the tactical situation as well. Besides, there is clearly playing strength for the 4 level.

We want it to go

1♠ (dbl) 4♠ (...pass)

What we don't want, is to hear

1♠ (dbl) 3♠ (4♣)
any (5♣) ???

[awm]

TimG, on Mar 24 2008, 11:07 AM, said:

Maybe the hand in question is so far wide of a typical preemptive raise to require a different call. But, in general, don't we want our preemptive raises to be sort of wide range as far as high cards go?

Not really.

The idea of a preempt is really two-fold: (1) We take up a lot of space, making it harder for opponents to describe their hands to one another and/or pick the right contract (2) We describe our hand quite accurately, allowing partner to generally make the right decisions.

I am sure that when I preempt, I would get better results by playing preempts as very precisely described hands. In general describing my hand helps partner a lot more than it helps opponents. The problem is that if we agree to some super-specific definition of a preempt, then our preempts become too infrequent. There are too many hands where we might've gained by preempting but now have to pass because it doesn't fit our narrow definition...

Anyways, this hand is such that we could easily make 4♠ if partner has mild extras. We want partner to know that (for example) AQxxx xx Axx Axx is a game bid (basically any control-rich hand is a decent game bid, whereas quacky hands like AQxxx QJx xx QJx we would much rather partner pass).

[Apollo81]

pclayton, on Mar 23 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

I've had good luck treating 4 card support and a side 6 the same as 5 card support and a side stiff.

4♠.

I echo these sentiments.

[benlessard]

perfect 3S for me. 3S might be the last plus or they might not compete over 3S anyway. a 3S bid R vs W is a mixed raise. So with extras partner will gladly bid 4.

4S -1 vs 3S making or 4SX-2 vs 3S-1 are likely bad result imo. By passing its possible they find a cheap save but its not too likely imo.

[the hog]

4S agree with Nuno.