[lamford]

♠ none ♥ AKxx ♦ A987643 ♣ A7 Partner dealt at love all (neither side vulnerable). 3S - (Pass) to you. Style is normal, whatever that is.

[rhm]

Pass

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

[Deleted, because I felt bad about spoiling Lamford's fun.]

[Fluffy]

pass is really obvious, I will double whatever comes back.

[Free]

Depending on style I'd either pass or bid 4♠. We have 4 tricks, so if partner doesn't preempt with trash we should be able to make 4♠.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-11, 06:09, said:

[Deleted, because I felt bad about spoiling Lamford's fun.]

I am grateful! And grateful to you also for being honest on the "related" thread.

[han]

This depends a lot on partner's tendencies, I think both pass and 4S can be reasonable. With my regular partner definitely 4S.

[Zelandakh]

Playing opposite myself, Pass; playing opposite my regular partner, 4S.

[pooltuna]

with a 7 card ♦ suit I would be concerned about not bidding game. If we can establish the ♦suit (and get back to it) we can tolerate 2 and maybe even 3 ♠ losers. IMO this is a hand worthy of a simul for 4♠.

[lamford]

pooltuna, on 2011-October-11, 08:45, said:

with a 7 card ♦ suit I would be concerned about not bidding game. If we can establish the ♦suit (and get back to it) we can tolerate 2 and maybe even 3 ♠ losers. IMO this is a hand worthy of a simul for 4♠.

I think enough views. I did raise to 4♠ and gave serious consideration to Pass. Partner put down ♠QJ10xxxx ♥Q ♦KJx ♣Jx and he went off when they led the singleton diamond and, unluckily, got the ruff with the small doubleton trump.

In the other room they bid, playing 2/1, uncontested, 1S - 2D - 2S - 3H - 4D - 4NT (RKCB) - 5D - 7D. A bit of a punt - why did partner not have the A♠ instead of the K♦? -, but we lost badly on the board, and the match as a result. I thought partner, an expert, was wrong to open 3♠, but he said it was routine, so I accepted his view.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2011-October-11, 07:44, said:

Playing opposite myself, Pass; playing opposite my regular partner, 4S.

I was about to post almost exactly this.

And I opened 1♠ in the other thread

[CSGibson]

4♠ at teams, red. all others I think 4♠ & pass are close

[rhm]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 08:55, said:

I think enough views. I did raise to 4♠ and gave serious consideration to Pass. Partner put down ♠QJ10xxxx ♥Q ♦KJx ♣Jx and he went off when they led the singleton diamond and, unluckily, got the ruff with the small doubleton trump.

In the other room they bid, playing 2/1, uncontested, 1S - 2D - 2S - 3H - 4D - 4NT (RKCB) - 5D - 7D. A bit of a punt - why did partner not have the A♠ instead of the K♦? -, but we lost badly on the board, and the match as a result. I thought partner, an expert, was wrong to open 3♠, but he said it was routine, so I accepted his view.

40 years ago few experts would have preempted with this hand. Everybody realizes that this hand is not ideal for a preempt, but the mood has changed.
However, the alternative to 3♠ is hardly a 1♠ opening bid.
The alternative is to pass or to compromise with a weak two.

Rainer Herrmann

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 08:55, said:

I think enough views. I did raise to 4♠ and gave serious consideration to Pass. Partner put down ♠QJ10xxxx ♥Q ♦KJx ♣Jx and he went off when they led the singleton diamond and, unluckily, got the ruff with the small doubleton trump.

The problem here seems to be that your partner exposed all 13 cards of his hand as declarer, making the defence double dummy. If partner had not exposed his hand, it might have been harder for the defender with the doubleton diamond to envisage the diamond ruff. If I were you, I'd advise my partner to hold his cards up in future. Marginal bidding decisions should be of lesser concern.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-October-11, 08:55, said:

In the other room they bid, playing 2/1, uncontested, 1S - 2D - 2S - 3H - 4D - 4NT (RKCB) - 5D - 7D. A bit of a punt - why did partner not have the A♠ instead of the K♦? -, but we lost badly on the board, and the match as a result. I thought partner, an expert, was wrong to open 3♠, but he said it was routine, so I accepted his view.

It sounds as though you were unlikely to bid the grand slam whatever partner opened, so you were losing a big swing on the board anyway. By the way, what does a 4♦ response to 3♠ mean in your system?

[JLOGIC]

Agree it depends on style, I would bid 4S.

[jmcw]

Never feels quite right to raise with a void! but this is worth considering.
If P ♠ are good enough for 1 loser then it rolls, or even 2 losers and a cover card.
I will raise because I cannot be beat off the top, the opening lead may even provide the 10 trick.

[JLOGIC]

7D, it's even worse when your partner is 7-4 with 4 diamonds!!! I know no one would ever preempt with a side KJxx though since you might miss a grand slam in that suit and play partscore or game down.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-October-11, 14:29, said:

It sounds as though you were unlikely to bid the grand slam whatever partner opened, so you were losing a big swing on the board anyway. By the way, what does a 4♦ response to 3♠ mean in your system?

Natural and forcing, I suppose, though I must admit that I have not discussed it. That would have worked well. We do have an agreement that after 1S-2D-2S-3H-4D-4NT says I am bidding either ERKCB in spades for diamonds or normal key card blackwood in diamonds. The responses are 5C 0/3 for both, 5D 0/3 for normal, 1 for exclusion; 5H 1 for Exclusion, 0/3 for normal; 5S 1 for both. 5NT 2 for either (this seems to work ok); 6C 2+Q for either. Armed with that toy, we might have bid 7D.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-October-11, 14:25, said:

The problem here seems to be that your partner exposed all 13 cards of his hand as declarer, making the defence double dummy. If partner had not exposed his hand, it might have been harder for the defender with the doubleton diamond to envisage the diamond ruff. If I were you, I'd advise my partner to hold his cards up in future. Marginal bidding decisions should be of lesser concern.

Nice post! Sorry, that should have read: Partner "had" rather than "put down". And the singleton diamond was on lead and the seven diamonds in dummy, so it was a bit easier.