[l milne]

---

4♠x went one off for -100. 4♥x goes for -500.

[Phil]

I'm assuming 3♠ is preemptive? If so, I do not like it all, and I do not blame West for bidding 4♠.

[MrAce]

l milne, on 2010-December-13, 13:59, said:

---

4♠x went one off for -100. 4♥x goes for -500.

Who is going to double 4♥ ? East ? Pd just overcalled 1♠ white vs red.....Anyway, if i was East, i wouldn't make a bid that may encourage partner to bid 4♠ over their 4♥ with QJT7 ♥ holding to be honest. We know partner is stiff or void in ♥ and will be tempted to bid 4♠ at these colors. After all we told him "my hand is offensive rather than defensive". I wouldn't blame west for believing his pd.

If i was East, i would start with 2♠ and later compete with 3♠, if partnert makes a game try in ♦ i would bid 4, if makes a game try in ♣ i would either refuse or bid 3♦.

[gnasher]

4♥ is only one off on careful play. For example, ruff the second spade, cash ♥A, three top clubs throwing a spade, ♥K, run ♦J.

[l milne]

True, my mistake. Tricker on small spade leader and diamond back, think you have to endplay East now?

[mikeh]

East's hand doesn't look like a 3♠ raise, no matter how it is defined....weak, limit, or even mixed. Way too much defence for any weakness bid and not enough working offence for anything stronger.

Had East bid a simple 2♠, S would no doubt bid game, and now West has nothing to say and neither, in my view, does East. Anyway, the damage was done by the misdescriptive 3♠ call.

[nigel_k]

mikeh, on 2010-December-13, 15:41, said:

East's hand doesn't look like a 3♠ raise, no matter how it is defined....weak, limit, or even mixed. Way too much defence for any weakness bid and not enough working offence for anything stronger.

Had East bid a simple 2♠, S would no doubt bid game, and now West has nothing to say and neither, in my view, does East. Anyway, the damage was done by the misdescriptive 3♠ call.

I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion but I don't think 3♠ is terrible. If West's minors are switched both games could easily be making. Essentially you would probably be happy bidding 3♠ with East when partner has club values but not when he has diamond values.

[mikeh]

nigel_k, on 2010-December-13, 16:12, said:

I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion but I don't think 3♠ is terrible. If West's minors are switched both games could easily be making. Essentially you would probably be happy bidding 3♠ with East when partner has club values but not when he has diamond values.

But as what? If it's weak, as most in NA would play it, then partner simply isn't going to be bidding game except as a save, and we don't want to encourage a save. If it's limit, then you're right in that his choice of bidding game will work out randomly depending on where his side values/length are.

IOW, if 3♠ was weak by partnership agreement it was terrible, and if it was invitational, it wasn't as bad.

[mcphee]

Assuming 3S was pre-emptive we need this player to know what a pre-empt is. It is not this hand.

[Free]

I blame East for reasons stated above

[Cascade]

East knows that partner is short in hearts and that therefore partner will be quite encouraged to bid 4♠ to make or sacrifice.

This means that 3♠ is too dangerous.

[rhm]

mikeh, on 2010-December-13, 15:41, said:

East's hand doesn't look like a 3♠ raise, no matter how it is defined....weak, limit, or even mixed. Way too much defence for any weakness bid and not enough working offence for anything stronger.

Had East bid a simple 2♠, S would no doubt bid game, and now West has nothing to say and neither, in my view, does East. Anyway, the damage was done by the misdescriptive 3♠ call.

Really?
West has nothing to say over 4♥ getting a ♠ raise at favorable colors and void in opponents trump suit?
On which universe are you living?

Let's face it. If East minors are reversed, both games would make!
West has a clearcut 4♠ bid, once he gets raised, whether MP or IMPs.
The phantom save is hard to avoid.

Rainer Herrmann

[Phil]

rhm, on 2010-December-14, 09:28, said:

Really?
West has nothing to say over 4♥ getting a ♠ raise at favorable colors and void in opponents trump suit?
On which universe are you living?

Let's face it. If East minors are reversed, both games would make!
West has a clearcut 4♠ bid, once he gets raised, whether MP or IMPs.
The phantom save is hard to avoid.

Rainer Herrmann

Sure, every time you want to make a preemptive w/r raise of partner's suit with two likely trump tricks in theirs, just make a novena to the patron saint of double-fits. She will send one of her fairies down and sprinkle a little pixie dust and "poof" - a double game swing!

[rhm]

Phil, on 2010-December-14, 10:02, said:

Sure, every time you want to make a preemptive w/r raise of partner's suit with two likely trump tricks in theirs, just make a novena to the patron saint of double-fits. She will send one of her fairies down and sprinkle a little pixie dust and "poof" - a double game swing!

