[Cyberyeti]

---

3♣ is a standard preempt.

Your system: 4♣ would be majors but better than this, your choices are basically P/X/overcall a major, X and then a major over 3♦ would also show a better hand.

What do you fancy ?

[Tramticket]

4♣ would be better than this for us as well. But I am the partner who is short in clubs and I want to stretch to get into the bidding and it does give us the best chance of finding the best strain.

[LBengtsson]

X then let partner decide. 5/5M is nice shape but you are vulnerable with no extra values. if partner can only bid 3♦ then I would pass. With 5♠4♥3♦1♣ you would make same call - X. The ops. have made life difficult by pre-empting 3♣. You cannot have the perfect shape every time you try to X or overcall a pre-empt. It part guess game or luck finding the right contract. Bidding 3♠ instead may lose the ♥ suit if ops. then go to 5♣.

Pass is timid. 3♥/3♠ nearly but not right. 4♣ shows extra values. So X is best of all choices imo.

[DavidKok]

4♣, and it's not close. If you double and partner bids 3♦ or 3NT, are you passing (keep in mind partner could have converted your takeout to penalties, but there's that vulnerable game bonus people keep talking about)? And, for that matter, if partner bids 3♥/3♠, are you raising?
The only alternative is 3♠, bidding 4♥ if partner can find their voice. That works quite well if partner can bid 3NT (although, is your hand really that great once partner confirms club values?) or 4♦ (although, what if partner plays you for 5=4=2=2 or even 5=4=3=1? In fact, how do you show a 5=1=4=3 if partner bids 4♦?), and not so great if partner passes, bids 4♥ or finds an inspired jump (if partner supports spades it should be a wash). And if the opponents interfere again, you're headed for a disaster by not getting your shape in.

We have two defensive tricks, a reasonable chance at game even opposite a hand that might pass 3♠, they still pay a vulnerable game bonus and I insist on soliciting partner's help before they get to the 5-level. 4♣ is much better than the alternatives, hand quality be damned. Get to the right strain before worrying about level.

[Cyberyeti]

 DavidKok, on 2022-January-10, 07:40, said:

We have two defensive tricks, a reasonable chance at game even opposite a hand that might pass 3♠, they still pay a vulnerable game bonus and I insist on soliciting partner's help before they get to the 5-level. 4♣ is much better than the alternatives, hand quality be damned. Get to the right strain before worrying about level.

Which is fine till it goes (5♣)-6♥ -1, looks a lot better if partner is a passed hand.

[DavidKok]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-January-10, 08:36, said:

Which is fine till it goes (5♣)-6♥ -1, looks a lot better if partner is a passed hand.

When bidding in competition, the priorities are as follows:

• Establish the degree of fit and get to the right strain.
  
• If your fit is mediocre, defend (doubled if you are being stolen from)
  
• Once these two issues have been solved, make sure not to get too high. Getting to a good game in competition is often fine, many players don't bid their slam anyway.

Critically, finding the right suit takes priority over finding the right level, and when in doubt you should settle for game.
Partner needs a very strong hand to bid 6♥, usually with at least 4-card support. You have laid claim to the hand with 4♣ so forcing pass and 5♦ temporising are available, not to mention 5♥ natural. If you do get to a thin 6♥ and go down one, tough luck. You're always taking some guess when the opponents preempt you, your only job is to minimise partner's next guess. That's why 4♣ is clear.

[Cyberyeti]

 DavidKok, on 2022-January-10, 08:43, said:

When bidding in competition, the priorities are as follows:

• Establish the degree of fit and get to the right strain.
  
• If your fit is mediocre, defend (doubled if you are being stolen from)
  
• Once these two issues have been solved, make sure not to get too high. Getting to a good game in competition is often fine, many players don't bid their slam anyway.

Critically, finding the right suit takes priority over finding the right level, and when in doubt you should settle for game.
Partner needs a very strong hand to bid 6♥, usually with at least 4-card support. You have laid claim to the hand with 4♣ so forcing pass and 5♦ temporising are available. If you do get to a thin 6♥ and go down one, tough luck. You're always taking some guess when the opponents preempt you, your only job is to minimise partner's next guess. That's why 4♣ is clear.

By our methods I should be about an ace and a king better than this, couldn't blame him for bidding 6 with KJx, KQxxx, QJxx, x or similar where we can't even make 5, I just don't have anything close to a 4♣ bid.

[mw64ahw]

How about playing the X as Equal Level Conversion so a 3♦ bid elicits 3♥ which can then be passed corrected or raised.

[Cyberyeti]

 mw64ahw, on 2022-January-10, 09:05, said:

How about playing the X as Equal Level Conversion so a 3♦ bid elicits 3♥ which can then be passed corrected or raised.

