[BunnyGo]

Hi all. Comments welcome all around. Thanks!

http://tinyurl.com/6vuk8un

[jillybean]

Hi. Do you have an agreement as to what your 1st seat, vulnerable preempts look like?

[jmcw]

E/W might have done better by finding their ♠ fit. I hold East blameless for this, West may have rebid 3♠ over 3♥, but 3NT is arguably the more practicle choice.

North's X is rather speculative, cleary E/W have sufficient values for game! Perhaps, he thought your V 2♦ bid would be more robust. To me it just looks like a bad bid.
Presumably you led a ♥ because P X'd, a common treatment when the ops bid freely to 3NT?. However your ♥ holding suggests that P does not have the "expected" ♥ stack. I would have led a ♦ which fairs no better.

ATB NORTH 100%

[BunnyGo]

This is perhaps a little lighter than normal, but we're fairly aggressive.

[MrAce]

Matter of style to open this hand weak 2♦ first seat. It is auto 2♦ for me in 1st seat and i think North was barking mad

[the hog]

North is a nutter. By the way, 6S is a great contract.

[BunnyGo]

the hog, on 2012-January-23, 01:20, said:

North is a nutter. By the way, 6S is a great contract.

The other table was in 6S-1.

[cherdano]

Sorry wyman, but double is really really bad. Give South a solid vulnerable preempt like xxxx x KJT9xx Kx and the opponents still have 9 top tricks, and make 11 unless North finds the club switch at trick two. The only good thing that could be said is that double could pay off if partner has an ace and opponents have just one diamond stopper, and that apparently these opponents don't know where the redouble card is.

[ArtK78]

2♦ preempt is light at this vulnerability.

West's 2♥ overcall is not my style - at least a King light (sort of a corollary to don't preempt over a preempt). I assume that 3♣ is forcing. West must bid 3♠, not 3♥ at his second turn. Now 6♠ can be reached (6♠ is an interesting play problem).

North's double of 3NT is from some other planet if the 2♦ opener is acceptable in this partnership. Also, the question is whether it calls for a diamond lead or a heart lead (or doesn't call for any particular lead). There is some debate over this.

Would be an interesting auction if West passes.

[wyman]

My own $0.02:

The double may, in fact, be barking mad. I am experimenting and trying to find the sweet spot where the X actually gets us to beat contracts without losing the extra 150 too often. I'll happily admit when I'm off my rocker.

1) I thought 2D was light in 1st chair at this vulnerability and expected something like KJxxxx/AJxxxx and an outside card. Maybe I'm getting conservative as I approach 30.

2) I think X says "lead a diamond."

3) I overvalued my holdings, it seems, but it sounds to me like partner has spades. And they don't have a quick source of tricks in either rounded given the auction and my holding.

I thought this was a reasonable spec double at the time, with the added bonus of getting partner to lead the right suit. I see now I'm squeezed on the run of the spades. Incidentally, if partner holds:

KJxxxx or KJ10xxx: they can make an overtrick DD (same situation as with K10xxxx, as we played)
AJxxxx: they make on a diamond lead, and it takes a club lead to beat it
AJ10xxx: anything but a heart or the ace of diamonds will beat it.

Quote

Sorry wyman, but double is really really bad. Give South a solid vulnerable preempt like xxxx x KJT9xx Kx and the opponents still have 9 top tricks, and make 11 unless North finds the club switch at trick two.

Ha, no need to be sorry. Your construction is fine except that gives N/S 8 hearts, which I thought was unlikely. My best guess for shapes is:

South: 3262
West: 3631 / 3721 / 3730
East: 4126 / 4036 / 4027

And none of these really look that promising for EW if partner (S) has a reasonably robust diamond holding (which I think he should have for a 1st seat red preempt) and an outside card (since apparently he's only got 1 of the top 3 diamond honors).

