[Mbodell]

---

It is IMPs. Our preempt style is very wide ranging. 3♥ shows a good hand and bad suit [if partner had decided to bid 3♣ showing a bad hand and bad suit I would have had available a possible re-asked how bad with 3♦].

[mcphee]

I trust we can hold our trump losers to 2 and bid the game I hope we make 4S.

[MrAce]

It is IMPs so 3♠ is out of question.

What we are left to decide is 3 NT or 4♠.

I am aware 3 NT may be tempting for some but i foresee a lot of dangers in 3 NT. I would just bid 4♠ and don't over think this.

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2014-February-09, 12:53, said:

It is IMPs so 3♠ is out of question.

What we are left to decide is 3 NT or 4♠.

I am aware 3 NT may be tempting for some but i foresee a lot of dangers in 3 NT. I would just bid 4♠ and don't over think this.

I would choose 3N only if he had shown a good suit: I could reasonably expect to run 9 tricks with reasonable frequency. Opposite a good hand and a poor suit, I opt for 4♠, and hope that we have only 3 losers.

[the hog]

3S. I expect to lose 2 Aces and 2 trumps. To be honest, I don't even think it is clear cut to bid 2NT and may well have passed a nv opening.

[wank]

i would have floated 2♠. given that partner showed a maximum and we're still not confident of making a non-vul game, it rather suggests we shouldn't have asked in the first place, not least because we took the pressure off LHO.

[gszes]

p is saying they have 6 (cruddy) spades and a hand around 10 HCP --

opposite our 1N opening bid there seems to be little reason to avoid

our 25 HCP 8 card trump fit major suit game. We even have a decent

15 count so it would seem to be going against the grain to avoid game.




Passing originally is a pretty scary idea at imps since it is so easy for us to

miss game. We might get too high occasionally but the risk vs reward for

bidding over 2s seems highly skewed in our favor. If our "wide ranging" means

we can never have 2 outside aces then pass over 2s makes a ton more sense:))))

[akwoo]

For me, "good hand" is defined to usually mean 7 losers by losing trick count, excepting some weak hands dominated by queens.

It's hard to imagine that I don't have 4 cover cards for partner at 4♠. Even QTxxxx, Kx, Qxx, xx (and despite being technically a 7 loser hand, that's not clearly a "good hand") has play.

[gordontd]

gszes, on 2014-February-09, 22:11, said:

p is saying they have 6 (cruddy) spades

6? Where was that said?

[mikeh]

gordontd, on 2014-February-10, 01:14, said:

6? Where was that said?

One can play whatever style one likes, but imo it is terrible bridge to open a weak 2 with a 'good hand' and a 'weak suit'. So when he shows that combination, it should be safe to assume he has a six-bagger. If I am mistaken in this partnership, then I want out of the partnership and maybe bidding game will help that happen

[Siegmund]

Don't know OP's style, but I know that my weak twos are such that if there are two spade losers there is zero chance we are making 4S. Given the bidding as stated I am endplayed into 3NT, which at least might make on a miracle (1+1+3+4 tricks, or something like that.)

Quite sure I don't like the proposed style though:)

[Mbodell]

Result: At the table I bid 3♠ and was wrong. I think I was too timid even if partner will routinely preempt stuff that would make a junior embarrassed.

Partner's actual hand was a fitting super max with:

ATxxxx x AQx xxx

Even with the club A offside and diamonds 4-2 with J-fourth off we still made 10 tricks.

I had barely decided to ask with 2nt but primarily because I thought the only realistic chance for game was if partner had a good suit and 3nt might be made. But looks like I was too pessimistic about 4♠.

[the hog]

Mbodell, on 2014-February-11, 23:40, said:

Result: At the table I bid 3♠ and was wrong. I think I was too timid even if partner will routinely preempt stuff that would make a junior embarrassed.

Partner's actual hand was a fitting super max with:

ATxxxx x AQx xxx

Even with the club A offside and diamonds 4-2 with J-fourth off we still made 10 tricks.

I had barely decided to ask with 2nt but primarily because I thought the only realistic chance for game was if partner had a good suit and 3nt might be made. But looks like I was too pessimistic about 4♠.

So partner did not have a 2S opening, but a 1S opening. This is far too good, especially if playing a wide ranging style.

[ggwhiz]

I don't care for your methods but I would have asked with 2nt hoping to get any response showing a good suit and then set it down in 3nt.

This is not a weak 2 though and surely that hand should raise to game anyway on your auction. Jumping to game over 2nt is allowed with certain hand types in my preferred methods and should be a part of this one too ie. if the opening was hearts and my usual response was a passable 3♥ I would never bid it with a hand this good.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Mbodell, on 2014-February-09, 04:54, said:

---

It is IMPs. Our preempt style is very wide ranging. 3♥ shows a good hand and bad suit [if partner had decided to bid 3♣ showing a bad hand and bad suit I would have had available a possible re-asked how bad with 3♦].

Bogust: Opener: 3H = 6 card suit, "medium" hand ( ~ 7 LTC [ loser trick count ] )

Responder has a 6 LTC ....

24 - 7 - 6 = 11 expected tricks ( give or take 1 ) in trump contract .

Sooo, bid 4S .

[JLOGIC]

Mbodell, on 2014-February-11, 23:40, said:

Result: At the table I bid 3♠ and was wrong. I think I was too timid even if partner will routinely preempt stuff that would make a junior embarrassed.

Partner's actual hand was a fitting super max with:

ATxxxx x AQx xxx

Even with the club A offside and diamonds 4-2 with J-fourth off we still made 10 tricks.

I had barely decided to ask with 2nt but primarily because I thought the only realistic chance for game was if partner had a good suit and 3nt might be made. But looks like I was too pessimistic about 4♠.

Is partner barred over 3S or something? You made a game try over a "very wide ranging preempt" and that's his hand, he should bid a game.

[Mbodell]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-February-12, 17:10, said:

Bogust: Opener: 3H = 6 card suit, "medium" hand ( ~ 7 LTC [ loser trick count ] )
Responder has a 6 LTC ....
24 - 7 - 6 = 11 expected tricks ( give or take 1 ) in trump contract .
Sooo, bid 4S .

It is possible I should bid 4♠, but I don't think your analysis is spot on. While I'm a reasonable fan of LTC analysis once a fit has been found, in my experience, I don't get to count "shortness values" for the trump suit. I.e., my Kx of spades should be 2 losers, not 1, when spades is trump. But 7 opp 7 would be good enough, but not sure I'd think good hands are always 7.

JLOGIC, on 2014-February-12, 22:02, said:

Is partner barred over 3S or something? You made a game try over a "very wide ranging preempt" and that's his hand, he should bid a game.

Yeah, could well be that partner should move instead and/or in addition to me. She did say she thought about it.

[HighLow21]

mikeh, on 2014-February-10, 01:18, said:

One can play whatever style one likes, but imo it is terrible bridge to open a weak 2 with a 'good hand' and a 'weak suit'. So when he shows that combination, it should be safe to assume he has a six-bagger. If I am mistaken in this partnership, then I want out of the partnership and maybe bidding game will help that happen

LOL @ mikeh