[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

from the same match, the stakes are not as high this time.

You are in 4th position, green vs. red and hold

♠ AJ9843
♥ T763
♦ -
♣ QT2

The auction goes as followes as followes, the opponent play natural 5 card system with 15-17NT.

1♦ - 3♣ (1) - X - ... (2)

(1) Partner promises to go at most 4 down, if he happens to finds nothing suitable in dummy.
6 cards are regular, and we tend to have our high cards in the suit we preempt, if we have them at all.

(2) Your bid? And more important, what are your thoughts.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[TMorris]

3 ♠ to encourage a spade lead. I doubt a club lead is going to do us much good against their contract and I don't see how we can buy the contract in clubs. If partner has spade support all the better. I can show clubs later if it seems appropriate and lack of clubs support may make it harder for an opponent with xxx in clubs to feel good about the holding.

[Cyberyeti]

Agree with 3♠ for lots of reasons.

Partner could have something as good as Kxx, void, xxx, AJ9xxxx or 10xx, void, xxx, AKJ9xxx, this could be your hand if he has a spade fit. To think he has 5 tricks with the clubs you have, he is very likely to have a 7th club or a side card. Even with something less extreme there is a reasonable chance of making 5 if partner has a spade fit (or a 1147 which is pretty much cold for 11 tricks in clubs if they lead a top diamond)

You want partner to get his hands on ♠Hx against a red suit contract or a cheeky 3N off ♣Kx.

RHO may have been snookered into the double with a diamond fit to not take 3N/4♥ out of the picture and any spade honours missing are very likely to be with him.

[DavidKok]

This is a very difficult problem. I'll give it a try.

The takeout double is a huge surprise. If we can count on partner to have at least 6 clubs the opponents are mathematically guaranteed to have a fit, and judging by my hand I think I know where (in fact, it would require partner to have 6 diamonds for the opps to not have a diamond fit). Actually I expect them to have a very good diamond fit (10-card or 9-card), and the double suggests that RHO has length in both majors or a (semi)balanced hand with only so-so diamond support, giving opener an unbalanced hand with long diamonds. At this point I'd need to know more about partner's preempt style - would partner consider length in diamonds an asset (long clubs, diamond length, hence two majors to preempt) or a risk (partner will usually have short diamonds and get too enthusiastic)? Just how little playing strength can partner have for 3♣ in second seat favourable? My main concerns are their 5♦ and 6♦ contracts, and I would like to figure out how many defensive tricks partner rates to have. The queen of clubs third in our hand is a serious liability, as it means that partner's club holding rates to take one or perhaps even zero tricks on defence. We might need partner to hold a spade singleton to stand a chance of defeating their diamond contract.

I'm sorry to say that I don't put much stock into the hand constructions by Cyberyeti. While the hand might belong to our side it is much more likely that it does not, and on the two example hands the opps have a 10-card diamond fit and will likely bid on to 5♦ at least, probably making or going one off depending on how the suits break. More importantly, I won't know what to do when(/if) they do bid to 5♦, and with such a perfect hand partner may raise us to 5-over-5 regardless of whether it is the right decision.

After all that I'm not really sure what to bid. 3♠ seems normal enough, but it doesn't really solve my problems. I want to prepare partner for their 5♦ and perhaps 6♦, as well as gobble up some bidding space. Without knowing the defensive range of partner's 3♣ bid I don't know how to go about estimating that. I have some gadgets that might help here, but without knowing what range to play partner for it won't save me.

In general I am a big fan of an undisciplined and wide-ranging preemptive style, but second hand after they have opened is one of the worse positions to try this in. The opps have already communicated some amount of strength and shape information, and partner will frequently have an unpleasant guess. So in this position I prefer my preempts to be a little bit more well-defined. Also bidding 2♣ over their 1♦ in particular is extremely effective even with some weak hands, so adding constraints to 3♣ does not put a huge pressure on the system (and, in fact, Cyberyeti's hands would be 2♣ overcalls for me).

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2023-October-18, 04:50, said:

<snip>
Without knowing the defensive range of partner's 3♣ bid I don't know how to go about estimating that. I have some gadgets that might help here, but without knowing what range to play partner for it won't save me.
<snip>

He has dreck, I checked, the german word is the same as in english, with the same meaning.
My best guess is, that it is jiddish.
If you need defence, the best to hope for is the Ace of clubs.

But I agree, knowing style, is relevant.

[DavidKok]

Thank you, that simplifies matters. So I'm trying to keep them from finding their likely 6♦, and I reckon my best shot is an immediate 5♣. With an undisclosed big diamond fit it is difficult for them to penalise that (and it might well be wrong to try to penalise it). I won't get my lead director in, but partner might choose to lead their singleton spade anyway, or might not have a singleton. I think 4♠ is a close second alternative - if it goes all pass I'm happy as a clam, and if they double I will run to 5♣. It gives them more bidding space but suggests the lead.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I like both spade bids, and partner would have taken 4♠ as fit bid, but they did not cross my mind at the time.
Since I wanted to make it as hard as possible for them to establish their diamond fit, I wanted to go as high as possible.
Since I have 3 tricks for partner ramping up the level by 2 tricks would still leave me with 1 trick at the bank for emergency
purposes, so I did bid 5♦, but 4♠ serves the same purpose and gives us the chance to play a 10 trick contract.

Partners hand was mentioned in passing as a very remote chance

♠ -
♥ 2
♦ T96532
♣ KJ8653

He did came alive, trumps were 3-1, and the contract went for 800.
On the other table they made 4♥ for 620.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

That's an extremely risky preempt, and I don't think I would have bid the same way.

[fuzzyquack]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-October-19, 00:00, said:

Hi,

I like both spade bids, and partner would have taken 4♠ as fit bid, but they did not cross my mind at the time.
Since I wanted to make it as hard as possible for them to establish their diamond fit, I wanted to go as high as possible.
Since I have 3 tricks for partner ramping up the level by 2 tricks would still leave me with 1 trick at the bank for emergency
purposes, so I did bid 5♦, but 4♠ serves the same purpose and gives us the chance to play a 10 trick contract.

Partners hand was mentioned in passing as a very remote chance

♠ -
♥ 2
♦ T96532
♣ KJ8653

He did came alive, trumps were 3-1, and the contract went for 800.
On the other table they made 4♥ for 620.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I guess you bid 5C rather than 5D. See nothing terribly wrong with occasionally going for -800 against their vulnerable game. My own agreement was to bid something other but 4C to leave the partner with the decision to defend, here 3H/3S/3N with 3S apparently dominating. 4S is tempting, but it puts the partner on the hook should his preempt be frivolous. You can't both bid to vulnerability, one is enough.