This was my thought process at the time, at least -- I didn't do a full analysis of shapes, but I did think that diamonds were 3-2 so that KJ would be enough.

[Siegmund]

I certainly agree I was light for 2H. That was part of what made me afraid to rebid 3S, sounding even stronger than I already had, but I suppose if I bid at all partner is forced to 3N/4C if he doesn't like what I bid, and I shouldn't be worried about stopping in 3H.

[Phil]

Wyman??!! But thats been said already.

Quote

I thought this was a reasonable spec double at the time, with the added bonus of getting partner to lead the right suit.

Good spec doubles are when they crawl into 3N, and partner's hand is unknown, not when your LHO is unlimited.

Dustin? When you are considering making a slam try and the opponents interrupt your auction with a strange double please redouble.

Siegmund and Bunny did fine.

[wyman]

Phil, on 2012-January-23, 10:31, said:

Wyman??!! But thats been said already.

Haha. Ok ok. Too many people I respect have said how horrible this X is, so I relent.

But it would be great if someone would address my thought process, specifically about shapes.

[neilkaz]

I blame East for not redoubling with a near slam try.

[cherdano]

wyman, on 2012-January-23, 10:50, said:

Haha. Ok ok. Too many people I respect have said how horrible this X is, so I relent.

But it would be great if someone would address my thought process, specifically about shapes.

I think you are way too specific in your deductions about the auction. You seem to be saying "opponents can't have an 8-card major fit since they are playing in 3NT". But sometimes opponents miss an 8-card major fit after your side preempts!
Maybe RHO didn't want to raise 3H with ♥xx and a good diamond stopper (♦AT9x, ♦JT9x). Maybe LHO doesn't want to re-rebid a 7-card suit. Maybe LHO didn't know whether he can bid 3♠ without showing extras. Maybe LHO wanted to rebid his good 6-card suit (AKQT9x) before bidding his ♠AQxx suit - which in fact runs since partners ♠Kx is onside.
Additionally, even if the shapes are as you say, if your partner's side card isn't an entry, opponents have time to set up hearts after which you know they have enough tricks. Even if they can't do that, and your shape constructions are right, they may just have 9 top tricks (three spades with partner's king onside, three hearts, one diamond, two clubs).

[Statto]

wyman, on 2012-January-23, 09:08, said:

2) I think X says "lead a diamond."

I'd take it as probably saying "lead a heart" or perhaps "lead a spade" tho I don't disagree that it's lead-directing. It's useful to have agreements on priority order of leads for the X of 3NT so you know which lead you're requesting, as there are many different methods out there all with a similar principle, but differing on which takes precedence: dummy's first bid suit; highest ranking unbid suit; your own suit; spades; etc.

I can't work out from the link if it's MPs or IMPs. If IMPs it'll be more worth it for a smaller chance of defeating the contract. In either case I'd probably prefer a better chance of defeating, but as

jillybean, on 2012-January-22, 21:26, said:

Do you have an agreement as to what your 1st seat, vulnerable preempts look like?

So there's quite a lot depending on partnership agreement here

[the hog]

"2) I think X says "lead a diamond."'

Actually it doesn't. You would expect pd to lead a D, so the X says lead something else.

[cloa513]

the hog, on 2012-January-23, 20:05, said:

"2) I think X says "lead a diamond."'

Actually it doesn't. You would expect pd to lead a D, so the X says lead something else.

Without a diamond raise, X says lead something other than a heart, perhaps diamond if your diamonds are good- club lead sounds good.

[wyman]

the hog, on 2012-January-23, 20:05, said:

"2) I think X says "lead a diamond."'

Actually it doesn't. You would expect pd to lead a D, so the X says lead something else.

I would not expect partner to lead a diamond missing the Q (in my hand) and another top honor (per declarer's bidding 3N). I'd expect a spade lead here.

[aguahombre]

I wouldn't expect partner to lead a diamond missing the queen and another honor, either. But, for a different reason.