[mikegill]

Scoring: IMP

P P 1♦ X
XX ?

---

You opponents are very unlikely to have psyched if that matters to you.

[655321]

3♥.

East seems to have made a fatuous redouble with diamond support, but even so the 3 level is high enough for me.

[manudude03]

Strange hand. Assuming partner's hand really is a double, either he would have to be very strong, or the opps are keeping the level low with their 10+ card fit (or both). I'll bid 2♦ just because it's a lot more desciptive than some number of hearts (a 4-4 spade fit will play better than a 5-3 heart fit with these hands).

[Fluffy]

Pass is take out right?, I prefer to raise whatever partner bids, specially if its clubs.

[jdonn]

I like 3♥.

[kfay]

I wouldst jack it thusly:

4♥

I like my chances to make it even

[Phil]

3♥ is fine. 4♥ would be a fun hand to play, and might take awhile, but will probably go down.

[mikeh]

I am bewildered by all the high level heart preemptors... I know, they don't think they are preempting, but they are, and it is partner they are doing it to.

Even if the opps are unlikely to have psyched, we have a STRONG inference that partner may have a powerful hand. We are void in a suit they haven't yet bid beyond the one level, in an auction in which the prototypical hand for partner includes a stiff diamond.

The more diamonds he has, the more strength he has. The more strength he has, the shorter his hearts may be.

In the meantime, our hand looks like a fine dummy in either black suit, should he be short(ish) in hearts and hold 4 or more in a black.

And the bidding is almost certainly NOT over at 1♥.... if by some freak, it is, it needn't be a bad spot.

So I bid 1♥, prepared, obviously, to bid more and perhaps a lot more.

The downside is that LHO may elevate the bidding, but unless he goes to the 4-level right now, I expect to bid again. In the meantime, if partner bids notrump, I show my spades, and if he bids a black suit, I jump in diamonds, if possible.


Edit: isn't the standard meaning of 3♥ a hand like xx Qxxxxxx xxx x?

[whereagles]

I'll bid 2♥. If pard his strong, he'll read me for just about this sort of hand and act accordingly.

If I knew pard had a regular take out, I'd try 4♦.

[Codo]

I think this was an obvious pass, which is a take out. I mean, I do have really good support for all suits, haven't I?

Of course 1 ♥ may work much better, but like Mike, I see no reason to misdescribe my hand in an attempt to preempt partner.

[bid_em_up]

1♥.

Am I the only one who treats pass as a desire to defend 1D xx'd?

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on May 5 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

1♥.

Am I the only one who treats pass as a desire to defend 1D xx'd?

You are not the only one, but you (and a couple of partners of mine) are in a distinct minority. I have played and still play this, in some partnerships, but it is very rare... I think I have seen it arise perhaps 2 or 3 times in 20 years. Sitting under declarer is fundmentally different than sitting over declarer.

[mikegill]

Pass by agreement would have not have been for penalties on this hand since we are under the diamonds, so I suppose you can consider that an option if you like.

[655321]

mikeh, on May 5 2009, 10:32 AM, said:

I am bewildered by all the high level heart preemptors... I know, they don't think they are preempting, but they are, and it is partner they are doing it to.

You know I don't think I am preempting? Hmm...

Perhaps the fact that we have 4HCP might have given you a clue. As a further clue I will tell you, yes, I bid 3♥ as a preempt.

mikeh, on May 5 2009, 10:32 AM, said:

Even if the opps are unlikely to have psyched, we have a STRONG inference that partner may have a powerful hand. We are void in a suit they haven't yet bid beyond the one level, in an auction in which the prototypical hand for partner includes a stiff diamond.

Partner might have a strong hand, LHO having psyched in 3rd seat. But to me it is much more likely that RHO has redoubled to show his strength, hoping to bid diamonds next. I believe this is a bad way to handle good hands with support, because you can easily be preempted. Hence, as South, I preempt. But reading some of the answers in this thread, East can safely keep redoubling with support on these auctions, because there are many posters who want to lurk in the bushes until the opponents have finished describing their hands.

And if partner does unexpectedly have the strong hand, there is no reason to suppose that the 3♥ bid will cause us to get to the wrong spot. Yes, keeping the bidding low would have worked a bit better, but I expect we will still get to a making contract.

[jdonn]

I don't know why partner is so obviously strong. If he is a balanced 19 then the opponents have 17 between them for the opening bid and redouble by a player who I'm told is unlikely to psych. Why should I assume such a thing? If partner is strong with a black suit he can still bid it, and I am more than pleased to then cuebid or even splinter in support, having already described my hand as preemptive.

[mtvesuvius]

Pass. T/O of ♦.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on May 5 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

Edit: isn't the standard meaning of 3♥ a hand like xx Qxxxxxx xxx x?

Mike Lawrence (Takeout Doubles, 1994) gives these examples:

Q9xxx xx J8x 108x   1♣ dbl rdbl 2♠
xxx xx J10xxxx xx   1♣ dbl rdbl 2♦
x Q108xxx xx 1098x  1♣ dbl rdbl 3♥

which are somewhere in between.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on May 5 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

I don't know why partner is so obviously strong. If he is a balanced 19 then the opponents have 17 between them for the opening bid and redouble by a player who I'm told is unlikely to psych. Why should I assume such a thing? If partner is strong with a black suit he can still bid it, and I am more than pleased to then cuebid or even splinter in support, having already described my hand as preemptive.

