[HighLow21]

mikeh, on 2012-March-15, 15:01, said:

If you are not playing the heart K, and that is what I choose, the spade switch seems implausible to me. I could go on at length about this, but for now I think it enough to say that, while I find E's sitting for 3N weird on any layout.....how does he know I don't have heart A and 7 solid clubs....I find it more implausible with only one spade stopper than with AQ.

If I were to switch, it has to be to a club. Put yourself in declarer's shoes with, say, AQ Q109x AKQJx xx....while we should play N for a stiff heart, ducking a club spells disaster if N has another heart to lead back. Meanwhile, we appear likely to have 9 winners by rising and hooking the spade. Now S wins and leads the club Q...simultaneously establishing the club J and breaking up any hope of a squeeze. Now, declarer, in addition to figuring out the heart situation, might well work out the club suit, whether you switch to the 9 or the x...I mean, why lead the suit? But I would put the chances of a spade switch working as close to zero. I also wouldn't worry about whether they make overtricks. I don't care if this is imps or mps.....if they have 9 tricks, we are getting a bad result, and maybe so bad that any extra 200 their way will make little difference.

My own take is that I find it slightly more credible that opener has AQ 109x AKQJxx xx and decided that he'd take his medicine in 3N rather than be doubled in 4♦.

We like Mike yet again! Excellent explanation, and you too, wyman. I am fully prepared to be wrong about my spade switch on this hand.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2012-March-15, 15:01, said:

If I were to switch, it has to be to a club. Put yourself in declarer's shoes with, say, AQ Q109x AKQJx xx....while we should play N for a stiff heart, ducking a club spells disaster if N has another heart to lead back. Meanwhile, we appear likely to have 9 winners by rising and hooking the spade.

He can afford to duck one club first - in the worst case he will lose only one club and three hearts. Because he has AK108, he can afford to duck with the 8.

[phil_20686]

Declarers hand was Axx x AKQJxxx xx

So if you dont continue hearts you are booked for a very poor score.

It was imps and we were 30-40 imps behind with 6 boards to play, hence the double. It just seemed 100% implausible to me that they would sit this when you are comfortably ahead in a barometer TM if you had a relatively safe spot in 4d, and could literally be losing the first ten tricks in 3N.

The other table, amazingly (to me) had the same auction, but managed to continue hearts at trick 2.

I basically played for declarer to have something like Axx QT9x AKQTx x, in which case if you continue a second heart declarer might guess to hook the diamond when partner is short. I mean its not very convincing, but i really didnt think you would sit when you have no stop in two suits. Imps, with a comfortable lead and a safe run out.


PS: Declarer was Julian Pottage, so a good player, not some BBO randomer....

[billw55]

hmm so partner had ♠QJTxxx ♥QT93 ♦xx ♣x and opened 3♠ first seat? Declarer isn't the only one fooling around on this hand.

[HighLow21]

I don't know whether to burn all the Julian Pottage books I own, shake the hands of all the people in this thread who disagreed with me on the trick 2 continuation, chastise my partner for his silly preempt, or just generally facepalm right now.

But hey, when you're ahead by a sizeable IMP margin late in the contest, why play safe for a positive score when you can risk going down 1700 and thereby allow the opposition back into the contest in one fell swoop?

One thing I will say, though, is that the double of 3NT makes a lot more sense under the tournament conditions. Thanks for the hand Phil, it's a really good one.

[FrancesHinden]

billw55, on 2012-March-16, 06:39, said:

hmm so partner had ♠QJTxxx ♥QT93 ♦xx ♣x and opened 3♠ first seat? Declarer isn't the only one fooling around on this hand.

That's also consistent with being 30-40 imps behind. Perhaps we should have been told the score at the start of the thread.

[dwar0123]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-March-17, 12:26, said:

That's also consistent with being 30-40 imps behind. Perhaps we should have been told the score at the start of the thread.

Is it consistent with being 30-40 imps ahead? Cause apparently the leading side did the exact same thing with the 6-4 hand.

[MrAce]

billw55, on 2012-March-16, 06:39, said:

hmm so partner had ♠QJTxxx ♥QT93 ♦xx ♣x and opened 3♠ first seat? Declarer isn't the only one fooling around on this hand.

If you ever gonna open this hand with 3♠, first seat is probably the one you want to be in.

Note that, had he chosed to pass in first seat with this, they would open 1♦, pd overcalls 1♥ and they would end up in 5♦ for -600 or they would have to take the save for -300, now they were getting +100.

[billw55]

MrAce, on 2012-March-18, 00:47, said:

If you ever gonna open this hand with 3♠, first seat is probably the one you want to be in.

Note that, had he chosed to pass in first seat with this, they would open 1♦, pd overcalls 1♥ and they would end up in 5♦ for -600 or they would have to take the save for -300, now they were getting +100.

Honestly that sounds a little like resulting. If this bid was expected to gain more often than not, then there wouldn't be experts telling people not to preempt with a side four card major, etc.

Perhaps the leading team reasoned that the trailers would be doing wild swingy things, and were trying to maintain the status quo by also doing wild swingy things.

[MrAce]

billw55, on 2012-March-18, 10:46, said:

Honestly that sounds a little like resulting. If this bid was expected to gain more often than not, then there wouldn't be experts telling people not to preempt with a side four card major, etc.

Perhaps the leading team reasoned that the trailers would be doing wild swingy things, and were trying to maintain the status quo by also doing wild swingy things.

