[Phil]

jdonn, on Oct 5 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

If that's your goal why aren't you passing? You are very likely to be off 4 red suit tricks. 4♣, if bid, is clearly an attempt to get a small minus when the opponents had a much better option available, with the times it happens to make as a bonus.

Btw I don't think gnasher is wrong since it seems like he is answering opposite his own preempting style, which is a lot more aggressive than what I believe the OP is playing.

Because I still want to raise the pot on a hand like this and I (like you I imagine) dread a 3♥ call.

Against the OP, his LHO simply guessed right over 4♣. He could have done so just the same over 3N.

I do agree this is a function of your partnership style. Against one partner I would expect a six card suit more frequently than a 7 bagger.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on Oct 4 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

Partner opens 3C in first seat (Experience tells you 7-card suit 90% chance). 2nd seat passes. Partner is usually a down-the middle preemptor.
What is your plan, if any? New suits are thoroughly discussed as forcing, usually natural, and asking for Opener's length there. (Just in case 3S-or 3H   is your choice)

---

IMO 3♠ = 10, 4♣ = 7, _P = 6, 3N= 5.
If partner has a ♠ fit, then 4♠ may have some play. ♠ is also the lead you would like against 4♥ by opponents. If partner is short in ♠, you may prefer to play 4♣ or defend. 3N seems a cunning way of converting a possible plus score into a minus

[Jlall]

655321, on Oct 4 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

3NT, agree with Josh that this is not close.

?! I was gonna mock josh but then I saw your post... wow.

I would pass and think its not even close and would bet a simulation backed it up even if I spotted you .5 imps for the declaring bonus.

edit LOL I tghought it went p 3C ? and you were overcalling 3N hahaha

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on Oct 5 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

the actual hand is about what Gnasher and others imagined after reluctantly accepting the conditions I gave.

Nobody was reluctant to accept the conditions you gave. hanp merely pointed out that down-the middle means something else than 7 card suit 90% of the time. Nobody would have protested if you had only said one of those two expressions.

[aguahombre]

justin, I waited a while to see if you or adam would venture an opinion....glad i didnt wait longer

[pooltuna]

Jlall, on Oct 5 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

655321, on Oct 4 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

3NT, agree with Josh that this is not close.

?! I was gonna mock josh but then I saw your post... wow.

I would pass and think its not even close and would bet a simulation backed it up even if I spotted you .5 imps for the declaring bonus.

edit LOL I tghought it went p 3C ? and you were overcalling 3N hahaha

They deserve to be mocked as they are betting that the preemptor has a ♥ stopper and the diamonds are favorably placed about 25% probability. Seems a bit low for the colors and I'll take my plus score in 3♣ if I can get it plus I should have adequate defense to beat 4♥ often enough to make bidding it against the odds.

[aguahombre]

pool, making 3NT is a remote consideration behind their bidding 3NT. Their reasoning is well beyond that. Even though this one actual hand does not prove anything, their action gains 3 IMPS and passing 3C makes it easy for the opps to find their game for minus 8.....at the risk of repeating what has already been posted.

Maybe their strategy is not that deserving of a mock.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Oct 5 2009, 10:39 PM, said:

4♣, if bid, is clearly an attempt to get a small minus when the opponents had a much better option available, with the times it happens to make as a bonus.

Or to get a small plus from 4♥ when we weren't entitled to one. The idea is to make them guess what to do; I'm happy for them to guess to pass when they should bid, but also happy for them to guess to bid when they should pass.

Quote

Btw I don't think gnasher is wrong since it seems like he is answering opposite his own preempting style, which is a lot more aggressive than what I believe the OP is playing.

I was trying to answer the question actually asked. However, I don't really know how likely it is in this style that partner will have a side card. Even with 3♣ promising seven, I'd assume that xx xxx x AQJxxxx is more normal than xx Kxx x AQJxxxx.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Oct 5 2009, 11:34 PM, said:

Datum=minus 320, and the big issue was how to get past 4th chair, after getting past 2nd chair already. 4C got past him (QJXX AKXXXX XX X) twice and failed twice.

With that hand it seems obvious to bid 4♥ over either 3♣ or 3NT.

[aguahombre]

---

Hence, a 3 club opening IMHO. Hands like X KXX XX AQJXXXX would be opened 1C even by fossils like us. I gave "down-the-middle", not "antiquated". I don't think 2nd chair can be faulted for not bidding 3D, so South's action becomes crucial. I was reluctant to give the full hand, because poor actions such as passing then eventually bidding 5C would work out very well.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Oct 6 2009, 03:39 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Oct 5 2009, 11:34 PM, said:

Datum=minus 320, and the big issue was how to get past 4th chair, after getting past 2nd chair already.  4C got past him (QJXX AKXXXX XX X) twice and failed twice.

With that hand it seems obvious to bid 4♥ over either 3♣ or 3NT.

Maybe it's right to bid 4♥ over 3NT, but I would not call it even close to obvious. Unless it's obvious to go for 4 digit numbers from time to time. You noted the preemptive downside of 3NT instead of 4♣ in that you allow a cuebid, but I think a much bigger upside is that you often bid 3NT on good hands as well, including very strong misfitting hands. There is a whole lot more safety overcalling over 4♣ than 3NT.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Oct 5 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

655321, on Oct 4 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

3NT, agree with Josh that this is not close.

?! I was gonna mock josh but then I saw your post... wow.

I would pass and think its not even close and would bet a simulation backed it up even if I spotted you .5 imps for the declaring bonus.

edit LOL I tghought it went p 3C ? and you were overcalling 3N hahaha

Yes, I am obviously the one who deserves to be mocked here! lol

[Phil]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

Maybe it's right to bid 4♥ over 3NT, but I would not call it even close to obvious. Unless it's obvious to go for 4 digit numbers from time to time. You noted the preemptive downside of 3NT instead of 4♣ in that you allow a cuebid, but I think a much bigger upside is that you often bid 3NT on good hands as well, including very strong misfitting hands. There is a whole lot more safety overcalling over 4♣ than 3NT.

3N probably works better on the actual hand, against most opponents. However, even if we had a heart stopper, bids like 4♥ can be a cheap sac against our cold 3N. And, 3N can be just noise, like 4♣, so 4th chair needs to bid with an excuse. A decent 4-6 counts. It's akin to coming in over 1M - pass - 1N.

However, 4♣ is frequently setting a trap as well, instead of just noise, so there's danger coming in over 4♣ too.

The cuebid vs no cuebid is a non-argument I agree.

In real life, I'd probably randomize 3N and 4♣.