No-one, least of all me, said that it is obvious that partner is strong: all I said was that we have some reason to infer that he may be strong, and at the risk of sounding like a lawyer, that is all I meant... he 'may' be strong.

BTW, being told that the opps are very unlikely to have psyched may have influenced a lot of votes here.. at the table, no-one would assume that 'very unlikely' meant 'no chance', but when it is placed as a qualifier to a bidding problem, that's how we are tempted to read it. I tried to disabuse my mind of that inference and to give my reasoning as I think it would/should occur to me at the table.

IF partner is strong, then preempting makes no sense... we may well belong in a black suit, and as gnasher's post shows, our hand isn't close to what 3♥ shows, according to at least one highly regarded expert/writer.

If partner has only a regular double, then we can expect to have another chance in the auction, and that chance rates to be at or below the level of 3♥. If that is so, then 3♥ seems as unnecessary as it is mis-descriptive... while 1♥ retains flexibility without distortion.

As for partner bidding a black suit after our preempt... even if he does, can you seriously argue that you are going to be able to describe this hand? Whereas if I bid 1♥ and hear a black suit, the bidding is 2 entire levels lower, and I have a LOT of space in which to describe my hand. Which start do you think would be more effective? 3♥ or 1♥?

[jdonn]

Well Mike this might get difficult to debate because I suspect we are both experiencing Lukewarm syndrome, where our eyes are reading the same words but our brains are interpreting totally different meanings. I feel that is happening in regards to the first 3 of the following points that I am quoting. Anyway I'll do my best.

mikeh, on May 6 2009, 11:33 AM, said:

No-one, least of all me, said that it is obvious that partner is strong: all I said was that we have some reason to infer that he may be strong, and at the risk of sounding like a lawyer, that is all I meant... he 'may' be strong.

Well I'll let the peanut gallery decide if that's what "we have a STRONG inference that partner may have a powerful hand" means. It sure doesn't look anywhere similar to "he 'may' be strong" to me.

Quote

BTW, being told that the opps are very unlikely to have psyched may have influenced a lot of votes here.. at the table, no-one would assume that 'very unlikely' meant 'no chance', but when it is placed as a qualifier to a bidding problem, that's how we are tempted to read it. I tried to disabuse my mind of that inference and to give my reasoning as I think it would/should occur to me at the table.

What you seem to be saying is we should just ignore that statement. So why was it told to us? I interpret a statement like that to mean "bid on the assumption your opponent has not psyched." I mean do you really think we will all make our choices, then the OP will come back with the actual hand and say "GOTCHA, THEY DID PSYCH!"? I also disagree in that there are definitely certain opponents (many in fact) where I would know at the table there is literally no chance they have psyched.

However I did choose the same action I would take at the table in any case.

Quote

IF partner is strong, then preempting makes no sense... we may well belong in a black suit, and as gnasher's post shows, our hand isn't close to what 3♥ shows, according to at least one highly regarded expert/writer.

Hmmm? Because no examples given were the same shape? I don't see how we could possibly expect just a few examples (one, actually, of a double jump) to cover anywhere near the gamut of shapes which could be included. You seem to be viewing this preempt along the lines of opening a weak two bid, in the sense that it is relatively specific as to shape. I really think it's more along the lines of raising a 1♠ opening bid to 4♠ where it's based on playing strength with a very wide variety of shapes allowed, such as 4, 5, or 6+ card support in that case with virtually any distribution outside trumps allowed. I don't see why you feel it's so exactly a 6 or 7 card suit to one honor, nothing outside, and no voids. It's simply a reflection of what we feel both sides can make at that point, given that we have any fit at all.

Quote

If partner has only a regular double, then we can expect to have another chance in the auction, and that chance rates to be at or below the level of 3♥. If that is so, then 3♥ seems as unnecessary as it is mis-descriptive... while 1♥ retains flexibility without distortion.

I simply disagree that it's misdescriptive, as stated above, after which the entire argument on which that is based falls apart for me.

Quote

As for partner bidding a black suit after our preempt... even if he does, can you seriously argue that you are going to be able to describe this hand? Whereas if I bid 1♥ and hear a black suit, the bidding is 2 entire levels lower, and I have a LOT of space in which to describe my hand. Which start do you think would be more effective? 3♥ or 1♥?

Well for one thing, partner won't, I was simply trying to cover my bases. But even if he did I can very seriously argue I can describe this hand. In fact, if he bids 3♠ and I bid 5♦, I can hardly think of a more accurate description than the two bids I have chosen. In which case it's hardly relevant to me that you do get to start supporting partner at a far lower level.

In fact I could argue that it's your sequence that would be misdescriptive. I have shown my hearts are longer than my spades, and implied a lack of strength outside hearts. How are you going to do that if you bid 3♠ or 3♦ or something over a 1♠ rebid by partner?

[cherdanno]

If partner has a strong hand, is it so misdescriptive to sell our hand as weak and shapely? Ok, we are lacking one trump, but otherwise...
Anyway, against most opponents preempting has so much to gain on this auction, they may not know whether pass is forcing, the may not know how many trumps a double shows, they may not know whether 4♦ is forcing, etc.