[Winstonm]

First of all, with no intervening bidding how do you handle this: Imp pairs. First seat NV vs NV partner opens 3S.

---

Spoiler

Suppose you decided to do this - now what? (If you wouldn't bid 4C, what would you do?)

---

Spoiler

Now being totally lost, you settle on 6S and the lead is a small diamond. How do you play?
(Hand has been rotated for convenience)

Lead diamond 2 (fourth best leads)

---

[smerriman]

For the play:

Spoiler

Surely nobody would lead from the diamond king, so I can't see an alternative to playing the ace, ace of trumps, then throwing one diamond on the heart and hoping to throw another on a club.

[mikeh]

I’d bid 4C, modified keycard, which is a fairly standard expert treatment….using 4C as natural would seem to have a very low frequency of gain.


Without commenting on the play spoiler, let me say that I’d very happily underlead a king on the given auction and have no idea why anyone would think that unusual. We need two tricks.

The opps have bid in such a way that they very likely have 12 winners if we can’t take two tricks quickly, once we win our presumed black suit winner….even assuming, as I would, that we can’t cash an A/K combination.

Not only that, but what if we hold both red kings…surely nobody would dream of leading a black suit?

[DavidKok]

There are a few possible sets of agreements that have some popularity over our own 3-level (major) preempts.

• If undiscussed, natural is popular but not very good. You most likely belong in partner's suit regardless of your own hand, so introducing new suits should be as fitbid considerations only. With this understanding 4♣ is very reasonable, unfortunately every king is useful to you while partner will focus on the clubs.
  
• Alternatively, you can systematically say that 3M confirms trumps and play direct bids as immediate control bids. This is also not very strong but easy to remember.
  
• As a variant of the above, new suits can be control asking bids, partner will systematically clarify void/singleton/ace/king/nothing in the suit bid. I think this is a rare but superior treatment.

I'm not familiar with mikeh's 4♣ modified keycards approach over 3M (only over 3m). Is the general version 'the cheapest suit', or is it always 4♣?

Anyway, I think you're fixed. I play control showing (not best) so I have no choice but to start with 4♣, anything else would scare partner out of slam (I could bid RKC 4NT immediately but we tend to preempt on KJ9xxxx and out). Maybe your preemptive style gives you better chances of determining if slam is good.

I agree with mikeh's remarks on the play.

[Cyberyeti]

Over 5♣ 6♣ or 5N pick a slam where partner bids 6♣ looks good for exactly the reason of what happens. Having the strong hand play the slam can make it much better.

In reality I'd be looking for a grand over 5♣ (the two black kings is all I need) so asking aces would be on my radar, Mike's 4♣ works well here.

[pescetom]

We play 4♧ response to any 3-level preempt as RKCB (except to 3♧ where we use 4◇). May be slightly eccentric but it fits neatly with our other agreements. Some people play 4♧ as a 'poor man's Keycard' using replies modified to reflect a low number of keycards, but that is more stuff to remember and I don't believe it is superior anyway.

[LBengtsson]

smerrimans play line is logical and looks best % but there are other ways to play. take ♦ finesse - it lose, hope to pin stiff ♠J. as for bidding, you may miss grand if partner has ♠K + ♣K but not so easy to find these cards in bidding. with 4 aces and other tricks available, I jump to 6♠ disappointing that my partner is playing hand not me but hope we do not have 2 losers.

[mikeh]

LBengtsson, on 2021-September-04, 09:12, said:

smerrimans play line is logical and looks best % but there are other ways to play. take ♦ finesse - it lose, hope to pin stiff ♠J. as for bidding, you may miss grand if partner has ♠K + ♣K but not so easy to find these cards in bidding. with 4 aces and other tricks available, I jump to 6♠ disappointing that my partner is playing hand not me but hope we do not have 2 losers.

