Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Do you pre-empt in 2nd seat?

20 views
Skip to first unread message

Sunrise

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 7:50:51 AM11/25/11
to
IMP
NV vs NV

You hold

9xxx
x
AK76xxx (7)
x

RHO passes
What do you bid in your system?
Do you consider the 4S a deterrent for preempting?
What are your requirements in 2nd seat?

Thank you for your ideas

Gerben Dirksen

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 7:58:55 AM11/25/11
to
With all points in Diamonds I will simply bid 3D.

Gerben

Art Hoffman

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 8:28:06 AM11/25/11
to

"Sunrise" <sunri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b03ed23-b627-4d82...@h37g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> IMP
> NV vs NV
>
> You hold
>
> 9xxx
> x
> AK76xxx (7)
> x
>
> RHO passes
> What do you bid in your system?
Pass
> Do you consider the 4S a deterrent for preempting?
Yes. Preempting 3D will possibly deter partner bidding spades when 4 is a
make. Moreover, if you pass originally, there's no bar to coming in later
with diamonds when appropriate.
> What are your requirements in 2nd seat?
Well one is that you don't preempt with an outside 4 card major especially
when your hand could fit so well with that major.

dak...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 8:33:57 AM11/25/11
to
2-seat I'm really afraid LHO has a monster:
18+ and opponents will find game. NOT.!
Let partner have his description.

Lorne

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 9:37:31 AM11/25/11
to
"Sunrise" wrote in message
news:6b03ed23-b627-4d82...@h37g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

IMP
NV vs NV

You hold

9xxx
x
AK76xxx (7)
x

RHO passes
What do you bid in your system?
Do you consider the 4S a deterrent for preempting?
What are your requirements in 2nd seat?
.............................

2nd seat should be reserved for hands in a tighter range as you are just as
likely to pre-empt partner as the oppo and normally I do not pre-empt with a
4 card major however this hand is near perfect otherwise and we are not vul
and 5D will usually make if 4S makes and 4S may go down on a 4-1 trump break
which is more likely now because of your diamond length so all these
compensating factors make me open 3D.

derek

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 9:53:33 AM11/25/11
to
On Nov 25, 8:50 am, Sunrise <sunrise9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMP
> NV vs NV
>
> You hold
>
> 9xxx
> x
> AK76xxx (7)
> x
>
> RHO passes
> What do you bid in your system?
> Do you consider the 4S a deterrent for preempting?
> What are your requirements in 2nd seat?

With a random partner, I might open 3D. With my regular partner, 3D
with a side 4-card major is a partnership-buster. So I pass.

sofos

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 11:06:01 AM11/25/11
to
On Nov 25, 6:37 am, "Lorne" <lorne_ander...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> .............................
>
> 4S may go down on a 4-1 trump break
> which is more likely now because of your diamond length
I don't see how the extra diamond length makes a 4-1 diamond split
more likely in the case that partner has 4 spades. What do you base
this
assertion on?
I have no quarrel with the statement that 5d may be better than 4S
even
on a 4-4 spade fit.

Nick France

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 11:42:49 AM11/25/11
to
3D I really am not worried about having 4 small spades.

Nick France

OldPalooka

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 12:05:13 PM11/25/11
to
What worries me is having 6 or 7 winners in diamonds and 1/2 winner in
spades. This hand is much better on offense and defense than the pure
KQJxxxx with 321 on the side one expects for a second seat favorable
preempt

boblipton

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 4:41:37 PM11/25/11
to
Swans should be played in the seven-card suit. While partner may hold
the hand to make 4 Spades magic (AKxx xxx Qx xxxx) you aren't going to
get there anyway.

Bob

Fred.

unread,
Nov 25, 2011, 5:11:58 PM11/25/11
to
My partner might forgive me the four spades
for the prempt, but would never forgive the
3 controls.

Fred.

Steve Foster

unread,
Nov 26, 2011, 8:02:08 AM11/26/11
to
sofos wrote:

> On Nov 25, 6:37 am, "Lorne" <lorne_ander...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 4S may go down on a 4-1 trump break
> > which is more likely now because of your diamond length
> I don't see how the extra diamond length makes a 4-1 diamond split
> more likely in the case that partner has 4 spades. What do you base
> this
> assertion on?

Lorne is suggesting that with a spade fit (and therefore playing in
Spades), you're now more likely to get a bad spade break, not that
you'd get a bad diamond break, playing in Diamonds (with the same spade
fit).

Not sure that he's right, mind you.

--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net

jogs

unread,
Nov 26, 2011, 9:40:54 AM11/26/11
to
On Nov 26, 5:02 am, "Steve Foster" <stevefos...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
On studies I've seen poor 4-4 fits often play
badly even when opposing trumps split 3-2.

