[awm]

There are two philosophies about bidding in these auctions. Basically they are:

(1) The person in balancing seat should strain to bid. Direct seat actions are sound, balancing seat actions can be pushy.

(2) The person with shortage in the enemy suit should strain to bid. Bidding with length in the enemy suit should be sound, bidding with shortage can be pushy.

I think to some degree everyone combines these two attitudes. However, I would make the point that in high-level preemptive auctions (2) makes a lot more sense. The reasoning behind (1) is that the opponents have already passed. This lets you gauge their combined strength, since presumably they would not pass if they think they can make a higher-level contract. That works fine in auctions like 1♥-P-1NT-P-P or the like, where opponents have stopped pretty low and are mostly bidding on values. But it doesn't make sense in auctions like 4♥-P-P, where responder could still be quite strong and have no reason to bid because they are already at the game level. I for one would never consider balancing over 4♥-P-P holding Kxxx xxxx AKx Ax.

[Echognome]

pclayton, on Jul 5 2007, 12:00 PM, said:

This is a hand that most of us would preempt as dealer. Unless I'm playing limitied openings, I can't see opening this with a one bid. Now I'm considering wading into the 5 level with this?

5♣ could be right on many levels, but my partners expect more honor strength for action at the 5 level.

If LHO raises to 5♥ and partner smacks, I'd be very unhappy.

I would open this hand 4 or 5 clubs, so I do not see a problem there.

I think this goes to show that in order to bid well in these situations, you have to give partner a lot of room for his overcalls and not raise on certain hands, not to mention the fact that when we get to these dizzying heights so early in the auction, there are bound to be bad breaks.

[pclayton]

Echognome, on Jul 5 2007, 12:27 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jul 5 2007, 12:00 PM, said:

This is a hand that most of us would preempt as dealer. Unless I'm playing limitied openings, I can't see opening this with a one bid. Now I'm considering wading into the 5 level with this?

5♣ could be right on many levels, but my partners expect more honor strength for action at the 5 level.

If LHO raises to 5♥ and partner smacks, I'd be very unhappy.

I would open this hand 4 or 5 clubs, so I do not see a problem there.

I think this goes to show that in order to bid well in these situations, you have to give partner a lot of room for his overcalls and not raise on certain hands, not to mention the fact that when we get to these dizzying heights so early in the auction, there are bound to be bad breaks.

I understand that partner of the person taking the initial action must make allowances, however, there is a practical limit with what a player can take a call with.

If a 5♣ call can be made on: ♠Ax ♥void ♦Qxx ♣QTxxxxxx as well as:

♠AQ ♥x ♦AKx ♣KQJxxxx

as well as all hands in-between, this seems to be too wide a range.

For me, a minimum 5♣ looks something more like:

♠Ax ♥void ♦Axxx ♣AJxxxxx

[mike777]

5Clubs.

As a few others said 8 clubs and a void in hearts, I am a bidder. No not automatic.
The bidding is not over yet. Partner knows we are bidding under great pressure and should give us a break.

[Echognome]

pclayton, on Jul 5 2007, 01:04 PM, said:

For me, a minimum 5♣ looks something more like:

♠Ax ♥void ♦Axxx ♣AJxxxxx

I respect that there has to be a minimum.

The hand you gave is a *lot* stronger than the one above. Three bullets also means a lot more use on both offense and defense. You strengthen your hand a little and you're probably into my 6♣ overcall territory, for example: ♠Ax ♥void ♦AKxx ♣AKJxxxx. Of course, you will tell me that this hand is a *lot* stronger than the minimum you posed.

My point is that when the auction starts at the 4 level, the hands are going to be wider ranging. How wide ranging is obviously down to style and judgment. Since style is a partnership issue, it's interesting to hear how people view the judgment aspect.

As an analogy, (3X) - 3NT is given as a range of about 16-25 I believe in Lawrence. It all depends on the quality of the hand, the position of the values, and the source of tricks. The mere fact that opponents have taken up so much room means we have to have wider ranging calls. I find it interesting to see where everyone draws the line.

Good problem.

[cnszsun]

I passed at table. I do have ideas like "dont preempt over a preempt', but maybe it's time to change it. Just like justin said, it should not be applied to game level preempt.
My partner held: ♠QJ10x ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣A98.
Result is 4♥-1, 6♣ is very good contract and will make.

[mike777]

cnszsun, on Jul 5 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

I passed at table. I do have ideas like "dont preempt over a preempt', but maybe it's time to change it. Just like justin said, it should not be applied to game level preempt.
My partner held: ♠QJ10x ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣A98.
Result is 4♥-1, 6♣ is very good contract and will make.

Well if you do pass, partner may bid with that hand over 4H. I do not think passing is 100% clear with partner's hand.

