[Apollo81]

♠x ♥KT9xxxx ♦Qx ♣Qxx

(1♠) - ?

Vulnerability and scoring deliberately not given. Under what conditions would you bid or not bid 3♥?

ps - there's no "story" to this hand -- the actual result was uninteresting, and I don't plan to post it.

[aguahombre]

3rd chair, where partner will view it with suspicion, all but red/white.

Otherwise, those queens screw things up when pard is guessing what to do.

[whereagles]

Would bid 3 NV. Would bid a comic NT all the time if available.

[MarkDean]

I find this hand to be very unattractive for the preempt - they likely already found their fit, LHO can show it at the 3 level, we have enough outside partner might misjudge saccing. On the plus side, they might misguess queens if they do declare. I would certainly bid white/red, and not red. At none it is close, but would probably bid.

[nigel_k]

I'd overcall 3♥ at any vul except unfavourable, either IMPs or matchpoints. It's close at equal though. I consider this an aggressive style. More mainstream/conservative is probably 3♥ green vs red only.

Whether partner has passed or not wouldn't affect my decision much in this situation.

[gwnn]

3h at NV for sure. at unfavorable pass for sure. maybe at imps 3h at red-red makes some sense but I wouldn't do it.

[gnasher]

Any vulnerability except adverse, regardless of scoring, and regardless of whether partner has passed. (Scoring and position do affect my decisions about preempting, but not enough to affect my action on this hand.)

[Jlall]

w/w and w/r MP for sure. w/r imps for sure. I guess w/w imps also.

[peachy]

Pretty normal 3H except unfavorable at IMPs, maybe I also pass unfavorable at MPs. Those queens are tricky, they could combine well with what partner has, or they might be a nuisance for the opponents if they declare, or they might be worthless, but luck favors the bold much of the time.

[Apollo81]

The actual conditions were R/R mps against opps much better than avg for the field. I chose to preempt hoping they would misguess queens.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Dec 14 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

w/w and w/r MP for sure. w/r imps for sure. I guess w/w imps also.

Is that the right way around? I think you should be more cautious at matchpoints than at IMPs. Losing 500 against a non-vulnerable game is unimportant at IMPs, but awful at matchpoints.

[Codo]

W/R always
3 seat white always
2. seat white against real good opps at mps, for the reasons you gave. My queens will be huge after my preempt...

In Red: Never

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would make the 3H bid at green vs.red, I may be tempted at equal
vul., but most likely would not do it, and at red. vs green I would pass
at normal speed.

Scoring does not matter, but at equal playing MP, 3H instead of Pass
maybe better.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I am assuming 2nd seat, in 3rd seat I would bid at equal.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Dec 14 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

The actual conditions were R/R mps against opps much better than avg for the field. I chose to preempt hoping they would misguess queens.

Donnnnnnn

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Dec 14 2009, 04:58 AM, said:

Jlall, on Dec 14 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

w/w and w/r MP for sure. w/r imps for sure. I guess w/w imps also.

Is that the right way around? I think you should be more cautious at matchpoints than at IMPs. Losing 500 against a non-vulnerable game is unimportant at IMPs, but awful at matchpoints.

Yeah but 3H getting passed out and going minus when you could have gone plus when partner has a misfit and some values is really bad at MP and not so bad at imps.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Dec 14 2009, 09:58 PM, said:

gnasher, on Dec 14 2009, 04:58 AM, said:

Jlall, on Dec 14 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

w/w and w/r MP for sure. w/r imps for sure. I guess w/w imps also.

Is that the right way around? I think you should be more cautious at matchpoints than at IMPs. Losing 500 against a non-vulnerable game is unimportant at IMPs, but awful at matchpoints.

Yeah but 3H getting passed out and going minus when you could have gone plus when partner has a misfit and some values is really bad at MP and not so bad at imps.

That sounds like another argument for being more cautious at matchpoints. I thought I was arguing that, and you were arguing for greater caution at IMPs. Or did I misunderstand your first post?

[kfay]

gnasher, on More Recently, said:

JLALL, on Recently, said:

Yeah but 3H getting passed out and going minus when you could have gone plus when partner has a misfit and some values is really bad at MP and not so bad at imps.

That sounds like another argument for being more cautious at matchpoints.

Yeah that's my interpretation as well.