[Stephen Tu]

matchpoints

---

[WesleyC]

The fundamental principle of preempting is "always bid the limit of your hand on the first round!"

For me this hand is a comfortable 3♠. I might occasionally gamble 4♠ against some opponents or if I wanted to create a swing. I wouldn't ever bid 2♠ because it understates the hands offensive potential and doesn't put any pressure on the opponents.

However, once you've chosen to bid 2♠ even considering a 4♠ sacrifice is terrible bridge.

[eagles123]

if you think its a 2s bid first time then it doesnt suddenly become a 4s bid now, but I agree with Wesley, I would've bid 3s first time.

[mcphee]

Well having made a poor choice bidding 2S rather than 3, lets not follow up with yet another poor choice bidding 4. Did you really think 2S bid was going to shut out the opps who have no spades? If bidding 3S is supposed to be limit thats (IMO)another poor choice.

[lycier]

I would have bid 3♠ over 2♥ to tell my stroy and let partner decide.
2♠ over 2♥ was not a best choice.

[ggwhiz]

Add 1 more to the chorus

[rmnka447]

I pretty much agree with the comments so far. I'd like to add a couple additional thoughts.

Bidding 4 ♠ after bidding 2 ♠ gives the opponents a "fielder's choice". They have the option to double you, bid on, or pass after having exchanged more information. Reasonably competent opponents are much more likely to make a better decision with the additional info they've gained than if you immediately bid as high as you're willing to go on the first round.

Additionally, your hand is relatively flat even though you have a big ♠ fit. That makes it less likely that you will be able to increase the number of tricks you side can take when declaring. I'm sure that plays into other poster's comments about choosing 3 ♠ rather than 4 ♠ as you initial raise. The time to push is when you have some features that enhance your side's ability to take tricks -- either complementary shortness (i.e. shortness partner is unlikely to have) or a source of tricks like ♠ xxxxx ♥ xx ♦ AJ10x ♣ xx or ♠ xxxxx ♥ Ax ♦ J10xxx ♣ x.

[Stephen Tu]

So I agree with these posts, and think 3S is totally normal. My partner on the other hand, did this, then bid 4S here, successful on the day since you get out for 500. Other hand was borderline for 4S if this hand bid 3, most of the field let them play 4h. Partner thinks that:
-his mode of bidding is "normal", "everybody" would do this.
-the hand is "too strong" for 3s???
-proper strategy is to bid 2s, then 3 if opps bid 3h, or 4 if they bid 4.

I think he is prone to somewhat regular lunacy in some of his bidding ideas.

[eagles123]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-March-15, 16:12, said:

So I agree with these posts, and think 3S is totally normal. My partner on the other hand, did this, then bid 4S here, successful on the day since you get out for 500. Other hand was borderline for 4S if this hand bid 3, most of the field let them play 4h. Partner thinks that:
-his mode of bidding is "normal", "everybody" would do this.
-the hand is "too strong" for 3s???
-proper strategy is to bid 2s, then 3 if opps bid 3h, or 4 if they bid 4.

I think he is prone to somewhat regular lunacy in some of his bidding ideas.

your partner is just plain wrong

[Mbodell]

I have some sympathy for your partner's wrong ideas. Sometimes bidding 2 then 3 can steal it from some types of opps better than direct 3, and on this hand I'd rather bid 2 than 4 immediately on the first try. But I agree that 3S is clear as is pass.

[rhm]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-March-15, 16:12, said:

-proper strategy is to bid 2s, then 3 if opps bid 3h, or 4 if they bid 4.

I think he has a point, particularly at matchpoints.
You would not sacrifice at IMPs.
But at matchpoints going for 500 (or less) against 620 can mean all the marbles.
When opponents bid 4♥ over 2♠ they have bid game voluntarily and it is likely they have 9 card or longer fit and partner is short in hearts.
In other words the above scenario becomes likely.
If you jump to 3♠ the inference is much less clear when next hand bids 4♥.

Most people are oblivious to such considerations at matchpoints. It can be good matchpoint tactic.

Rainer Herrmann

[rmnka447]

rhm, on 2016-March-16, 07:59, said:

I think he has a point, particularly at matchpoints.
You would not sacrifice at IMPs.
But at matchpoints going for 500 (or less) against 620 can mean all the marbles.
When opponents bid 4♥ over 2♠ they have bid game voluntarily and it is likely they have 9 card or longer fit and partner is short in hearts.
In other words the above scenario becomes likely.
If you jump to 3♠ the inference is much less clear when next hand bids 4♥.

