[mohitz]

So, partner opens 1♠, RHO bids 3♣ weak. What is a typical 4♠ hand? If vulnerability matters, say so.

What do you bid on the following hands?

1) ♠xxxxx ♥xxxx ♦xxxx ♣-
2) ♠xxxxx ♥Axxx ♦xxxx ♣-
3) ♠xxxxx ♥Axxx ♦Axxx ♣-

What about these hands?
4) ♠xxxx ♥Qxxx ♦xxxx ♣x
5) ♠xxxx ♥Axxx ♦xxxx ♣x

And also
6) ♠KQTx ♥Jxxx ♦Kx ♣xxx
7) ♠KQTx ♥Kxxx ♦Kx ♣xxx

Thanks

This post has been edited by mohitz: 2010-September-16, 23:52

[gnasher]

I'd bid 3♠ on (4), and 4♠ on all the rest.

I think 4♠ includes all hands that would bid 1♠-4♠ uncontested, and most of the hands that would show a limit raise.

[karlson]

I would bid 3♠ on #4 and #6, and 4♣ on #3 and maybe #7 though it's pretty ugly.

I think 3♠ shows the good constructive raises and trashy balanced limit raises, and 4♣ should be most normal game forces and upgraded limit raises. That leaves 4♠ for some shapely limit raises or hands that would have bid 1♠-4♠. I think some hands that would have bid 4♠ can bid 3♠ now though -- the preemptive value is much less when they've already bid 3♣. I could see #1 being a 3♠ bid maybe.

[pooltuna]

not sure if you have the methods available but I would use what I have to show the hands as follows

1) preemptive raise
2) constructive raise
3) limit raise
4) simple raise
5) constructive raise
6) limit raise
7) game force

[WellSpyder]

pooltuna, on Sep 17 2010, 03:35 PM, said:

not sure if you have the methods available

Do you????

Seems like you are trying to show a lot of different things with only a very limited number of bids available to do this, eg 3♠, 4♣ and 4♠. Are you prepared to lose alternative meanings for bids like double and 3N to increase the definition of your raises?

[P_Marlowe]

WellSpyder, on Sep 17 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

pooltuna, on Sep 17 2010, 03:35 PM, said:

not sure if you have the methods available

Do you????

Seems like you are trying to show a lot of different things with only a very limited number of bids available to do this, eg 3♠, 4♣ and 4♠. Are you prepared to lose alternative meanings for bids like double and 3N to increase the definition of your raises?

you also have 3D and 3H av.

If you are using transfers, than you may just loose a natural 3D bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[MarkDean]

karlson, on Sep 17 2010, 05:24 AM, said:

I would bid 3♠ on #4 and #6, and 4♣ on #3 and maybe #7 though it's pretty ugly.

I think 3♠ shows the good constructive raises and trashy balanced limit raises, and 4♣ should be most normal game forces and upgraded limit raises. That leaves 4♠ for some shapely limit raises or hands that would have bid 1♠-4♠. I think some hands that would have bid 4♠ can bid 3♠ now though -- the preemptive value is much less when they've already bid 3♣. I could see #1 being a 3♠ bid maybe.

You would 3[S] on 6 and maybe 4♣ on 7? You must have a pretty tight 4♠ range!

[junyi_zhu]

mohitz, on Sep 17 2010, 05:52 AM, said:

So, partner opens 1♠, RHO bids 3♣ weak. What is a typical 4♠ hand? If vulnerability matters, say so.

What do you bid on the following hands?

1) ♠xxxxx ♥xxxx ♦xxxx ♣-
2) ♠xxxxx ♥Axxx ♦xxxx ♣-
3) ♠xxxxx ♥Axxx ♦Axxx ♣-

What about these hands?
4) ♠xxxx ♥Qxxx ♦xxxx ♣x
5) ♠xxxx ♥Axxx ♦xxxx ♣x

And also
6) ♠KQTx ♥Jxxx ♦Kx ♣xxx
7) ♠KQTx ♥Kxxx ♦Kx ♣xxx

Thanks

You can probably play some kind of convention to distinguish all of them, for example:
4S is just competitive, showing very long spades with constructive value.
4H shows a hand in the upper range of the limit raise to the lower range of gf, which also creates a future forcing pass situation if they compete more.
4C shows a hand with some extra value (one king(or queen) better than a minimum opener) and (very)mild slam interest.

[whereagles]

Because of the "don't pree over a pree" principle, it doesn't make much sense to define 4♠ as a pure preempt.

But the canonical definition is pure pree mostly because it's much easier on your brains

[Gerben42]

You have the following bids:

3♠: Simple raise
3NT: Strong raise based on values
4♣: GF raise, distributional
4♠: Preempt

All natural 3NT bids will start with Dbl followed by Dbl of any following ♣ bid.

Looking at the hands:

1) ♠xxxxx ♥xxxx ♦xxxx ♣-

4♠

2) ♠xxxxx ♥Axxx ♦xxxx ♣-

Still 4♠

3) ♠xxxxx ♥Axxx ♦Axxx ♣-

4♣, big hand in this context

4) ♠xxxx ♥Qxxx ♦xxxx ♣x

I guess there is something to be said for PASS here, but 3♠ probably will work better.

5) ♠xxxx ♥Axxx ♦xxxx ♣x

3♠

6) ♠KQTx ♥Jxxx ♦Kx ♣xxx

3NT

7) ♠KQTx ♥Kxxx ♦Kx ♣xxx

3NT

[karlson]

I definitely wouldn't want to give up my natural 3n here -- it's not the same as giving up a natural 2n over 1s-2c (for one thing, partner might be endplayed a bit over 3d or 3h).

Obviously you can always do better with more raises, but two raises to the four level (plus a possible fit jump in diamonds) doesn't seem too bad to me here.

[wank]

karlson, on Sep 18 2010, 08:24 AM, said:

I definitely wouldn't want to give up my natural 3n here

QFE - i'd rather give up my testicles