[hrothgar]

cnszsun, on Jul 6 2007, 03:15 AM, said:

I passed at table. I do have ideas like "dont preempt over a preempt', but maybe it's time to change it.

For what its worth, I had always associated the expression "Don't Preempt over a Preempt" with a very different type of auction.

Suppose that the opponent's open 2♦ or some such:

"Don't Preempt over a Preempt" means that a jump overcall to 3♥ or 3♠ should be used to show a strong hand and not a weak hand.

In this example, we have a somewhat different argument: What range should a simple overcall of a highly preempt show. Associated with this, how strong must one have to advance a simple overcall.

[Fluffy]

Partner had an automatic bid, and it wasn't pass if you didn't notice

[P_Marlowe]

cnszsun, on Jul 5 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

I passed at table. I do have ideas like "dont preempt over a preempt', but maybe it's time to change it. Just like justin said, it should not be applied to game level preempt.
My partner held: ♠QJ10x ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣A98.
Result is 4♥-1, 6♣ is very good contract and will make.

I could live with 5C, but if partner makes any
negative comment about my pass, he should
be carefully, ... he has to act, quite often I
will have a hand with which I cant act over 4H,
but 4S makes easily.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: In other words, if you want to change your
opinion with regards "dont preempt over a preempt"
thats fine, but the given hand is not a good example.

[foo]

2x post

[foo]

cnszsun, on Jul 5 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

I passed at table. I do have ideas like "dont preempt over a preempt', but maybe it's time to change it. Just like justin said, it should not be applied to game level preempt.

My partner held: ♠QJTx ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣A98.
Result is 4♥-1, 6♣ is very good contract and will make.

This is a beautiful balancing T/O X of (4♥) in my world.

Admittedly a min or very close to a min for the action, but still automatic

♠QJTx ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣A98 has 15 points in support of either pointed suit; and rates to have 15 support points for ♣'s as well.

pd's expectation is a little better than 10 points here.

♠ Ax ♥ ♦ Qxx ♣ QTxxxxxx
has 13 playing points. IOW, it's ~ a full trick stronger than it's expectation.
More than that given the 10+ card ♣ fit a balancing T/O X here will tell us We have.

Given a balancing T/O X, I'd probably bid 6♣ as an Advance with the OP hand due to my considerable extras.


Bottom line: pd should have balanced and did not.

Give pd awm's 2nd example of KQxx Qxx Kxx Kxx, and this would've been a much more problematic discussion.

But ♠QJTx ♥xx ♦AKxx ♣A98 (or Kxxx xxxx AKx Ax for that matter)
should be an automatic balance given what 2nd chair is expected to hold for playing strength.

[han]

hrothgar, on Jul 5 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

cnszsun, on Jul 6 2007, 03:15 AM, said:

I passed at table. I do have ideas like "dont preempt over a preempt', but maybe it's time to change it.

For what its worth, I had always associated the expression "Don't Preempt over a Preempt" with a very different type of auction.

Suppose that the opponent's open 2♦ or some such:

"Don't Preempt over a Preempt" means that a jump overcall to 3♥ or 3♠ should be used to show a strong hand and not a weak hand.

In this example, we have a somewhat different argument: What range should a simple overcall of a highly preempt show. Associated with this, how strong must one have to advance a simple overcall.

This is also how I've understood the advice: a jump over a preempt shows a good hand.

[helene_t]

My first impulse was to pass but thinking more about it, I think I'd bid 5♣. Partner raising to 6 will only be really bad if we can make exactly 11 tricks and opps can't make 4♥. It could also happen that partner doubles 6♥ and it makes but that's a lesser accident.

[nige1]

cnszsun, on Jul 5 2007, 07:19 AM, said:

Dealer: East Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ Ax ♥   ♦ Qxx ♣ Q10xxxxxx

(4♥) ?

Is this an automatic 5♣?

IMO 5♣ = 10, _P=9.
Not automatic for me. Its close which parrot cry to heed

• 1, Don't preempt over preempts... Normally, immediate actions are sound.
  
  
• 2. Riddle: What do you call an eight card suit? Answer: trumps
  ...Unless, of course, your name is Jlall and you hold
  ♠ - ♥ K Q J T x x x x x ♦ x x ♣ x x -- however,
  
  • that is 9 cards ,
    
  • the context is slightly different and
    
  • his argument was reasonable I suppose

cnszsun, on Jul 5 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

I passed at table. I do have ideas like "dont preempt over a preempt', but maybe it's time to change it. Just like justin said, it should not be applied to game level preempt.
My partner held: ♠ Q J T x ♥ x x ♦ A K x x ♣ A 9 8.
Result is 4♥-1, 6♣ is very good contract and will make.

Fluffy, on Jul 6 2007, 02:41 AM, said:

Partner had an automatic bid, and it wasn't pass if you didn't notice

Fluffy has a good point, IMO