We could do that but don't atm, X then 3♥ would be more like a 4522 18 count

[DavidKok]

That hand bids 5 of something over their 5♣ pretty much regardless of what you do. Unless you have something brilliant in store (maybe (3♣)-3♠-(5♣)-P (forcing); (P)-X-a.p. concealing your double major suit fit?), you're going minus anyway. The hand is also a typical example of being cautious - no aces and wasted value and length in diamonds, plus a guaranteed club loser. If anything, partner is better able to evaluate that holding over 4♣ (the difference between ♦QJ and ♦A is huge).

You've taken a very reasonable set of agreements, gutted it by removing not-super-strong double major hands, and surprisingly are now lacking a way to show not-super-strong double majors hands. There is no solution to your problem.

[mycroft]

For me, 4♣ or pass. And I'd pass. I'm both concerned about 6♥-1 and 4♠x-2. If LHO is going to bid 3NT, they'll probably make it, and at these colours...

But I'm the last bridge pessimist. I can see a quiet 3♣-2 into game when I pass, too.

X is right out. Over 3♦, I get my choice of second lie - show 4=4=3=2 or show very strong 3=6=2=2. Even if I play ELC, I can't imagine it being on in this auction - no way you can untangle all the hands you need to. But I'm sure people play it, and possibly even people I'd listen to about bridge theory.

[paulg]

I'm with davidkok, it is clear to me to show the majors here. The hand has too much playing strength to pass, especially with short clubs, and if they continue the pre-empt I am not ashamed of my hand.

[mikeh]

If you need an extra Ace and King for 4C, I’d take the bid out of my arsenal and play 4C as natural. That will happen with almost as much frequency as the huge 18 count 5-5 majors anyway🥸 (btw, I’m kidding)

For me, 4C should deliver about an extra King beyond this hand.

The problem with stretching to bid 4C is that you are violating your agreement. Do it once, ok. Do it again, you’ve now established a secret partnership agreement, contrary to the alleged actual agreement. I mean, if your bid is 4C here, then it’ll be 4D over 3D next time, on AJ8xx AQ10xx x xx. If not, why not?

If I were an opponent and responder bid a simple 4H over 4C with say Jx Kxxx Kxxx Axx I’d ‘know’ I was being worked over…that responder, knew damn well that overcaller wasn’t really showing a powerhouse.

I would bid 3S. If partner bids 3N, I bid 4H. That has to show 5 hearts and thus partner knows I’m too weak for 4C. Of course, that information may do him little good.

If he raises, he’ll usually have 3 or more spades and we should survive even if he has longer hearts.

Bear in mind that 12-14 hcp hands are more common than stronger ones, so we are going to be tempted to bid 4C a lot. Give in once, and you’ll give in again…and now you’re placing your partnership in an ethical bind. That’s not how one should play the game.

[Cyberyeti]

OK, I actually chose to pass, LHO bid 4♣ and it came back to me so I doubled feeling that pulling 4♦ to 4♥ showed this hand.

Partner bid 4♥ LHO (the best player in the room) bid 5♣ and partner doubled. I led the ♥A partner showing an odd number, what now ?

Dummy was:

---

[mw64ahw]

How about a more involved structure over 3C?
X-long ♦/5M4♦/4441 etc.
3♦-long ♥
3♥ - both Majors
3♠ - long ♠
3NT -standard
Etc.

[hazelmaye]

 DavidKok, on 2022-January-10, 08:43, said:

When bidding in competition, the priorities are as follows:

• Establish the degree of fit and get to the right strain.
  
• If your fit is mediocre, defend (doubled if you are being stolen from)
  
• Once these two issues have been solved, make sure not to get too high. Getting to a good game in competition is often fine, many players don't bid their slam anyway.

Critically, finding the right suit takes priority over finding the right level, and when in doubt you should settle for game.
Partner needs a very strong hand to bid 6♥, usually with at least 4-card support. You have laid claim to the hand with 4♣ so forcing pass and 5♦ temporising are available, not to mention 5♥ natural. If you do get to a thin 6♥ and go down one, tough luck. You're always taking some guess when the opponents preempt you, your only job is to minimise partner's next guess. That's why 4♣ is clear.

And if you get to a thin FIVE HEART contract and go down, what is it?

[DavidKok]

A poor score, usually.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2022-January-10, 10:23, said:

If you need an extra Ace and King for 4C, I’d take the bid out of my arsenal and play 4C as natural. That will happen with almost as much frequency as the huge 18 count 5-5 majors anyway🥸 (btw, I’m kidding)

For me, 4C should deliver about an extra King beyond this hand.

The problem with stretching to bid 4C is that you are violating your agreement. Do it once, ok. Do it again, you’ve now established a secret partnership agreement, contrary to the alleged actual agreement. I mean, if your bid is 4C here, then it’ll be 4D over 3D next time, on AJ8xx AQ10xx x xx. If not, why not?

If I were an opponent and responder bid a simple 4H over 4C with say Jx Kxxx Kxxx Axx I’d ‘know’ I was being worked over…that responder, knew damn well that overcaller wasn’t really showing a powerhouse.

I would bid 3S. If partner bids 3N, I bid 4H. That has to show 5 hearts and thus partner knows I’m too weak for 4C. Of course, that information may do him little good.