Please read my entries a bit more carefully.
I have not defended the 3♠ double raise. I understand the critic, but unfortunately the 3♠ bid, bad as it may be, has little to do with the actual outcome.
What I said is that any bridge player with blood in his veins will take the phantom save and bid 4♠ in the West position at these colors over any ♠ raise. Raising 1♠ to 2♠ creates the same outcome.
If East wants to avoid this outcome he must refuse to raise ♠ at all. A remarkable deep position, which would work in this layout, but not in many others.

Rainer Herrmann

[Phil]

rhm, on 2010-December-14, 10:34, said:

Please read my entries a bit more carefully.
I have not defended the 3♠ double raise. I understand the critic, but unfortunately the 3♠ bid, bad as it may be, has little to do with the actual outcome.
What I said is that any bridge player with blood in his veins will take the phantom save and bid 4♠ in the West position at these colors over any ♠ raise. Raising 1♠ to 2♠ creates the same outcome.
If East wants to avoid this outcome he must refuse to raise ♠ at all. A remarkable deep position, which would work in this layout, but not in many others.

Rainer Herrmann

My comprehension is fine; but I'd be more specific about using the vague term "raises" if you choose choose to attack another poster's reading ability, especially when the bulk of the thread is discussing the actual auction that had a 3♠ call.

I would not save w/r in 4♠ with five spades (and perhaps two defensive tricks) and a side KQ after a simple 2♠ raise. Obviously it is clear to me that it should be bid over 3♠.

Lay out some random 2♠ raises and tell me how profitable 4♠ rates to be across from typical 2♠ calls.

[dellache]

I blame East 100%, the 3♠ bid is a common mistake with this Heart holding.
The Total tricks on this hand rate to be much lower than expected... for partner, who will have to take a decision with his stiff/void♥ over 4♥.
Clearly East knows in advance that bidding 4♠/4♥ will be poor.

So what is the purpose of 3♠ ?
1. Preventing LHO to make a trial bid ? He will bid 4♥ now instead, and pard will SAC even when LHO was wrong (and anyway it may well cost 500/800 in average when the oppos game finally scores)
2. Trying to buy the Hand ? Just bid 2♠ then 3♠.
3. Preventing them to find a double RED-fit ? I remains to be seen that 2♠ (3♦) ... leads to a loosing position for E/W.
4. Expressing one's joy to have Kxxx in partner's overcall ? Maybe.

Bidding 2♠ with East hand is just anticipating the future problems, and so this is the correct bid by essence.

As to the 4♠ bid by partner over 4♥ in the situation where East (over)bid 3♠, it seems 100% mandatory to me.
Cheers.

[Free]

rhm, on 2010-December-14, 10:34, said:

What I said is that any bridge player with blood in his veins will take the phantom save and bid 4♠ in the West position at these colors over any ♠ raise. Raising 1♠ to 2♠ creates the same outcome.

I disagree with this statement. A simple raise only shows a 3 card support, so bidding 4♠ is much more dangerous for losing control. After a preemptive 3♠ raise showing very few values and a 9th trump, West will easily raise to 4♠ because he can predict opps will make 4♥ and he has a good chance to get to 7 tricks. So different raises don't necessarily mean the same outcome.

[rhm]

Free, on 2010-December-15, 04:35, said:

I disagree with this statement. A simple raise only shows a 3 card support, so bidding 4♠ is much more dangerous for losing control. After a preemptive 3♠ raise showing very few values and a 9th trump, West will easily raise to 4♠ because he can predict opps will make 4♥ and he has a good chance to get to 7 tricks. So different raises don't necessarily mean the same outcome.

1) I never claimed that different raises will always lead to the same outcome, only on this deal it hardly matters.
2) I do not know what you mean by "much more dangerous for losing control". Of course making ten tricks is not as likely when partner has only a 3 card raise. I ran a simulation giving East 3 cards in ♠, 5-9 HCP and North 3 cards in ♥, 5-9 HCP and South at least 6 cards in ♥ and an opening bid. Only in 6(!) out of 1000 deals did West have less than 7 tricks in a ♠ contract. On the majority of deals 4♥ made in comfort and on quite a few deals 4♠ made as well, sometimes both.
3) It is inconsistent to claim that a simple raise shows 3 card support and claim at the same time that East should bid only 2♠ here. You can claim that a simple raise guarantees at least 3 card support, but this is a very different statement. Apparently there is a whole class of hands with 4 card support, unsuitable for a preemptive double raise or an invitational bid.
4) Exchange East minor suits. This obviously does not change East's bidding. Now 4♠ has good chances, as does 4♥, in spite of East's likely two ♥ tricks. Assign the blame for letting North South play 4♥ when 4♠ was on.

You can not have it both ways. I suspect that most who claim on paper they would pass 4♥ as West, white versus red, after having been raised, would bid 4♠ at the table without much thought. It is certainly the percentage bid.

Rainer Herrmann