[maggieb]

All vulnerable at rubber bridge.

J108x
xxx
QJxxx
Q

1H - 1S - 2H - ..

Possible choices are:

2S = single raise
3H = mixed raise
3S = preemptive

What is your choice?

[rhm]

2♠ is plenty.
Those who suggest otherwise have probably never played rubber for high stakes.

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

3 ♠ is perfect, those who bid 2 ♠ probably always lose at rubber bridge.

Maybe 3♥ works even better, but I try the most describtive and preemptive bid.

[pooltuna]

maggieb, on Oct 1 2009, 04:01 AM, said:

All vulnerable at rubber bridge.

J108x
xxx
QJxxx
Q

1H - 1S - 2H - ..

Possible choices are:

2S = single raise
3H = mixed raise
3S = preemptive

What is your choice?

single raise

[Quantumcat]

Hmm, four trumps, what else do you need for 3♠? Oh, look, a singleton too!

[mcphee]

Laugh at me but I think 4S is a consideration and that is what I would do.

[andy_h]

3♥ is a mixed raise? How do you show a good raise?
Anyway I would consider this hand a perfect 3♠ preemptive raise and at these colours too. 2♠ doesn't seem justice with 4 trumps and a singleton and my hand is full of quacks so I don't consider this as a mixed raise.
And yeah, 4♠ is crazy. What if the opponents only have a 5-3 heart fit...?

[Phil]

3♠. Normally with a quacky hand and four trump, I would bid 2♠, but with a working singleton and no heart duplication, 3♠ is appropriate.

4♠ is a LOL.

[gnasher]

Are there really rubber-bridge games where 3♠ is preemptive? I suppose next you'll be telling me that you can play negative doubles, too.

[jdonn]

3♠ is perfect. If you are not using it on this hand there is no point in playing it imo. In fact if you had the same shape with a good 6 count like QTxx xxx Axxxx x I would make a mixed raise.

[rhm]

jdonn, on Oct 1 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

3♠ is perfect. If you are not using it on this hand there is no point in playing it imo. In fact if you had the same shape with a good 6 count like QTxx xxx Axxxx x I would make a mixed raise.

Modern preemptive tactics have their place at matchpoints and to some extent at IMPs.
They were not invented for total points, particularly when vulnerable.
"Perfect" is a description in the eyes of the beholder
After you payed for a few telephone numbers I doubt that you would still use this attribute and you might start to pay a little bit more respect for the vulnerability and you may start to accommodate your agreements to fit the scoring and the vulnerability.

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

maggieb, on Oct 1 2009, 04:01 AM, said:

All vulnerable at rubber bridge. J108x xxx QJxxx Q
1H - 1S - 2H - ..
Possible choices are: 2S = single raise, 3H = mixed raise, 3S = preemptive. What is your choice? 

IMO 3♠ = 10, 4♠ = 9, 3♥ = 7, 2♠ = 5.

[jdonn]

rhm, on Oct 2 2009, 04:24 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 1 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

3♠ is perfect. If you are not using it on this hand there is no point in playing it imo. In fact if you had the same shape with a good 6 count like QTxx xxx Axxxx x I would make a mixed raise.

Modern preemptive tactics have their place at matchpoints and to some extent at IMPs.
They were not invented for total points, particularly when vulnerable.
"Perfect" is a description in the eyes of the beholder
After you payed for a few telephone numbers I doubt that you would still use this attribute and you might start to pay a little bit more respect for the vulnerability and you may start to accommodate your agreements to fit the scoring and the vulnerability.

Rainer Herrmann

I don't recall going for a number larger than game by the opponents on an auction like this (and rarely a number of any size, which are also offset by some doubled makes). Not once. Ever. Surely it has happened and I've forgotten, but obviously not enough to have the slightest impression that the strategy is bad. Keep saying I wll get caught and learn the error of my ways as person after person doesn't catch me. And to make sure you don't make assumptions, I spent years playing rubber bridge for money.

[ochinko]

I admire those who have the guts to bid 4♠, but I think 3♠ is normal here. 2♠ is noise.

[MattieShoe]

I love how everybody gives different advice with such confidence. Makes me feel better when I think, "I have no idea what the right bid is here..."

I'm not a good player by any stretch but I'd bid 2♠ based on the "bid what you think you can make" principle. 3♠ looks nice as a defensive bid given such terrible cards for defending, but I'm chicken.

[ochinko]

You shouldn't think of only what you can make but also of what opps could make. Some of the best results come when you go down but it turns out to be a good sacrifice.

The Law of Total Tricks isn't as popular as it used to be, but it still remains a good reference for where you'd want to be in a competitive bidding when both sides have their fits.

[cherdanno]

I think those who bid 2♠ only misevaluate xxx of hearts. Without the 2♥ raise, these would be terrible cards, but given the raise, it is great to have no wastage opposite partner's doubleton.

[aguahombre]

MattieShoe, on Oct 2 2009, 08:13 PM, said:

I love how everybody gives different advice with such confidence.  Makes me feel better when I think, "I have no idea what the right bid is here..." 

I'm not a good player by any stretch but I'd bid 2♠ based on the "bid what you think you can make" principle.  3♠ looks nice as a defensive bid given such terrible cards for defending, but I'm chicken.

yep, when you get a variety of opinions it has exactly that effect. However, in this case the 3S bidders are in the majority AND they give the most concise reasons why!. Makes it easy this time. Sometimes the majority preaches dogma while a small minority gives good reasons for their actions. I don't pretend to know the finer points of rubber bridge, but 3S seems right for all the reasons given by Andy, Josh, Phil, etc. As a bonus, Andy states why "mixed raise" does not really apply to 3H here.

[gnasher]

ochinko, on Oct 3 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

You shouldn't think of only what you can make but also of what opps could make. Some of the best results come when you go down but it turns out to be a good sacrifice.

Didn't it say rubber bridge? Even if I manage to go for 100 against a slam, I'm still poorer than when the hand started, so I wouldn't count it amongst my best results.

[gwnn]

gnasher, on Oct 5 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

ochinko, on Oct 3 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

You shouldn't think of only what you can make but also of what opps could make. Some of the best results come when you go down but it turns out to be a good sacrifice.

Didn't it say rubber bridge? Even if I manage to go for 100 against a slam, I'm still poorer than when the hand started, so I wouldn't count it amongst my best results.

Maybe I'm misreading your post but don't you need to maximize your result on every hand? You can't go plus all the time no? For example, not bidding an 80% slam (which is a 100% game) is bad bridge at money bridge*, is there something fundamentally different in rubber?

*=unless you need exactly 600 dollars or whatever the sum is to survive some life-threatening danger, but in this case you're using a different metric than overall money.