[Hanoi5]

---

What's your bid and why?

[mcphee]

I bid a reluctant pass, if partner has 2 aces for this pre-empt we need to talk, nor am I expecting the KQ♦ If today is the day he has QH a stiff D and the A of clubs is right I guess then I should have raised. Perhaps as we are vul I should bid 4, who knows.

[Free]

I think pass is much better than 4♠. Perhaps an all-or-nothing 3NT could work at MP?

[Fluffy]

partner's second sit preempts at this vulnerability have to be pure, I expect AQ10xxxx with ♦K at least or maybe a 7-4, also a scattered 11 count is possible with ♠AQ ♥Q ♦Q ♣J or alike.

If I bid 3NT, will partner pull with the 7-4?.

All actions are close IMO, sadly simulations won't work since wrong lead will often be the key to either game.

Having to pick one, I pick 3NT.

[paulg]

I'd try 3NT. I would not expect partner to pull with 7-4.

[gnasher]

Fluffy, on 2010-November-25, 06:30, said:

partner's second sit preempts at this vulnerability have to be pure, I expect AQ10xxxx with ♦K at least or maybe a 7-4, also a scattered 11 count is possible with ♠AQ ♥Q ♦Q ♣J or alike.

I don't think "pure" is the right word for such a preempt.

[mtvesuvius]

I bid 4♠ and hope for diamond shortness... 3N will have no play with what I expect (AQT♠ and perhaps an outside jack/queen)

[gnasher]

I'd try pass. I don't expect partner to have a side ace, or (heaven help us) a scattered 11-count. In my world, AQ109xxx x xx xxx is a perfectly normal second-seat 3♠ opening. Even if he has AQ109xxx x x xxxx, game is worse than a finesse.

[Cyberyeti]

Either pass or 4♠, never 3N. Given partner's lack of high trumps at this position and vul, I'd think an 8th spade is a decent possibility. He might have AQ109xxx with or without another card (if he has one diamond or less I'm not off yet), he might well have Q109xxxxx, x, x, Axx or similar, in which case 4♠ is laydown, I'd probably bid 4♠.

It's not our style to remove 3N very often, so if I bid 3N, partner won't move without something wholly exceptional.

[OleBerg]

Pass.

4♠ is basicly banking that partner has single diamonds and then some luck in the soft suits.

Best-case scenario:

♠AQ109xxx
♥Qxx
♦x
♣ xx

and we still need the ♣A onside, or a major FCK-up.

Theres is also the chance that opponents might misjudge and compete. (Well, at least if the skip-rules are enforced.)

[andy_h]

Agree with gnasher.

[MrAce]

I bid 4♠ in imps easily. I would not blame anyone for pass though.

3NT is out of question for me, 3NT contracts with likely 3 aces out suffer and those who bid it never fail to surprise me more by bidding it again and again without aces. (i am talking about the players i kibitz and/or play as pd in bbo, no offense to anyone here)

3 NT contracts when played with less than required strength, MUST have ACES imo.

EDIT: @ Gnasher; it may be worse than a finesse, but vulnerable game contract requires arround %38-39 i guess (i am not sure about the exact #) But i know it is less than % 50.

[the hog]

Pass, not even close.

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2010-November-25, 22:38, said:

EDIT: @ Gnasher; it may be worse than a finesse, but vulnerable game contract requires arround %38-39 i guess (i am not sure about the exact #) But i know it is less than % 50.

The threshold is 6/(6+10) = 37.5%.

My point was that even when partner has an unusually good hand, game is only just good enough. Opposite most normal hands game will be poor or hopeless. If there is a 20% chance that game is 50%, and an 80% chance that it's 0%, our expectation of making game is 10%.

[gwnn]

4♠. let's hope we make an even number of spades. And LHO can still help us with some silly action.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on 2010-November-26, 04:49, said:

The threshold is 6/(6+10) = 37.5%.

My point was that even when partner has an unusually good hand, game is only just good enough. Opposite most normal hands game will be poor or hopeless. If there is a 20% chance that game is 50%, and an 80% chance that it's 0%, our expectation of making game is 10%.

The real life threshold is an interesting and complex number, not really susceptible to calculation. One reason why it should be higher than 37.5 is that that number assumes that when the game fails, it does so by only one undoubled undertrick. Decent contracts sometimes get doubled when breaks are foul and the opps can sniff it out.....and the occasional 500 has a significant impact on the numbers....of course, making doubled contracts has the opposite effect, but they are far less likely to double a making contract than one that is doomed.

OTOH, the reality is that the best defenders in the world don't defend double-dummy, and so low-percentage, and 'unmmakeable' contracts, against optimum defence, will come home once in a while. The weaker one's opps, the more chance there is of this happening, but the less likely you are to need to bid really thin games in order to win.

On the actual hand I Pass. I'd never consider 3N, where my expectation would be about 7.5 tricks on average. I'll pay to partner holding A109xxxx and a side A. 4♠ would be the shot I'd take if desperate.

[Phil]

I'm bidding 4♠, but a lot of the reason for the is because in my partnerships a 2nd seat r/w preempt shows the nuts. AQT9xxx and a 7321 is not enough.

@Gnasher + MrACe - the 3/8 requirement for a vul game assumes that we do not go for -1 and we do not get x'd.

Assuming the other table has the same 3♠ opening - if -2 is as likely as -1 (so we are taking 8.5 tricks), and we are doubled 1/2 the time the outcomes are:

Undoubled

10 tricks: win 10 (+450)
9 tricks: lose 6 (-240)
8 tricks: lose 3 (-100)

10/14.5 = 68.9%. Isn't it curious that our threshold is 31% undoubled when we can expect to take less tricks?


Doubled

10 tricks: win 12 (+620)
9 tricks: lose 8 (-340)
8 tricks: lose 9 (-400)

12/20.5 = 58.5%. Our requirement is 41.5%

Blending these gives us 36.25% which isn't far from the normal requirement, however when they are doubling its usually right since the cards will be poorly placed.

4♠ also has some other wins when both 4♠ and 5m are going down.

[lulu88]

In fact, my partner is a little bit crazy so without a doubt i would bid pass. Even though, if he has a complete preempt the game is not so good...I agree that game is worse than a finesse