[cherdanno]

xcurt, on Jun 7 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

Why isn't anyone considering the likely damage in 7♦? I'm betting on 1400 away, which means the save is a very bad idea over an opposing 6M. We aren't playing BAM.

I would guess 1100, with 1400 a little more likely than 800 - just ♦AKxxxx with three hearts gives us 8 tricks. He could have 7 diamonds, or ♦AJxxxx with an outside trick (♣Kx), expecting 1400 seems a little pessimistic to me.
Nevertheless, your point that the premium is high seems right. I convinced myself to bid 6♦, and be done with that.

[jdonn]

Betting on 1400? You are one unlucky soul.

Anyway apologies for being a bit redundant, but if you believe you are going for 1400, and you believe your opponents don't have a grand (I don't agree that either assumption is worth assuming but let's go with it) then bidding 7♦ now is either win 1 or win 17 vs your teammates slam depending on whether or not the opponents guess right. If you bid 6 planning to bid 7 if needed, then you are badly hurting your chances to win 17 in an effort to try to win 8.

But since I think 1100 is much more likely than 1400 and 800 is about equally as likely as 1400, I'll do it all over again. Bid 7 now is win 8 or win 17. Bid 6 first hurts your chances at 17 in an effort to win just 4 more than the 8 you would win for being in 7. If you are going for 800 then bidding 7 is win 12 or win 17. Bidding 6 first hurts your odds of 17 in an effort to win just 2 extra!

And of course if your opponents really have a grand they will be on a much harder time figuring that out if you bid 7 right away than if you bid 6 or 5 first.

I mean despite all the above (sorry if it was incomprehensible, my point was the gains from playing 6♦X compared to 7♦X pale in comparison to the gains from making opponents guess wrong) this is such a simple situation to me. You bid to your highest intended level right away when sacrificing because your opponents will guess wrong a lot more often, and that's where the big imp gains are. I don't understand why some people who know this is the right strategy at lower levels all of a sudden change their minds at high levels.

[cherdanno]

Josh, why are you so sure they are making 6? Maybe 7♦ is lose PLENTY with -1100 against +100 in their 6M.
If we knew they are making 6, then I would agree that 7♦ is better than 6♦.

[jdonn]

My point isn't not to bid 6, it's not to bid 6 then 7. I was just arguing it in the context of my chosen bid.

I do think it's a lot more likely than not they make 6 though. And at this vul I just don't think you can afford to let them play it, even going for 1100 is a sizable gain against a slam, bigger than 420 vs. 170 for example.

[Cascade]

If partner has a semi-normal pre-empt 6-9 or so with 6 or 7 diamonds then I think it is pretty likely that they will have a slam.

The biggest danger of a high pre-empt is when partner has something a bit off-beat (but normal for many in third seat) with some defense.

[the hog]

Cascade, on Jun 8 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

If partner has a semi-normal pre-empt 6-9 or so with 6 or 7 diamonds then I think it is pretty likely that they will have a slam.

The biggest danger of a high pre-empt is when partner has something a bit off-beat (but normal for many in third seat) with some defense.

That is exactly the point that i was making. A third seat 3D bid can actually be quite good. Seriously, would two aces really surprise?

[Codo]

I still wait for the opponents who bid a grand after something like 3 ♦ double 5♦. Yes in theory, in the post mortem and here they always do with confidence. But I did not face it at the table.

But I would be glad to defend against 7♦ doubled. This is a sure plus.
Maybe it is less good then an own slam, but it is which much lesser risk.

Partner has a 3 seat pre-empt. This could be anything.


I guess I try 5 ♦.

[Free]

Nobody in for some fooling around with a 4♠ bid?

[Apollo81]

cherdanno, on Jun 8 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

Josh, why are you so sure they are making 6? Maybe 7♦ is lose PLENTY with -1100 against +100 in their 6M.
If we knew they are making 6, then I would agree that 7♦ is better than 6♦.

I'd think they'd be making grand at least half the time, and making 6 at least 90% of the time.

[kfay]

Apollo81, on Jun 8 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 8 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

Josh, why are you so sure they are making 6? Maybe 7♦ is lose PLENTY with -1100 against +100 in their 6M.
If we knew they are making 6, then I would agree that 7♦ is better than 6♦.

I'd think they'd be making grand at least half the time, and making 6 at least 90% of the time.

Agree/disagree. With my partners they are making slam like 98% of the time.

[skjaeran]

This really comes down to your 3rd seat preempting style.
I'd be careful here playing with myself.

If I know partner doesn't preempt with stuff in third seat, I strongly agree with Josh in going straight to 7♦.

[Cascade]

Free, on Jun 9 2009, 01:05 AM, said:

Nobody in for some fooling around with a 4♠ bid?

I think it is unlikely to work as a passed hand.

[the hog]

skaeran, on Jun 9 2009, 02:00 AM, said:

This really comes down to your 3rd seat preempting style.
I'd be careful here playing with myself.

snipped

Uh, Harald, do you do this often? You could go blind you know.

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on Jun 7 2009, 11:43 PM, said:

What would 2D have shown? I wish pard were in first seat, then 7D is easy. So now we have to have a gadget to uncover the nature of the 3d bid.

I wouldn't want to have such a gadget. If you know you bid at the par level, opps will know as well.

I would just bid some number of diamonds. 5, 6 or 7, don't feel strongly about it. We might be too high, or too low. But then opps might misjudge as well.

[skjaeran]

The_Hog, on Jun 9 2009, 02:38 AM, said:

skaeran, on Jun 9 2009, 02:00 AM, said:

This really comes down to your 3rd seat preempting style.
I'd be careful here playing with myself.

snipped

Uh, Harald, do you do this often? You could go blind you know.

LOL, an uninteded joke.
Of course I refuse to answer your question, but I'm still not blind.....