It is not resulting. Preempts target to damage the opponents. The more restriction you have on your preempts the less effective they become. The less restriction you have on your preempts the more risk you take when your pd is the preempted one.

You may think it sounds like a gambling, and in a way you are right. But in order to speak of resulting, u must not have read my comment carefully. Didn't i say "IF you ever gonna open this hand...." ? And i mentioned 1st seat. The chances of you preempting your pd is 1 to 2. There are 2 opponents to fool and 1 pd to fool when you take such an action. That was what i was trying to say by "If u ever gonna open this hand 3♠, it better be 1st seat" I didnt say "You must open this hand 3♠ in 1st seat"

When you preempt you are putting your opponents into a test and forcing them to decide between 3 things that they hate most

1- Being robbed and missing something that they are not even sure if they have it.

2- Doubling a partscore that may make.

3- Being doubled for an expensive number.

People have their own styles about preempts, some people think " I have a side major i dont open, i have a void i dont open, i have a side 3 card major i dont open, i dont have good spots i dont open, i am red i dont open, opening weak 2 is constructive so i dont open, i am in first seat i dont open etc etc etc

Some of those reasons are legit concerns, some of them makes no more sense than "bad things happen on friday the 13th" to me


I believe "Preempts win more than just sometimes" Look at the forum topics and look at the expert responses when a hand with preempt involved is posted. You will see even your most favourite and accurate posters fail more often than other topics. Does that mean they made a bad bid ? No. They do the best they can with their logic, but even Tiger Woods can not do too much when the ball is in the water and he doesnt have much space to move while hitting that ball into the hole, especially when he is left with only 1 shot.

[HighLow21]

MrAce, on 2012-March-18, 13:37, said:

It is not resulting. Preempts target to damage the opponents. The more restriction you have on your preempts the less effective they become. The less restriction you have on your preempts the more risk you take when your pd is the preempted one.

You may think it sounds like a gambling, and in a way you are right. But in order to speak of resulting, u must not have read my comment carefully. Didn't i say "IF you ever gonna open this hand...." ? And i mentioned 1st seat. The chances of you preempting your pd is 1 to 2. There are 2 opponents to fool and 1 pd to fool when you take such an action. That was what i was trying to say by "If u ever gonna open this hand 3♠, it better be 1st seat" I didnt say "You must open this hand 3♠ in 1st seat"

People have their own styles about preempts, some people think " I have a side major i dont open, i have a void i dont open, i have a side 3 card major i dont open, i dont have good spots i dont open, i am red i dont open, opening weak 2 is constructive so i dont open, i am in first seat i dont open etc etc etc

Some of those reasons are legit concerns, some of them makes no more sense than "bad things happen on friday the 13th" to me

MikeH don't lie... this preempt is a fantastic action, in my book, given the state of the match. So we missed our heart fit? So what? It's the opponents' hand and 3♠ gives us the best chance to create a swing.

[billw55]

MrAce, thanks for the information, but I already know the reasons preempting can be good

When I mentioned resulting, I was referring to your second sentence in the quoted post, where you cited ... the table result.

First seat may well be the best place for such a preempt. Does that mean it is the right bid, or just less wrong than it would be in 2nd 3rd or 4th seat?

I guess would ask, would you open this hand 3♠ and consider it normal? I mean when the vulnerability and scoring are still the same, but having no information about state of the match.

[wyman]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-18, 13:42, said:

It's the opponents' hand and 3♠ gives us the best chance to create a swing.

Only taking issue with the bolded. IMO, there are far more swingy actions. Take 1N as an example. Or 2H.

Strangely, sometimes, especially when state of the match is known, the most swingy action is even to play normally...

[HighLow21]

wyman, on 2012-March-19, 06:42, said:

Only taking issue with the bolded. IMO, there are far more swingy actions. Take 1N as an example. Or 2H.

Strangely, sometimes, especially when state of the match is known, the most swingy action is even to play normally...

Point granted. Replace "the best" with "one of the best" or "a good" or some such synonymous phrase.

[MrAce]

billw55, on 2012-March-19, 06:38, said:

First seat may well be the best place for such a preempt. Does that mean it is the right bid, or just less wrong than it would be in 2nd 3rd or 4th seat?

I guess would ask, would you open this hand 3♠ and consider it normal? I mean when the vulnerability and scoring are still the same, but having no information about state of the match.

No, i am not claiming that it is the right bid. To your question, no i would not have opened it myself. But that doesnt mean i would think it is wrong.

And yes, if we agreed that it was wrong, i think it is less wrong in 1 st seat imo.

About why i said it worked. I wasnt resulting. Because if u look at the replies in this topic, those who failed to defeat the 3NT, are complaining about pd's bid. I was trying to say that if he didnt make such a call, we wouldnt even have the chance to defend vs a contract that is defeatable whether we like his preempt or not.

[billw55]

MrAce, on 2012-March-19, 15:10, said:

About why i said it worked. I wasnt resulting. Because if u look at the replies in this topic, those who failed to defeat the 3NT, are complaining about pd's bid. I was trying to say that if he didnt make such a call, we wouldnt even have the chance to defend vs a contract that is defeatable whether we like his preempt or not.

Ah ok now I follow you.

Although if east is capable of overcalling 3NT and sitting for it with this hand, I don't see what is stopping him from doing so as opener