If he raises, he’ll usually have 3 or more spades and we should survive even if he has longer hearts.

Bear in mind that 12-14 hcp hands are more common than stronger ones, so we are going to be tempted to bid 4C a lot. Give in once, and you’ll give in again…and now you’re placing your partnership in an ethical bind. That’s not how one should play the game.

Ace and a king was probably overstating it a bit, but certainly a decent 16. The issue is that 4♦ leaping michaels you have a decision to make whether it's forcing and we decide it is, but make 4♣ the same strength. Not sure what partner does over 3♠ (or what LHO does), will leave that till after somebody has a go at the defensive problem.

[DavidKok]

My Leaping Michaels is also GF (although I use a slightly different structure - 4♣ shows M+om, and 4♦ shows M+M). I'd just also bid it on under strength hands (and announce it as such, of course).

I haven't taken a crack at the defensive problem because I'm having trouble making sense of the auction. West, a strong player, raised to 5♣ on 3-card support and an outside ace, but was not prepared to do so immediately. Partner has a preference for hearts over diamonds and spades, a penalty double of 5♣ but no penalty pass of 4♣. I'm tempted to guess that declarer has an over strength(/old-fashioned) preempt, partner has 5 heartw (I presume partner would have given preference to diamonds with 3=3=3=4) and some club values. This means declarer is likely 3=1=3=6, 2=1=4=6 or perhaps even 2=1=3=7 (with partner 2=5=3=3, 3=5=2=3 or 3=5=3=2 respectively). Just maybe declarer is 1=1=5=6 (partner 4=5=1=3).
This would mean the only risk of declarer making is if they can pitch spades on the diamonds (for example, declarer ♠xx, ♥x, ♦K9xx, ♣KJ8xxx), and by cashing some spades immediately we can set the contract. So I'm tempted to cash the ace of spades and watch for partner's signal: if odd, I'll continue a low one, if even I have to swap back to a heart (and hopefully partner unblocks with ♠Kx, costing an undertrick if partner's clubs are strong after I cash the queen of spades and give a ruff but clarifying the position). I don't see in what other scenarios this will cost - if partner is short in spades surely partner has diamond and club values for the double (after all, we did show a hand too weak to act immediately) and there is no risk of the contract making. If declarer has precisely ♠Kx and partner has a guaranteed diamond and club trick I'm losing the second undertrick, I guess. But is ♠xxx, ♥KQTxx, ♦Kx, ♣Kxx really a penalty double on this auction?

[Cyberyeti]

 DavidKok, on 2022-January-10, 16:32, said:

My Leaping Michaels is also GF (although I use a slightly different structure - 4♣ shows M+om, and 4♦ shows M+M). I'd just also bid it on under strength hands (and announce it as such, of course).

I haven't taken a crack at the defensive problem because I'm having trouble making sense of the auction. West, a strong player, raised to 5♣ on 3-card support and an outside ace, but was not prepared to do so immediately. Partner has a preference for hearts over diamonds and spades, a penalty double of 5♣ but no penalty pass of 4♣. I'm tempted to guess that declarer has an over strength(/old-fashioned) preempt, partner has 5 heartw (I presume partner would have given preference to diamonds with 3=3=3=4) and some club values. This means declarer is likely 3=1=3=6, 2=1=4=6 or perhaps even 2=1=3=7 (with partner 2=5=3=3, 3=5=2=3 or 3=5=3=2 respectively). Just maybe declarer is 1=1=5=6 (partner 4=5=1=3).
This would mean the only risk of declarer making is if they can pitch spades on the diamonds (for example, declarer ♠xx, ♥x, ♦K9xx, ♣KJ8xxx), and by cashing some spades immediately we can set the contract. So I'm tempted to cash the ace of spades and watch for partner's signal: if odd, I'll continue a low one, if even I have to swap back to a heart (and hopefully partner unblocks with ♠Kx, costing an undertrick if partner's clubs are strong after I cash the queen of spades and give a ruff but clarifying the position). I don't see in what other scenarios this will cost - if partner is short in spades surely partner has diamond and club values for the double (after all, we did show a hand too weak to act immediately) and there is no risk of the contract making. If declarer has precisely ♠Kx and partner has a guaranteed diamond and club trick I'm losing the second undertrick, I guess. But is ♠xxx, ♥KQTxx, ♦Kx, ♣Kxx really a penalty double on this auction?

W is a well known player with a style that he will do what he thinks he can get away with. I think he thought he'd buy the contract in 4♣ and he nearly did, but didn't fancy defending 4♥. You did what I did. Partner's hand was Kx, KQxxx, Kxx, Jxx and the third spade trick goes west. This was the difference between 300 and 500, 3♣ wasn't opened at the other table with xxx, x, Qxx, KQ10xxx so 4♥ was bid and made for -650. I believe these hands are fairly accurate but I'm not 100% sure partner had ♥Q rather than declarer holding it stiff.