If the diamond hook loses, cash the spade Ace. A stiff King in either hand is twice as likely as a stiff Jack behind the Ace

If the diamond hook wins, come to hand with a ruff and lead the spade 10. If LHO plays low, float the 10, guarding against KJx.

[Winstonm]

The question to me is which is best: take the diamond finesse or play off the 3 non-club aces and play for the pitch on the clubs?

The finesse has the advantage of the safety play as Mikeh pointed. The club play works with singleton king or club length in the 2-spade hand. I see no other viable candidate for reasonable line

[mikeh]

I think it clear to take the finesse, saying that while well knowing that it might lead to down one when popping might win

Here’s why

A competent opponent will make an aggressive lead on this type of auction. Thus I think it slightly more than 50% that the hook will win….if he had both red kings, he’d lead his shorter red suit, while with the heart King and no diamond king, he might lead a heart…depending on his length. Also, if he has neither King, he might hold a ‘safe’ sequence in hearts, which he might choose in preference to leading from nothing. However, I think that might be dependent on his relative suit lengths.

Also, while unlikely a piori, he would surely lead a red stiff on this auction. Our double fit in the blacks makes a stiff diamond a little less likely than the a priori odds of a 6-1 split.

If the hook fails, which I ballpark at around 45%, I still make 26% of the time, when the spade king is stiff…(ignoring weird shape such as a trick two ruff in a minor), giving me about 66% chance of making (55% for the hook plus 26% of 45% when the hook loses)

If the hook wins, I’m basically cold….failing only if W wins the first trump with a stiff honour and gives East a ruff.

Meanwhile, if I rise with the Ace, I make by pulling trump 26% of the time (stiff King) but for the remaining 74%, I need the long trump to have 3+ clubs. A 3-2 break is about 68.5% but the long trump hand will hold the doubleton a little more than half the time (having long trump reduces his spaces for clubs).

So we’ll make about 26% + approx 33% for the club break, or roughly 59% of the time

Make the diamond hook only 50%, which I don’t believe reflects reality, and hooking wins about 61%, which is very close to the other line but, I think, fractionally better.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2021-September-04, 14:59, said:

I think it clear to take the finesse, saying that while well knowing that it might lead to down one when popping might win

Here’s why

A competent opponent will make an aggressive lead on this type of auction. Thus I think it slightly more than 50% that the hook will win….if he had both red kings, he’d lead his shorter red suit, while with the heart King and no diamond king, he might lead a heart…depending on his length. Also, if he has neither King, he might hold a ‘safe’ sequence in hearts, which he might choose in preference to leading from nothing. However, I think that might be dependent on his relative suit lengths.

Also, while unlikely a piori, he would surely lead a red stiff on this auction. Our double fit in the blacks makes a stiff diamond a little less likely than the a priori odds of a 6-1 split.

If the hook fails, which I ballpark at around 45%, I still make 26% of the time, when the spade king is stiff…(ignoring weird shape such as a trick two ruff in a minor), giving me about 66% chance of making (55% for the hook plus 26% of 45% when the hook loses)

If the hook wins, I’m basically cold….failing only if W wins the first trump with a stiff honour and gives East a ruff.

Meanwhile, if I rise with the Ace, I make by pulling trump 26% of the time (stiff King) but for the remaining 74%, I need the long trump to have 3+ clubs. A 3-2 break is about 68.5% but the long trump hand will hold the doubleton a little more than half the time (having long trump reduces his spaces for clubs).

So we’ll make about 26% + approx 33% for the club break, or roughly 59% of the time

Make the diamond hook only 50%, which I don’t believe reflects reality, and hooking wins about 61%, which is very close to the other line but, I think, fractionally better.

Thanks.
That is pretty much as I saw it. The hard part is overcoming the hesitancy of having to make that decision at trick one. You really have to use head and ignore emotions.

Btw, all lines work. Diamond is onside and Kx of spades is with the third club.

