Are you a purest or a basher?

[Echognome]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=s9hqt54d4ckqjt952]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Declared only one hand tonight in 27 boards! Ugh. Anyway, will give you a couple of opponent's and partner's problems instead.

 

In the pub afterwards, this hand came up for discussion as it was bid quite differently at many tables.

 

Are you going to open up some number of clubs or pass?

[Guest Jlall]

4C. Not enough D for me for 1C. Pass is just not who I am :) 3C leaves 3N in play but grossly understates the playing strength here. 5C is too much.

[mike777]

1c if playing with a partner who has a glass in hand.

[pclayton]

Old partner told me to preempt with the lower ranking suits.

 

4♣ at favorable. If I miss 4♥ - too bad.

[whereagles]

At imps, 3♣. At mps, 4.

[Gerben42]

4♣, assuming I'm dealing as South because then the vuln. is favorable.

If unfavorable then 3♣.

 

No 1♣ here. DEFENCE!

[Chamaco]

Nobody passes this hand in 1st/2nd seat ?

 

I would not prempt (but pass instead) if pard is unpassed hand because of Kit Woolsey's 2 flaw principle ("When in doubt for a marginal call/distorting bid, do not do it if the hand has 2+ flaws compared to the 'ideal' hand you promise") :

 

Flaw 1= a side 4 card major;

i would not consider it too big of a flaw if the 4 bagger were 9532, but the actual 4 bagger is instead far from worthless

 

Flaw 2= 74 shape (even if the side 4 bagger was not a major) is VERY strong, especially with this texture. Preempting will cool down pard's expectations if he holds a normal hand

 

Flaw 3 = the level of the preempt.

I am unsatisfied with neither the 3 or 4 level: 3C is little obstructive, 4C is too high and potentially preempts pard too much, I like to preempt to 4C only with long suits but very weak.

This of course depends on the standards of strength the partnership has agreed for a 4-level minor preempt.

 

=====

 

However I indeed would preempt in 3rd seat.

[joker_gib]

You're not alone, Mauro ! :D

 

I agree with you ! :)

 

Alain

[Fluffy]

3♣ don't wanna bypass 3♥ nor 3NT, and I play 4♣ as transfer :)

[Blofeld]

Would consider pass, and 1♣, but likely to just bid 5♣.

 

Personally I really dislike a 3♣ call on this. 4♣ seems reasonable, but I'm still young and prefer the 5-level. I have a nice suit, and very little in the way of defence.

[42]

Pass in 1. and 2. position. Mauro said, why.

 

Caren

[Gerben42]

Flaw 2= 74 shape

 

You're counting this twice. I don't have a 1st round control, that's a good thing.

 

Flaw 3 = the level of the preempt.

 

I don't see this as a flaw either.

 

So flaw equals 1, bid equals 4♣.

[helene_t]

4♣. This hand is almost ideal. Give it one extra flaw and I might think about it.

[shoeless]

Intuitively I pass - if I think about it I will likely do something really stupid.

[Chamaco]

Flaw 2= 74 shape

 

You're counting this twice. I don't have a 1st round control, that's a good thing.

 

Flaw 3 = the level of the preempt.

 

I don't see this as a flaw either.

 

So flaw equals 1, bid equals 4♣.

No , flaw 1 and 2 are different flaw types:

 

 

1) having a side 4 bagger is bad for any "preempt", even 54, 64 or 74, even if we do not have game.

This has 2 efects:

 

a- potentially not finding a 44 fit

b- even if we do not have a fit, it increasing the chances we have sidesuit losers.

 

2) I chose the wrong words for "flaw 2", I should not have referred to the 74 shape but rather to the overall strength of the hand, which in this case is not ONLY the effect of the 74 shape but also of the suits texture.

The same could be said if the hand held, say, KTx in hearts (1-3-2-7 shape)instead of QTxx, so this flaw is not the duplication of the fact of having a side 4 bagger.

