[rhm]

IMPs 32 Board matches

---

This came up last weekend in German premier league.

Rainer Herrmann

[wank]

rhm, on 2014-March-17, 06:15, said:

IMPs 32 Board matches

---

This came up last weekend in German premier league.

Rainer Herrmann

anything except 3d is pretty out there. of course 3nt or pass could work but they must be massively anti-percentage.

[whereagles]

3♦ seems canonical. Note that pard should be short in clubs, so you have a decent chance to find a fit across.

I suppose pass might be ok if you need "action".

[P_Marlowe]

I am not passing.

So it is either 3D or 3NT.

I guess 3NT is best, 3C preempts are quite often 6 carders, and non solid suits,
not sure I am finding this on the table.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gszes]

3d

3n is a rather large gamble with no club
stop and opps maybe running 7 off the top

pass is a huge postion to take since our ak of
dia may be enough for a (grand?) slam and we are
settling for 100 to 300 and if p is minimum they
may be making 3cx (ouchies)

4d I have some sympathy for this bid since it at
least shows we have some "stuff" and could not
bid 3n. The 4d bid can all too easily lose the
spade suit when p has little/no slam interest.
Having only 4 diamonds is also somewhat of a
bummer.

3d does not really do this hand justice (but it does
fit the definition of a minimum) and if p cannot
act over 3d at least we do not have to worry about
missing slam (can I please have an undo and replace my
3d bid with pass?)). P still has room to bid 3s with a
5 card suit (something they cannot easily do over 4d) and
we can bid 4c to show spade fit and slam interest.

[ArtK78]

3♦ seems clear. Anything else can be described as either "taking a position" or "what were you thinking?" depending on what the "anything else" turns out to be.

[ggwhiz]

Duplicate.

[ggwhiz]

I'm passing colored heavily by what the local white preempts look like.

Typically (W)holy suits with finessable major suit cards in dummy. And I refuse to reward these birds by ending in a 4-3 diamond fit.

The club Ten is at least promotable even if you are playing against aunt Dolly. I know it's the premier league but still.... I imagine they open at the 1-level pretty light.

[mikeh]

I think pass is by a wide margin the call that has the greatest likelihood of working well, and I would do it instantly at mps. However, at imps it seems too committal.

It isn't that I think playing in 3♦ (which is my call) is better. If I knew that partner was going to pass 3♦, I'd defend.

However, partner is unlimited and passing might get us 300 against a game or even a slam, and it is the combination of that and the (slight) risk that they make that prompts me to bid.

[MrAce]

I know "The Law" suggests to pass with hands like this.
But I agree with MikeH. Pass is dangerous at imps and the possibility of pd started double with a strong hand makes it more dangerous. When we know pd is likely to be short in a suit and we hold Txxx of them, this can turn ugly at IMPS.

[Lord Molyb]

anything but 3♦ seems silly

[mfa1010]

I would tend to pass, but this a situation where I would be influenced by how I percieve RHO's preempts.

[nige1]

rhm, on 2014-March-17, 06:15, said:

IMPs 32 Board matches
This came up last weekend in German premier league.

---

IMO it's a guess: 3♦ = 10, Pass = 9, 3N = 6, 3♠ = 5. 3♦ seems down-the middle. If pass turns out badly, it's bad for team-morale.

[rhm]

This deal intrigued me because of the remarkable successes of the Kranyak team.
If you analyze their results, part of their strategy seems to stem from the fact, that they are less afraid than their counterparts of doubling their opponents in part-score contracts.
For example when Kranyak played the Nickell team for the right to represent the US in Bali, Rodwell as North bid 3♠ and lost 300 on the deal below

---

In the closed room Kranyak passed with the North hand and took 3♦ four down for 800(!). Total swing 1100 points.
So do not tell me that pass is a committal action while bidding on is not. This is plain nonsense.
While non vulnerable preempts have got weaker over the years you would expect taking the money would also get more common.
But it seems to me the reluctance to leave doubles in if anything has grown, making wild preempts even more profitable.
For example in Bali there was a deal where Kranyak preempted against Italy at favorable vulnerability 3♣ raised to 4♣ by Wolpert.
This could have been been down 6 for 1400 by normal defense, but Bocchi left them off the hook and bid 4♥ (6♦ made 7 in the other room)

Last weekend the actual deal was:

---

The deal was played in 25 matches (50 teams) at 50 tables for 50 results.
We can assume that all East players opened 3♣ and at almost all tables the bidding started as shown.

Result:

9 times East played 3♣ doubled, 5 times down 4 for 800, 3 times down 3 for 500 and 1 time down 2 for 300
29 times South played 3♦, 11 times making, 18 times one or two down
2 times South played 4♦, once 2 down and once 4 down.
8 times North played 3NT (never from the South side), 4 times making and 4 times going down
2 times North played 3♠ making and once with an overtrick

The datum score was 100 for North South!

At my table I was sitting North and doubled. My partner, to whom pass would probably never occur, bid 3♦. I thought if 3♦ makes, 3NT might also make. So I bid 3NT.
For once the deal proved me right and after the lead of the ♣J, I eventually managed 9 tricks.
(Of course the lead helps, but the contract can be made on any lead but a diamond, which is unlikely on the bidding. A diamond lead occurred once, probably after North bid 3NT directly).

Of course a single deal proves nothing.
Note that East, being white, had a fairly strong preempt by today's standard.
It is possible that 3♣ can not be beaten and it is possible that there is a grand slam.
But how likely are these outcomes from South perspective?

Rainer Herrmann