Steve Foster

unread,
Nov 27, 2011, 7:09:18 AM11/27/11
to
jogs wrote:

> On studies I've seen poor 4-4 fits often play
> badly even when opposing trumps split 3-2.

Yeah, you're usually much better off in a 3-2 fit... <g>

Paul Hightower

unread,
Nov 27, 2011, 1:08:31 PM11/27/11
to
"Sunrise" <sunri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b03ed23-b627-4d82...@h37g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Sure, 3D for me. I prefer my preempts to have some strength; I would not
play a style where this was "too good" for a preempt.

The four spades are a flaw and I wouldn't open 3D if you moved one of the
high honors over to spades, but I won't let four small in a suit keeep me
from bidding a good suit.

First or second seat I'm looking for 5-9 hcp and 6+ length in a good to fair
suit. (With 6, of course, I'll typically choose a weak two if that's an
option.) I don't have a precise formula, I'm more disciplined in second
seat than first or third.


Fred.

unread,
Nov 27, 2011, 3:04:32 PM11/27/11
to
I think a number of us said to, of course, preempt
and a number of us said to, of course, not. My
impression is that there are plenty of successful
partnerships on both sides of the divide.

If you play less disciplined preempts, you will be
able to make them more often. The penalty will
be that partner will be less able to make informed
decisions on follow-up actions.

The important thing is to have an agreement in place
so that partner can chose actions based on whatever
your maximum in defense and minimum in offense is
likely to be.

Fred.

Player

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 12:02:30 AM11/28/11
to
This is an obvious 3D bid for me.
Ron

Player

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 12:04:37 AM11/28/11
to
I don't understand this post at all. Can anyone translate for me
please?
Ron

David Goldfarb

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 3:27:38 AM11/28/11
to
In article <b9ffaa5a-0e41-411b...@s17g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Translation:

"Since I'm in second seat, opponents will probably only have game
if my LHO has an 18+ monster hand. I'm not afraid of that. So,
I'll pass so that my partner can describe his hand -- instead of
me misdescribing mine."

--
David Goldfarb |"I see more than you, child. I see an end to hell.
goldf...@gmail.com | What do you see?"
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "I see a man in a lot of pain."
|"Pain? Yes. Consider it a preview." -- _Zot!_ #18

KWSchneider

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 11:43:57 AM11/28/11
to
Too much defense - 3 controls is a pre-empt buster. Make the DA the
DQ, then I pre-empt. Here I stay quiet for one round.

Kurt

Will in New Haven

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 1:37:57 PM11/28/11
to
On Nov 25, 7:50 am, Sunrise <sunrise9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMP
> NV vs NV
>
> You hold
>
> 9xxx
> x
> AK76xxx (7)
> x
>
> RHO passes
> What do you bid in your system?

I pass

> Do you consider the 4S a deterrent for preempting?

Yes, but it isn't decisive by itself.

> What are your requirements in 2nd seat?

No flaws. The four-card Spade holding is a flaw. AK7 is not an ideal
holding at the top of a preemptive suit. KQJ or KQT is much better and
even KQX is as good. The hand has too many controls. I would open this
3D only in third seat. Pass in any other. Playing less disciplined
preempts, I would also open this in first seat but not in second and I
sometimes do play them less disciplined.

--
Will in New Haven


Adam Beneschan

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 3:11:59 PM11/28/11
to
This is equal, not favorable. Does that change your answer?

-- Adam

OldPalooka

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 4:19:03 PM11/28/11
to
Not really. I would be more willing to operate, but if choosing to
operate would probably choose 4D.

Player

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 9:00:09 PM11/28/11
to
On Nov 28, 3:27 pm, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <b9ffaa5a-0e41-411b-a3a3-5d6483553...@s17g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Player  <ron...@msn.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 25, 8:33 pm, "dak...@aol.com" <dak...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> 2-seat I'm really afraid LHO has a monster:
> >> 18+ and opponents will find game.   NOT.!
> >> Let partner have his description.
>
> >I don't understand this post at all. Can anyone translate for me
> >please?
>
> Translation:
>
> "Since I'm in second seat, opponents will probably only have game
> if my LHO has an 18+ monster hand.  I'm not afraid of that.  So,
> I'll pass so that my partner can describe his hand -- instead of
> me misdescribing mine."
>
> --
>    David Goldfarb          |"I see more than you, child. I see an end to hell.
> goldfar...@gmail.com       | What do you see?"
> goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu  |     "I see a man in a lot of pain."
>                            |"Pain? Yes. Consider it a preview."  -- _Zot!_ #18

Thx David. Your command of English is clearly better than mine.
Ron
0 new messages