 

The hand is potentially VERY strong (5.5 losers, in offence, the equivalent of a reverse, if we find a fit) , too strong for a preempt,which makes more likely we miss either 3NT or game/slam.

Of course this depends on the level of your 4m preempts.

Do you preempt, at favourable, to 4m with one of the following hands ?

x-x-xxx-QJT8xxxx or

xx-x-xxx-QJT8xxx

 

If you do, you cannot bid the same with the hand posted, because pard will play you for a weaker hand and will be unable to cooperate intelligently when he has a good hand.

 

-------

 

Furthermore, there is one more flaw i did not mention explicitly, but that should be mentioned (it is indeed considered a flaw both by Woolsey in "Matchpoints" and by Anderson/Zenkel in "Preempts from A to Z"): the fact that pard is unpassed hand.

This should be added to the list of flaws when considering offshape preempts.

[pbleighton]

A close call. My preference is 4C.

 

1C, 3C, and 5C are possible, though 3C is chicken.

 

I would NEVER pass this hand. The bridge gods don't deal you good 7 card suits at favorable vulnerability so that you can pass.

 

Peter

[inquiry]

I don't like 4♣ preempts showing clubs (showing hearts, ok). That passes 3NT. I don't mind preempt with side four card suits, even majors. So the four card major flaw (1) and the 74 flaw are not a huge concern.

 

For ZAR fans this one 26, but I would not open 1♣, PLEAZE.....

 

The vulnerability is entiicing (them red, we not), and I have at least 6 tricks in my hand, so I don't mind putting everyone to the guess. So I would open 3NT. Now I know, most of you play this as "gambling" with solid running suit. I play this as non-specific preempt to 4 of a minor (either). Seems just about right on values given the vul.

[Al_U_Card]

You're not alone, Mauro ! :D

 

I agree with you ! ;)

 

Alain

Ditto, in 1st or 2nd who am i preempting?

[mike777]

You're not alone, Mauro ! :D

 

I agree with you !  ;)

 

Alain

Ditto, in 1st or 2nd who am i preempting?

A one bid can be quite preemptive in first or second seat to the opp's. At times I am surprised how often.

[hrothgar]

5♣

 

Burgess's Rule....

[Guest Jlall]

5♣

 

Burgess's Rule....

Which is?

[hrothgar]

5♣

 

Burgess's Rule....

Which is?

7-4 hands should be opened at the game level

[SoTired]

4C --- but 5C have reasonable arguments.

3C is not enough as this is a 5-loser hand at favorable vul. If you are worried about missing 3N, you might never open 4m. If partner has CA and enough to make 3N, probably making 5C, anyway.

 

I don't consider 4h a flaw. Even if partner has 4h, clubs probably play better.

 

1C!!! With 8hcp! and ZERO defensive tricks. Come on... You never preempt with that philosophy. This is a 7-card suit with 8hcp. Let's focus people. Worst case scenario - 1C 1S X p 2H and partner starts marching to slam. When partner bids 4N and you show ZERO keycards, partner signs off in 5HX, down many when the club suit does not run because partner can't get to it because dummy got forced a few times early on.

[mike777]

ya good point...better to rebid 2clubs not 2h :ph34r: You sure do not want to put this hand down so p sees your opening bid. As has been said many times 7-4 hands play better in 7-1 fit than your 4-4 fits :ph34r:.

[han]

I think the scenario sketched by so-tired is actually the best possible scenario!!

 

The only reason to open 1C on this hand is to find a heart fit. As dummy in a heart contract you have nothing to be ashamed of. This hand is much better (in support of hearts) than your average balanced 12-count.

 

No, problems start when partner has spades, or tries for 3NT, or worst, starts doubling the opponents.

 

I prefer to play 4C as clubs when I have this hand (and as namyats when I have those hands :ph34r: ). If 4C is not available then I will open 5C, not 3C. We're only favorable once every 4 hands, I'm not going waste this opportunity by being conservative.