Most people are oblivious to such considerations at matchpoints. It can be good matchpoint tactic.

Rainer Herrmann

The crux of the matter is how often you expect to go for only 500 vs. 800. After a 2 ♠ raise, it is less clear whether they have a 9+ card fit or not. Even with ♥ A that probability goes up with a flat hand no other asset hand. It is still low enough to sac? Pay your money, take your choice.

[billw55]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-March-15, 16:12, said:

Partner thinks that:

-proper strategy is to bid 2s, then 3 if opps bid 3h, or 4 if they bid 4.

rhm, on 2016-March-16, 07:59, said:

I think he has a point, particularly at matchpoints.
You would not sacrifice at IMPs.
But at matchpoints going for 500 (or less) against 620 can mean all the marbles.
When opponents bid 4♥ over 2♠ they have bid game voluntarily and it is likely they have 9 card or longer fit and partner is short in hearts.
In other words the above scenario becomes likely.
If you jump to 3♠ the inference is much less clear when next hand bids 4♥.

Most people are oblivious to such considerations at matchpoints. It can be good matchpoint tactic.

Rainer Herrmann

Interesting. Of course there is another consideration: bidding only 2♠ gives them the whole three level to exchange information, after which they are more likely to make the right decision over 3♠ or 4♠. I have always understood this as the main reason to bid your limit the first time.

Do you think your benefit of bidding 2♠ outweighs this?

[ggwhiz]

2♠ followed by 4♠ unilaterally takes charge after partners wide ranging 1-level overcall.

3♠ immediately puts partner in charge, otherwise known as partnership bridge.

Allan Graves in a bidding contest once said: I don't mind a poorish result to maintain overall partnership integrity.

[rhm]

billw55, on 2016-March-16, 09:31, said:

Interesting. Of course there is another consideration: bidding only 2♠ gives them the whole three level to exchange information, after which they are more likely to make the right decision over 3♠ or 4♠. I have always understood this as the main reason to bid your limit the first time.

Do you think your benefit of bidding 2♠ outweighs this?

I do not critic 3♠, I only said he had a point, which is an intelligent one, and I consider the critic self-righteous and overblown.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

ggwhiz, on 2016-March-16, 09:52, said:

2♠ followed by 4♠ unilaterally takes charge after partners wide ranging 1-level overcall.

3♠ immediately puts partner in charge, otherwise known as partnership bridge.

Allan Graves in a bidding contest once said: I don't mind a poorish result to maintain overall partnership integrity.

I do not see why partner should be in a better position to judge.
Apparently few took the profitable sacrifice. Seems not have been obvious to them after 3♠.
I like partners, who think out of the box and when their clever logic produces good result I cherish them.
Happens far to rarely for my liking.

Rainer Herrmann

[WesleyC]

rhm, on 2016-March-16, 11:10, said:

I do not see why partner should be in a better position to judge.
I like partners, who think out of the box and when there clever logic produces very good result I cherish them.

I like clever partners too. In competitive sequences I give them an accurate description of my hand and let them use their 'cleverness' to produce very good results.

If one of my 'clever' partners bid 2S and then 4S on this hand (without a strong situational justification), I would find a partner that was even cleverer and play with them instead.

[Manastorm]

I bid 4♠, not very happy, but what can I do when I try to win this deal. AKxxx in ♠ and ♥ shortness is about -500 and 4♥ makes. 2♠ is a very bad idea as has been explained. Talking about match point tactics is silly when you have one your best bids available. 3♠ shuts the opponents and they will make a guess next, we on the other hand are in a perfect spot. Partner can't get this wrong anymore.

[rhm]

WesleyC, on 2016-March-16, 11:23, said:

I like clever partners too. In competitive sequences I give them an accurate description of my hand and let them use their 'cleverness' to produce very good results.

Would you have bid differently if you held

matchpoints

---

How is your clever partner supposed to know? (If you deem the hand to weak for 3♠ substitute one of the heart honors for the heart king.)
Preemptive bids may describe your values accurately but they rarely provide an accurate description of your hand.
On the other hand once South can reasonably assume North to be short in hearts, he is in a better position to judge what to do over a voluntarily bid 4♥, which partner did not double.
The actual matchpoint result seems to confirm this.

Rainer Herrmann

[WesleyC]

If you don't think [T8762 QJ7 JT6 76] is accurately described by a 3♠ bid then don't bid 3♠! Bid 2♠ or pass and consider backing in later.

I appreciate that at MPs there is room for tactics and creativity, but holding the hand from the original post there is no need. 3♠ describes your hand perfectly and leaves partner in a great position to make the final decision.