[phil_20686]

bftboy, on 2012-February-16, 21:09, said:

If you bid 4♠ on this, opponents shouldn't even bother looking at their hands before doubling and collecting 500 80% of the time. When your 4♠ call keeps them out of slam they will collect 800 or more and a top anyway. Maybe one time in twenty they weren't making 4♥ so it loses again. To me the real choice is between a call like 3♠ which at least gives them a guess they will sometimes get wrong, or out of the box calls like 1nt or even 2♦. I don't really expect any of these calls to work, but they might. 4 ♠ just concedes them a good result.

This kind of thinking is very wrong imo.

Sometimes when you bid 4S you have enough that you expect to make it a goodly proportion of the time : Kxxxx x Axxxx xx, for example. Sometimes you do not expect to make it, like here. But your opponents have imperfect knowledge. Sometimes when you bid 4S here your partner has extras anyway, and it will be cold. Sometimes the opponents have lots of values, but neither knows the other has extra strength.

Just because I bid 4S on this hand does not indicate that it is typical of a vul vs not 4S bid. I am attempting to exploit their expectation of what a "normal" 4S bid looks like. In this case they will not be so quick to double without trump tricks, as its rare to bid 4S vul vs not as a preempt, without some reasonable hope of making.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on 2012-February-17, 10:56, said:

if 3♠ is a limti raise (let's say)

Why would we say that? I don't know anyone who plays a jump raise of an overcall as a limit raise.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on 2012-February-17, 13:09, said:

Why would we say that? I don't know anyone who plays a jump raise of an overcall as a limit raise.

Mixed, then. The point is not style; the point is whether 1NT is a psychic.

[gnasher]

I'm not sure how the point became one of nomenclature, but for Ken's benefit: if 1NT is systemically natural, and you bid it with this hand, it's a psych; if 1NT is systemically either natural or a weak raise, and you bid it with this hand, it's not a psych.

[JLOGIC]

Ken is back! Anyways I'd just bid 3 but who knows.

[aguahombre]

I am somewhat surprised that the votes are 13 to 10 for 3S vs 4S. Would have thought more like 19 to 4.

Yes, I can see the actual count. But, (at least) one of those 14 would have bid 4 at the table.

[JLOGIC]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-18, 19:17, said:

I am somewhat surprised that the votes are 13 to 10 for 3S vs 4S. Would have thought more like 19 to 4.

Yes, I can see the actual count. But, (at least) one of those 14 would have bid 4 at the table.

I am not surprised, I think it's a close decision and could be swayed by a lot of factors. This is the type of decision where you could go either way based on who your opps are, who your partner is, table feel, etc.