Help
(2H*) - p - (3C) - 3S
(p) - ??
2H showed a club preempt. You hold:
x
Ax
AQxxx
xxxxx
Let's say it's all white at IMPs, what's your call?
Page 1 of 1
transfer preempt
#1
- Under bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,797
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Posted 2008-May-06, 11:04
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,624
- Joined: 2005-February-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Zurich, Switzerland
Posted 2008-May-06, 11:06
It is very tempting to bid 3NT here, and I would do it if the clubs included the ten or even the nine (partner will often have a singleton honor, or the suit might block, etc). But with five truly small cards I can't make myself do it, and will go with the natural 4♦ bid.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2008-May-06, 11:07
4♦ seems like a logical move. I'm pretending the bidding has gone 3♣ - p - p - 3♠.
"Phil" on BBO
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2008-May-06, 11:07
4♦: We should have a fit there.
#5
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2008-May-06, 11:08
Pass. 4D sounds like it should have a spade fit.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#6
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 94
- Joined: 2008-April-05
Posted 2008-May-06, 11:18
4♦. Natural bid wins here.
#7
- Group: FD TEAM
- Posts: 2,735
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Nashville, TN
- Interests:Motorsports, cricket, disc golf, and of course - bridge. :-)
Posted 2008-May-06, 11:42
Agree, 4♦.
Pard did not make a takeout double here, so they should have either a single suited hand or a hand ill-suited for a double. We should have fit with 4♦, and the play would be easier than 3NT where the dummy is getting perforced on a club lead.
Pard did not make a takeout double here, so they should have either a single suited hand or a hand ill-suited for a double. We should have fit with 4♦, and the play would be easier than 3NT where the dummy is getting perforced on a club lead.
"Champions aren't made in gyms, champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill. " - M. Ali
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,568
- Joined: 2006-June-28
- Gender:Male
- Location:Barrington IL USA
- Interests:Backgammon, Bridge, Hockey
Posted 2008-May-06, 12:08
awm, on May 6 2008, 12:06 PM, said:
It is very tempting to bid 3NT here, and I would do it if the clubs included the ten or even the nine (partner will often have a singleton honor, or the suit might block, etc). But with five truly small cards I can't make myself do it, and will go with the natural 4♦ bid.
I agree with your nice analysis. 4♦ as I just can't stomach 3NT with 5 small.
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,162
- Joined: 2006-July-10
- Gender:Male
- Location:Maryland
Posted 2008-May-06, 12:40
I wouldn't bid 3NT with the ♣9xxxx either
#10
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 2008-March-23
Posted 2008-May-06, 17:18
I bid 4♦ too and my p takes it as NAT.
Is there any compelling reason to play it as a fit-bid, instead? How could one describe such a hand?
//Regards
Is there any compelling reason to play it as a fit-bid, instead? How could one describe such a hand?
//Regards
#11 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-May-06, 17:39
I would pass, but not because I think 4D shows a diamond fit. How can 4D show a spade fit anyways, why wouldn't we just raise spades? I think there's certainly an overlap of hands that can't overcall 3D over 3C but has enough to bid when pard overcalls at the 3 level.
#12
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2008-May-07, 04:31
Jlall, on May 7 2008, 12:39 AM, said:
I would pass, but not because I think 4D shows a diamond fit. How can 4D show a spade fit anyways, why wouldn't we just raise spades? I think there's certainly an overlap of hands that can't overcall 3D over 3C but has enough to bid when pard overcalls at the 3 level.
I didn't mean primary spade support - with that you'd just raise, obviously. I was thinking of something like Hx, offering a choice of contracts. Perhaps I've got this back to front, though: to consider bidding 4D with only AQxxx and a hand that couldn't overcall, I'd want to have a partial spade fit.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#13 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-May-07, 04:36
gnasher, on May 7 2008, 05:31 AM, said:
Perhaps I've got this back to front, though: to consider bidding 4D with only AQxxx and a hand that couldn't overcall, I'd want to have a partial spade fit.
Agree in general (though if you made this hand much better I would be bidding, and I wouldn't have considered an overcall. For instance, add a queen). But since 4D doesn't show AQxxx I don't think it shows even a partial spade fit. I would bid 4D with a similar hand to this and 6 diamonds and I wouldn't have overcalled with that either.
Page 1 of 1