[lmilne]

This problem seems to divide people.

---

[nige1]

 lmilne, on 2015-January-05, 04:05, said:

This problem seems to divide people.

---

IMO 4♥ = 10, Pass = 9.
In the past, this would have been a clear-cut pass for me. Our agreements were that immediate actions over a pre-empt were sound. I would worry that even when 4♥ was the right contract, partner would assume a better hand and we'd get too high. Recently, however, BBF experts have convinced me that you have to act aggressively -- especially with a 6-card major suit -- and shortage in opponent's pre-empt suit. Partner should be aware that you might be in such a predicament, and he must tread carefully.

[Fluffy]

This problems when I have AKQxxx are a no brainer for me.

[PhilKing]

I don't don't see this one dividing the BBF consensus - we are all lemmings.

Easy 4♥ for me.

[whereagles]

Speak for yourself, Phil

Anyway, joining the bandwagon here. 4♥.

[gszes]

rho not raising to 4s speaks volumes about partners hand even if
they could not bid.

4h

with this sound suit is easy. the problem might have been more
entertaining with void 876543 AQxx KQx:)))))))))))))))))))))))

[billw55]

 gszes, on 2015-January-05, 07:49, said:

rho not raising to 4s speaks volumes about partners hand even if
they could not bid.

4h

It looks to me like opener's partner has not yet called. We are in the direct overcall seat, not balancing.

Anyway, yes I still bid 4♥, at any scoring.

[whereagles]

 gszes, on 2015-January-05, 07:49, said:

the problem might have been more entertaining with
void
876543
AQxx
KQx:)))))))))))))))))))))))

obv dbl wtp? )))))))))))

[mikeh]

If one wanted to see where the line might be drawn, I would have suggested giving the same hand in 3 configurations: as is, with the clubs being J10xx, and with the clubs being 10xxx.

For me, in the OP configuration, this is an easy 4♥. Of course, I'd prefer K10xx in clubs, or A10xx etc. However, the fact that it is a minimum doesn't make it a close decision.

For me, 10xxx in clubs would make this an easy pass.

J10xx, now that's the tough one, from my p.o.v.

[MrAce]

Seems like this hand UNITED people rather than dividing.

[mgoetze]

I think you've got to make the minors 3-3 rather than 2-4 if you want this to be at all controversial.

[rogerclee]

I would bid 4H with x AKQTxx xxx xxx

[mikeh]

 rogerclee, on 2015-January-05, 12:42, said:

I would bid 4H with x AKQTxx xxx xxx

there is a definite correlation between age and aggression That isn't to say that you are wrong, but it is to say that I'm too old to bid like that.

[whereagles]

oh I doubt that... I've seen some guys who can barely hold their cards opening a vuln 3♣ on QTxxxxx and out

[Phil]

Its not just the great suit, its the short spades.

I cannot imagine passing.

[rogerclee]

 mikeh, on 2015-January-05, 12:47, said:

there is a definite correlation between age and aggression That isn't to say that you are wrong, but it is to say that I'm too old to bid like that.

To be honest I don't feel like my example hand is a particularly good 4H bid, just that to me, that is somewhere around my "line in the sand". Passing with 16(42) is ridiculous to me.

A good rule of thumb is that if you can make game opposite a reasonably fitting weak NT, then you should bid. Hands like Jxx xx AQxx KQxx are just so normal, yet 4H is a great contract, and even when 4H is down, it usually means 3S was making. Tthey will take insurance really often in 4S also (maybe too often), which is fine with us, since my partner's cards are over theirs.

The downside of course is that after 3S 4H 4S, partner will be doubling quite a bit too often, and if he is stretching for 5H, it's probably wrong. Once in a blue moon we will have to eat 4SXX. I can live with all this in exchange for getting to a making game opposite a random 12 count that would not even consider balancing.

[mikeh]

 rogerclee, on 2015-January-05, 16:20, said:

To be honest I don't feel like my example hand is a particularly good 4H bid, just that to me, that is somewhere around my "line in the sand". Passing with 16(42) is ridiculous to me.

A good rule of thumb is that if you can make game opposite a reasonably fitting weak NT, then you should bid. Hands like Jxx xx AQxx KQxx are just so normal, yet 4H is a great contract, and even when 4H is down, it usually means 3S was making. Tthey will take insurance really often in 4S also (maybe too often), which is fine with us, since my partner's cards are over theirs.

The downside of course is that after 3S 4H 4S, partner will be doubling quite a bit too often, and if he is stretching for 5H, it's probably wrong. Once in a blue moon we will have to eat 4SXX. I can live with all this in exchange for getting to a making game opposite a random 12 count that would not even consider balancing.

There is the risk of 4♥ going for a number. I don't count that as huge, since if we are going for a number, most of the time they are bidding and making game, but it is a risk, especially since they'll double rather than bid their own game usually with short spades, making their chances of reaching/making game somewhat less. As for the rest of your reasoning, I don't argue against you at all. It is merely a question of how we individually assess probabilities. For me, overcalling on AKQ10xx and a side xxxx is just a tad more uncomfortable than the notion of passing....neither choice makes me happy. AKQ10xx and xxx xxx makes me far more uncomfortable bidding than passing but that isn't to say that I am happy to pass.

[gszes]

 billw55, on 2015-January-05, 07:59, said:

It looks to me like opener's partner has not yet called. We are in the direct overcall seat, not balancing.

Anyway, yes I still bid 4♥, at any scoring.

It would seem I have entered into a new phase in life---prediction---hmmm let's carefully review my
past succeses with prediction (0% eh) OK no more prediction 4H direct seat even if 1633. It is just
plain not easy to x w/o trump tricks and lho will have a heart stack rarely:)

[Trump Echo]

4 Hearts for me, but I'm not an expert

[whereagles]

Seems like the 4♥ overcall went for a telephone number... I can't really see any other reason not to do it