PS: another factor is that as long as Kx is with long club, the clubs can be 3-2 or 4-1, or even 5-0 (east with 5). I don’t know if that makes a difference though

[Gilithin]

Am slightly confused by the auction - why did partner show 2 key cards with the ♠Q?

[Winstonm]

Gilithin, on 2021-September-05, 08:22, said:

Am slightly confused by the auction - why did partner show 2 key cards with the ♠Q?

4C was natural and forcing if that is your question.

[mikl_plkcc]

I'll bid 3NT to play. I can easily count at least 9 tricks and at most 11 tricks here assuming a standard 3♠ opener.

I can't see a slam happening here. I assume North holding ♠K so there are 3 Ks in the opponents. As long as there are 2 held by West, and he lead the third suit, there is no slam.

[Winstonm]

mikl_plkcc, on 2021-September-05, 13:53, said:

I'll bid 3NT to play. I can easily count at least 9 tricks and at most 11 tricks here assuming a standard 3♠ opener.

I can't see a slam happening here. I assume North holding ♠K so there are 3 Ks in the opponents. As long as there are 2 held by West, and he lead the third suit, there is no slam.

You won't like 3N on a heart lead. (see final spoiler)

[mikl_plkcc]

Winstonm, on 2021-September-05, 14:10, said:

You won't like 3N on a heart lead. (see final spoiler)

This is not a 3♠ opener for me. Preemptive opening at 1/2 seat is strictly no void (unless overcalling the void suit) and no 4-card side major. Also, with a QT9 heading, it's dubious for me to preempt at the 2nd seat as well (QJT is the minimum for me in general).

Such preemptive bids are picture bids for me that responder can easily construct the hand. With such a crappy suit disaster will definitely happen.

I can only say this 3♠ opening is crap. QT9 in the suit, a void, a side K, all are bad to attack.

[Cyberyeti]

mikl_plkcc, on 2021-September-06, 03:10, said:

This is not a 3♠ opener for me. Preemptive opening at 1/2 seat is strictly no void (unless overcalling the void suit) and no 4-card side major. Also, with a QT9 heading, it's dubious for me to preempt at the 2nd seat as well (QJT is the minimum for me in general).

Such preemptive bids are picture bids for me that responder can easily construct the hand. With such a crappy suit disaster will definitely happen.

I can only say this 3♠ opening is crap. QT9 in the suit, a void, a side K, all are bad to attack.

Quote

I can't see a slam happening here. I assume North holding ♠K so there are 3 Ks in the opponents. As long as there are 2 held by West, and he lead the third suit, there is no slam.
Winstonm

You have very weird views on preempts not shared by 99% of bridge players, I can't imagine not opening 3♠ with ♠KJ109xxx and the ♣K which is a grand barring ♠Qxx offside or ♦K where the small slam is great and the grand on a finesse.

We take the completely opposite view on first seat, there are 3 people you can mess up, only one of them is yours, but agree more on second seat.

[Winstonm]

mikl_plkcc, on 2021-September-06, 03:10, said:

This is not a 3♠ opener for me. Preemptive opening at 1/2 seat is strictly no void (unless overcalling the void suit) and no 4-card side major. Also, with a QT9 heading, it's dubious for me to preempt at the 2nd seat as well (QJT is the minimum for me in general).

Such preemptive bids are picture bids for me that responder can easily construct the hand. With such a crappy suit disaster will definitely happen.

I can only say this 3♠ opening is crap. QT9 in the suit, a void, a side K, all are bad to attack.

Early bidding thought of preempts as an extension of constructive bidding but found the defensive nature more important. Too restrictive of parameters on your preempts gives your opponents a big advantage in the bidding

[Winstonm]

Winstonm, on 2021-September-05, 09:07, said:

4C was natural and forcing if that is your question.

Note also that 6C is almost a lock.

[Gilithin]

Winstonm, on 2021-September-06, 07:21, said:

Note also that 6C is almost a lock.

It is nonetheless very unusual for a player of your ability not to be using 4♣ as an asking bid rather than natural.