[Cascade]

---

I had various opinions on this one.

What call do you make?

What other calls do you seriously consider making?

There was no further description to 3♣ other than pre-emptive.

The class of player is International player.

[WellSpyder]

It's hard to be sure without knowing what sort of hand this pair expect the pre-emptive 3♣ to be, but I must admit my answers would be a) I pass and b) I don't seriously consider any other calls. I imagine this hand has something in reserve, but I don't think that entitles you to overrule partner's opinion. If partner's 3♦ bid is intended more like a response to an opening pre-empt, however, then that is another matter....

[campboy]

I pass without considering anything else. I described my hand and partner said "ok, but we're still better off in diamonds".

[gnasher]

If I haven't discussed the strength for 3♦, it might be intended as a signoff, as constructive, or as forcing. In the latter two cases, I would want to bid something, either 3♠ or 4♦.

Hence I seriously consider pass, 3♠ and 4♦. I'd probably choose 3♠, as the least committal action.

[billw55]

If 3♣ is the system bid for this hand, then I don't think "preemptive" is the right description. But that's another story.

Anyway, given this description, I suppose 3♣ is nonforcing. That makes partner's 3♦ optional, and so it should show a legit suit, not a best-I-could-do bid. So I guess I pass.

If these are internationals perhaps 1♦ is something other than ordinary?

[Cascade]

billw55, on 2012-January-25, 07:20, said:

If these are internationals perhaps 1♦ is something other than ordinary?

1♦ was (fairly) standard. I am not sure if they were playing 4+ or 3+ cards.

[Trinidad]

It is just not possible that 3♦ was meant to improve the contract. It must show a big hand.

I would bid 3♠. I am too strong for 4♣ (my LA) and, for me, pass is not an LA.

Rik

[sasioc]

It feels like if partner had a 3♦ opening with something outside, which is roughly what I think I'd be playing him for by considering his bid to be a sign off, he might have just dropped 3♣ given that he knows we have not discussed what 3♦ means. I know that if I held a hand that wanted to sign off in 3♦ facing a 3♣ bid I would probably pass to make it clear to partner that I did not have a good hand and prevent a mess up at a higher level. Another consideration is that oppo haven't come in where I expect them to have at least one major fit, possibly a large one. If partner had a weakish opening hand with lots of diamonds it would have increased the chance that one of them could take action (although I do realise that west could have a pretty tough time coming in).

I think it more likely that partner has some sort of good hand - the next question is whether he thinks 3♦ is forcing or not. Given that I'm unsure and that my hand is pretty good (depending on exactly what I've shown with 3♣) I'll try to find a bid, in this case 3♠ because p is unlikely to think I have four of them or any big honour in spades for my initial bid, so will hopefully know what I do have.

[Vampyr]

sasioc, on 2012-January-25, 15:19, said:

I think it more likely that partner has some sort of good hand - the next question is whether he thinks 3♦ is forcing or not. Given that I'm unsure and that my hand is pretty good (depending on exactly what I've shown with 3♣) I'll try to find a bid, in this case 3♠ because p is unlikely to think I have four of them or any big honour in spades for my initial bid, so will hopefully know what I do have.

I don't play weak jump shifts, but it seems likely that 3♦ is at least constructive, and most likely forcing. How can it be an attempt to improve the contract opposite a hand that may contribute zero tricks in a diamond contract?

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-25, 18:00, said:

I don't play weak jump shifts, but it seems likely that 3♦ is at least constructive, and most likely forcing. How can it be an attempt to improve the contract opposite a hand that may contribute zero tricks in a diamond contract?

Correct. Only novices bid 3D as an "I want to play in 3D" bid opposite a partner who has "pre-empted".

[Cascade]

At the table south's 3♣ was alerted and described as invitational or better with diamond support.

South passed thus limiting the damage to a few 50s when some further action could lead to the auction spiraling out of control and perhaps ending up doubled at a higher level. After all partner would interpret 3♠ or the like as the 'or better' hand either with a choice of games or slam interest.

Has south carefully avoided taking advantage of the UI?

[mr1303]

In my opinion, no. I believe some of 3S, 4C etc as LAs, and pass is suggested by the UI, so pass is therefore disallowed. How I rule would depend on what partner would bid after each of these other bids.

[Cascade]

mr1303, on 2012-January-26, 08:09, said:

In my opinion, no. I believe some of 3S, 4C etc as LAs, and pass is suggested by the UI, so pass is therefore disallowed. How I rule would depend on what partner would bid after each of these other bids.

Partner's hand was:

---

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2012-January-26, 06:49, said:

Has south carefully avoided taking advantage of the UI?

I also say no.

[dburn]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-25, 18:00, said:

I don't play weak jump shifts, but it seems likely that 3♦ is at least constructive, and most likely forcing. How can it be an attempt to improve the contract opposite a hand that may contribute zero tricks in a diamond contract?

Your hand is:

♠A32 ♥AK2 ♦KQJ10987 ♣None

You open 1♦. Partner bids 3♣, a weak jump shift. What call do you make?

If you would bid 3♦ (as I would, because I am pretty sure that my prospects there are better than partner's prospects in 3♣, and it is not clear to me that any game will make on a spade lead) then you would hope that your partner would pass it and not bid 3♠ on three to the ten. Sometimes these threads descend swiftly into self-parody, but this one appears to have done so faster than most.

[Vampyr]

dburn, on 2012-January-26, 21:32, said:

open 1♦. Partner bids 3♣, a weak jump shift. What call do you make?

Surely weak jump shifts are popular enough that there must be a standard meaning for continuations. Does anyone know what this is?

[gnasher]

dburn, on 2012-January-26, 21:32, said:

Your hand is:

♠A32 ♥AK2 ♦KQJ10987 ♣None

You open 1♦. Partner bids 3♣, a weak jump shift. What call do you make?

If you would bid 3♦ (as I would, because I am pretty sure that my prospects there are better than partner's prospects in 3♣, and it is not clear to me that any game will make on a spade lead) then you would hope that your partner would pass it and not bid 3♠ on three to the ten. Sometimes these threads descend swiftly into self-parody, but this one appears to have done so faster than most.

If partner did bid 3♠ on three to the ten and ♣AK, you might bid 3NT, which appears to be about 70% a priori and rather more given the bidding. Or maybe, inferring a heart shortage opposite, you'd reach 6♦, which needs a trump lead to beat it. Was this example intended to demonstrate the benefts of playing 3♦ as constructive?

[campboy]

Cascade, on 2012-January-26, 06:49, said:

Has south carefully avoided taking advantage of the UI?

Who can say? It is entirely possible that he has, if he thought pass was automatic. Surely the right question for the TD is your earlier one: "are there logical alternatives to pass?"

[AlexJonson]

Pass and no other bids considered.

The kind of hand dburn uses in illustration was the kind that came to mind. You can tweak it if you like - for me you could take away the King of hearts, or the ace of hearts for that matter. Such details are hardly the point.

If people in real life play opening suit rebid as constructive/forcing in this context, then fine. I wouldn't, and if I did, I wouldn't without discussion.

[gordontd]

AlexJonson, on 2012-January-27, 05:39, said:

Pass and no other bids considered.

The kind of hand dburn uses in illustration was the kind that came to mind. You can tweak it if you like - for me you could take away the King of hearts, or the ace of hearts for that matter. Such details are hardly the point.

If people in real life play opening suit rebid as constructive/forcing in this context, then fine. I wouldn't, and if I did, I wouldn't without discussion.

I'm glad to have an opportunity to agree with AlexJonson with without reservation

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2012-January-27, 17:57