What would you do here?

[Klaymen]

This came up at the Monday game. MN passed and I opened 3:sp: with

:sp: QJTxxxx
:ht: Txx
:dm: QTx
:cl: -

Partner bid 3NT. Do you let it ride or pull to 4:sp:?

Partner's hand:

:sp: K4
:ht: AKJ3
:dm: A932
:cl: A32

I was very surprised that my partner didn't bid 4 spades. 3NT went down immediately on a club lead. Partner however countered and asked, "Isn't this the kind of hand you would insist on pulling to 4S?" I don't think so but I'll await comments.

[4sigma]

Preempt requirements vary considerably by seat and vul (and somewhat by quality of opponents -- stronger opponents require more preemption.) I think you're in 2nd seat here? You haven't mentioned the vul.

MNBridge is of course a respectable opponent. I hope he takes it as a compliment that you preempted 3:sp: against him on this collection. :D This is a pretty ratty preempt, as you have a 7+ loser hand (EB, feel free to point out that according to Gestalt LTC, QTx is nearly 3 losers rather than 2.) Still, the 7330 distribution is a plus, and against decent opposition I would commit a 3:sp: preempt in 2nd seat, except at unfavorable vul.

IMHO, Partner has made an error by bidding 3NT rather than 4:sp:. Possible matchpoint greed, hoping to find you with :sp: AQxxxxx, and both 3NT and 4:sp: are taking the same number of tricks? This is a calculated risk, which somewhat depends on any discussion you've had about how sound your preempts are in 2nd seat. If he thinks spades running is better than 50-50, he has a reasonable case to defend his 3NT bid. In my preempting style, however, I would expect him to bid 4:sp:. Maybe I'm just a psychotic preempter, however. YMMV.

I would not correct 3NT to 4:sp: with your hand, though I might be tempted. I consider that pulling 3NT would show a lack of confidence in partner. And when partner holds --- KQJ AKJ9xxx KQT, he's going to be rather annoyed that you pulled his 3NT. :)

[Steve White]

I've described my hand well. Partner is captain. I would have to be 7-4 to consider pulling, and might not pull anyway.

Partner made a wild gamble except at unfavorable vul. Even at unfavorable, I don't like his bid. There's some chance, as on this hand, that 3NT would go down. Even when the spades run, as they usually would do at unfavorable, 4S may make 6 when 3NT makes only 5.

[MNBridge]

I pass.

Bidding again after a preempt (that very clearly describes the hand) only leads to partnership problems.

P should bid 4 :sp: . But that's only because he can see his hand. You can't, so you should not bid 4 :sp: for him.

I'd rather have a P discuss bidding afterward than mastermind me or take over the partnership.

Also: I 100% agree that 3 :sp: perfectly describes this hand. In general I avoid preempting in 2nd seat (though probably still would here).
Figure both the other players have a good chance of having opening count.
Bidding may easily go 1 apple, 1 pear
Now I can bid 4 :sp: over any bid p makes.

The idea of the preempt is to keep ops out of bidding. But once one op has passed even with a substandard hand my P's has is expected to be better that it previously had, and if it's not then LHO probably has a monster and will get them to game anyway.

Thoughts? -- And please answer CB's question also I do not want to hijack. :)

[E. Blackadder]

It's not close. Pass. The only reason for preempting and rebidding is if one has an exceptional hand. This ain't it.

Perhaps you could reason that partner doesn't know what he's doing when he bids 3NT. If that were my opinion, I would either change my preemptive openings or my partner.

..

Thanks, 4Sigma for your comment. What does your new avatar signify?

[Klaymen]

I was in second seat, nobody was vulnerable, and it was IMPs not matchpoints. Your responses don't surprise me, but I wanted a few extra opinions.

[oirg]

You should pass 3N.

On this particular set of hands, your partner erred in bidding 3N, especially at IMPs.

[E. Blackadder]

Your responses don't surprise me, but I wanted a few extra opinions.
My doctor once told me I was fat. I asked for a second opinion and he said I was ugly, too.

[4sigma]

I was in second seat, nobody was vulnerable, and it was IMPs not matchpoints. Your responses don't surprise me, but I wanted a few extra opinions.

IMPS? Partner bid 3NT at IMPS?! This is simply an error. 4:sp: is mandatory with that hand at IMPS. If partner is normally a good player, give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he had his :sp:K in with his clubs. Though even that hand should bid 4:sp: anyway.

[4sigma]

Thanks, 4Sigma for your comment. No problem. I figured you'd want it in there as close to the start of the thread as possible.

What does your new avatar signify? It's SSH's "Treasure Hunt" avatar. I'm subtly gloating. :D

[4sigma]

Upon reflection, 6:sp: or 4NT (if you play RKCB and he can check on the Q of trump) by partner is more defensible than 3NT. He has 5 1/2 tricks opposite your preempt (which should have 6 tricks to begin with in 2nd seat.) Slam is likely on a finesse.

Of course 6:sp: has no play on the given hand, but that's because the initial 3:sp: preempt is a bit light for 2nd seat. And note that if you switch the red suits in one of the hands, 6:sp: is unbeatable.

[oirg]

And note that if you switch the red suits in one of the hands, 6:sp: is unbeatable.

This is not correct. An opening lead in the suit that is Axxx opposite 10xx will defeat 6S.

[4sigma]

This is not correct. An opening lead in the suit that is Axxx opposite 10xx will defeat 6S.

I stand corrected. :oops: I guess partner needs QJTxxxx xx Kxx x or AJTxxxx xxx xx x in order to make 6:sp: as good as 50%.

Still, I'd be sympathetic to a slam try from the strong hand. 6:sp: can be made opposite many normal preempts.