Before moving on to more hands, maybe a pause to talk about bidding, both agreements and choices, is worthwhile.
On the first round:
Had the bidding gone 1
- X -P, I like the agreement that 2
is strong (not forcing but strong) but a double jump to 3
is preemptive.
Otoh, after 1
- X - XX I like to play that even 2
is preemptive.
After the actual auction, 1
- X - 1
, I think 2
is still strong, 3
is preemptive, just as if third hand had passed.
That's about agreements. Now for choices. I find a first round 3
very tempting, it depends on vulnerability. And of course on agreements.
Next: After 1
- X - 1
- 1
, I certainly would play 3
as forward going, not preemptive. I have opened, partner has made a constructive call, I bid 2
competitively, but 3
is encouraging. Given that, I do not understand the pass by S. He would have bid 1
with considerably less, his partner has shown extras, what's not to like? I assume S took 3
as a preempt. That would not be my style.
But S did pass 3
. Now W has a choice.
As W, I would not consider 3
. I have no defense against 4
. Partner did not contest with 3
and so does not have all that much to offer. I would have the pass card on the table in record time expecting them to easily score up 170. As they should. I am not giving them another shot at bidding their game.
After the 3
and then the 4
, I think E should be wary of that X. It is fair for him to expect a little more from his partner, since W had, in my opinion, a clear pass with his actual hand, but still I would just pass and hope. E might figure that it was not all that clear that they were making 3
(they weren't) and if 4
also goes down this is already a pretty good deal, being rescued from a failing contract EW to a failing contract NS, while if 4
is making then X only makes it worse.
Of course 4
X went down, so all of this seems wrong. But really 4
should not go down.
We all choose as best we can, but a partnership could use this hand to discuss which calls they view as preemptive and which calls they view as forward going.
It's also interesting to speculate on just how many tricks EW would take in a spade contract. I think that they can be held to 7 tricks but it would not surprise me if they managed to take 8. I think an immediate preemptive 3
has merit, at least at favorably vulnerability. It might keep them from finding their heart game. Without the preempt, if they are willing to stop in 3
, favor letting them.