[CSGibson]

---

RHO is known to have high-variance preempts 3rd seat.

[akhare]

What is your opening style? Can partner have a balanced 11 count on the bidding?

[CSGibson]

akhare, on 2013-August-30, 11:40, said:

What is your opening style? Can partner have a balanced 11 count on the bidding?

Our opening NT is 11+-14, beyond that we open fairly normally for a 2/1 partnership - maybe a touch lighter than a standard pair.

[DJNeill]

Pass. Depends a little on partner's knowledge of my Passing tendencies. Does he think I Pass on the edge? If so I feel better.

[akhare]

CSGibson, on 2013-August-30, 11:43, said:

Our opening NT is 11+-14, beyond that we open fairly normally for a 2/1 partnership - maybe a touch lighter than a standard pair.

Since partner felt compelled to reopen at this vulnerability, I am going to assume at least (54) in the majors, maybe even 5=5.

There might be more historical context to it given the interference about RHO's tendencies, but at IMPs, I would try 3♥ and hope to hit the long suit. At MPs, Pass might work (but it would be calculated gamble in the absence of quick tricks). [Edit] In the balance, I would try 3♥ at both forms of the game, but can see some appeal in a +200 if we need a good board.

[nige1]

CSGibson, on 2013-August-30, 11:32, said:

RHO is known to have high-variance preempts 3rd seat.

---

IMO 4♣ = 10, Pass = 9, 3♥ = 8, 3N = 7. Partner usually has 9-11 HCP with a shortage in ♦. If you guess partner's 4-card major, you're still at risk from diamond forces.

[jeffford76]

CSGibson, on 2013-August-30, 11:32, said:

RHO is known to have high-variance preempts 3rd seat.

This sentence is two words too long.

[trevahound]

jeffford76, on 2013-August-30, 15:39, said:

This sentence is two words too long.

I don't think *any* regular partners of this person (me) would agree if you shortened it. We don't even play Ogust as our 1st/2nd preempts are so narrow. Funny though. Should truthfully read, "...high variance preempts opposite a partner who didn't open when given the chance". In other words, "bridge", even though we alert them in our regular partnerships.

[mr1303]

At MPs I pass and lead the club king, and hope to beat this in top tricks.

At IMPS I .... will get back to you on that one.

[jdeegan]

You really need to post a complete bridge hand. Little details like vulnerability and the form of scoring can be important. On this one it really does not matter. Applying the Law of Total Tricks (LOTT) is probably enough. You figure to have one (possibly two) eight card fits. The opponents figure to have one nine card fit. Your ♦Qxx counts as one negative adjustment. Bottom line is 16 or 17 total tricks nearly all of the time. On hands with so few tricks, you should generally pass the double unless you have a clear cut place to play. In this case, you have an almost certain trump trick and an easy opening lead. Sure, you will eat one once in a while, but the percentages favor a pass. Any other call is really bad.

[barmar]

jdeegan, on 2013-August-31, 20:17, said:

You really need to post a complete bridge hand. Little details like vulnerability and the form of scoring can be important.

To be fair, he did post the vulnerability. It's in the colors of the compass directions in the diagram: all red.

[jdeegan]

barmar, on 2013-August-31, 20:48, said:

To be fair, he did post the vulnerability. It's in the colors of the compass directions in the diagram: all red.

I still don't see it. I guess my browser isn't picking it up. Anyway, I meant no offense. It is just a good habit, imo.

[MrAce]

@Chris; Pd has 4414 or 4315 or 4405 kinda hands, and he may even have 5-5 majors that could not open, so it is very hard to apply the LOTT since we dunno how many trumps we have or whether we will find the right trump if we decide to bid. We know though, they are likely to have 9 or 10 trumps.

For example to me QTxx JTxx void Axxxx or Qxxx Qxxx x Axxx or Axxx QJxxx x Jxx or Axxxx JTxx x Axx or QTxxx AJxxxx x Jx are all in the picture for N. I mean i am constructing hands for pd, even with 2 aces , they are still way too close to making and risk/profit ratio does not seem to justify passing at IMPS imo, even if we totally ignore that their number of trumps says they are at the correct level. We will very rarely get 500 out of this even if we defeat them. And 3rd seat 3♦ opener may have surprises for us, as you mentioned. He will know how to play diamonds as well if there is a tackle that can be done.

At IMPS first i wanted to lift the double. but i am still not sure.

By bidding;(probably 3♥

• We may make it
• We may go down less than doubled p/s making by them.
• They may compete further.
• It is very unlikely that we will be doubled at 3 level, even when our trumps split 4-0 / 5-0 / 5-1/ 4-1 because our side has majority of the hcps it seems. We may even make it doubled with those splits, if pd has the right spot cards in our suits.

Having said all of this, it is still tuff decision. Because even if decision of bidding is correct, now we have to make an other decision. What shall we bid ? Bidding 3 NT is a rookie error imo and is out of question. Which leaves us between 3♥ and 4♣ or an imaginative 3 ♠ . If pd has 5-5 majors, or 4513 - 4414 3♥ will be ok. But what if pd has 5404 5413 4405 or disaster 4315 / 5314 ? Except than 4315 and 4314 3♥ will be ok even if it is not our best spot imo.

Bottom line is, passing the double requires much less work for South. We either made bad decision and they are making, or we are defeating them since defense will usually go smoothly on this particular hand with a text book lead. But it is very risky.
Bidding otoh, is safer but needs a lot of decisions and it may even turn out to be not safe at all in some hands.

I think i would have talked myself into bidding 3♥ at the end. But very close and i would not argue with people who had chosen other path, even though they seem to ignore 4405 4306 3406 5503 5512 5521 hands.
If it is MP i would have already passed, since i would not have the time to think all this ***** i came up with and i am usually in need of big boards at MPs

[barmar]

jdeegan, on 2013-August-31, 21:35, said:

I still don't see it. I guess my browser isn't picking it up. Anyway, I meant no offense. It is just a good habit, imo.

You don't see the red backgrounds here?

[jdeegan]

barmar, on 2013-September-02, 17:09, said:

You don't see the red backgrounds here?

Yes, but for some reason, not in the original post.

[RSClyde]

I ♥ high variance 3rd seat preempts.