[Rossoneri]

---

Matchpoints.

Your call.

[jillybean]

3♥, I don't want to sit for the double

[pooltuna]

while I am tempted to pass (MP only) I think first choice has to be 3♦

[ggwhiz]

 pooltuna, on 2011-September-03, 10:59, said:

while I am tempted to pass (MP only) I think first choice has to be 3♦

Agreed. I will raise 3M should pard bid it but if pard raises a 3♥ bid I'm waiting for the dummy in fear.

3♦ could be a silly contract but 3♣ doubled could be worse.

[JLOGIC]

Pass is ridiculous unless LHO is a known lunatic, having 4 to the 9 is quite bad when LHO has 7 clubs lol.

[aguahombre]

since I can't pass...and I can't? 3D is the most suspicious advance, IMO. Suspicious to pard, I hope; so, 3♦ I try.

[mikestar13]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-September-03, 20:55, said:

Pass is ridiculous unless LHO is a known lunatic, having 4 to the 9 is quite bad when LHO has 7 clubs lol.

There are a fair number of lunatics in 3rd seat even at these colors--against the type of opponent who would try 3♣ on KJxxxx and out, pass is a standout--and I've played against guys like that, how about everyone on this board? The obvious example is Marty "vulnerability is for children" Bergen.

Against normal people, 3♦ is the best choice as it is less likely to get a raise then 3♥, and we sure as hell don't want to be in four of anything.

[the hog]

I don't think anyone would pass this. I will bid 3D. Bidding 3M is too encouraging to partner. Naturally a 3M bid gets raised to 4.

[peachy]

3D. I can't make myself pass and don't want to encourage heart raise if partner has 4 of them and extras.

[farrnbach]

3♦, perhaps p has extras (do not hang p, when he keeps the auction alive)
3M should normally show a 4 card suit, exept with something like xxx xxx xx xxxxx

[Free]

Agree with hog, 3M is too encouraging, so I'll just bid 3♦.

[JLOGIC]

 mikestar13, on 2011-September-04, 22:19, said:

There are a fair number of lunatics in 3rd seat even at these colors--against the type of opponent who would try 3♣ on KJxxxx and out, pass is a standout--and I've played against guys like that, how about everyone on this board? The obvious example is Marty "vulnerability is for children" Bergen.

Against normal people, 3♦ is the best choice as it is less likely to get a raise then 3♥, and we sure as hell don't want to be in four of anything.

They're second seat bro

[gnasher]

Even a second-seat preempt doesn't promise nine winners. The problem with 3♦, or 3-anything, is that it will play horribly unless we happen to hit partner's 5-card suit. It does depend on the opponents, but against most people I'd pass and hope it goes down. Maybe partner will score a singleton trump honour.

[mich-b]

Too often recently I have bid on hands like this 3♦ (which I think is correct) , only to play a silly 3♦ contract on a 4-3 or 3-3 fit, while noticing that I could go plus a number by passing against yet another LHO lunatic (they think they are "modern players"). Those lunatics too often get away unscathed..

[hotShot]

This is MP, so I seriously consider pass.
Since I hold 4 ♣ opps will often only have 8(or even 7) trumps, which means that our side does not necessarily have a fit at all.
Partner does not advertise a long suit and we can't win much playing a 7 card fit on the 3 level.
At IMPs pass is no option, because its to expensive if they make 3♣X.

[P_Marlowe]

3H.

The problem with 3D is, that we may play a 3-3 fit.

But in the end choose the right suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gordontd]

 P_Marlowe, on 2011-September-05, 04:02, said:

3H.

The problem with 3D is, that we may play a 3-3 fit.

Why is this not a problem with 3H?

[MrAce]

 gnasher, on 2011-September-05, 03:02, said:

Even a second-seat preempt doesn't promise nine winners. The problem with 3♦, or 3-anything, is that it will play horribly unless we happen to hit partner's 5-card suit. It does depend on the opponents, but against most people I'd pass and hope it goes down. Maybe partner will score a singleton trump honour.

Of course the preempter does not promise nine winners, he doesn't even promise 8 winners. Lets make it 7 then. But you are concerned that RHO will produce so many tricks in 3 something we play while you hope his hand will not produce the same tricks for declarer in 3♣ even when preempter has the deathwish 2227 shape, letalone some hands with 7-3 or 7-4

Pd's typical DBL is about 12-14 hcps and 4441 4432 5431 hands. Thats makes RHO sitting behind our partner with apprx 10-11 hcp and can not produce 2-3 tricks ? I am not even talking about hands where partner has a big hand with void ♣ and long major which was not good enough suit to start with a jump. I believe the outcome of pass is too random for me to pass.

Another thing, there is a guy at the table who (upto our hand) has 7-8 card good ♣ suit, pd is short in this suit, and i have xxxx. Playing a 4-3 fit at 3 level can not be worse than letting this guy's trumps to be played in this deal. He has 6-7-8 tricks if we let him, he has 0-1 tricks once we take out this DBL and other 3 players will play the rest of the hand. I maybe wrong of course, but i strongly feel something wrong with passing.

[hotShot]

 MrAce, on 2011-September-05, 05:11, said:

Playing a 4-3 fit at 3 level can not be worse than letting this guy's trumps to be played in this deal.

Can't be worse?
How do you expect the trumps to break, if preemptor has a max. of 2 cards in that suit.
How many rounds of ♣ do you intend to ruff with the north hand (because that the only suit short enough for a ruff) knowing that RHO is short in ♣ and has 4+ trumps too.
Sine 3♣X= is 670, you should not go down 3 dbled, so you need to make 7 tricks.
South gets the A♦ and maybe ♠Q and ♥J are useful, but since finesses are most likely off, north needs to have about 5 tricks in his hands.

If north's semibalanced hand can produce 5 tricks although finesses won't work and although RHO can overruff or promote his trumps,
than 3♣ won't make and going down is too expensive.

[whereagles]

My gut feeling was to pass, but you guys above indoctrinated me into 3D LOL.