clubssss

[gwnn]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skxxhxdxxcjt7xxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

If East was dealer, he either opened 1♦, 1♥ or 1♠.

 

In which of these 4 situations (1: you're dealer 2-4: RHO is dealer and opened 1♦, 1♥ or 1♠) would you bid 3♣? Why? Why not?

[cherdano]

Always 3♣.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would pass because of the poor suit Quality.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[SoTired]

put me with the crazy 3C bidders. Odds are more likely that this will disrupt the opps rather than cause us headaches.

 

East opens 1D,1H,1S is 3 situations. What is the 4th situation?

Edit: Open 3C as dealer, also.

 

Not all partners agree with my weak-suit preempts.

[gwnn]

put me with the crazy 3C bidders. Odds are more likely that this will disrupt the opps rather than cause us headaches.

 

East opens 1D,1H,1S is 3 situations. What is the 4th situation?

4th situation is you're dealer.

[Lobowolf]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skxxhxdxxcjt7xxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

If East was dealer, he either opened 1♦, 1♥ or 1♠.

 

In which of these 4 situations would you bid 3♣? Why? Why not?

None of the above. I'd do it at 3rd seat favorable (there's a 4th situation for you), and that's it.

 

 

 

It serves no lead directing purposes, and might either take partner off of what might be a natural, winning lead and/or put him onto a losing lead.

 

It helps declarer if we don't play the hand by giving away information about the strength and distribution of the defending hands.

 

I don't think that the disruptive value is particularly great, although it's there. Nowadays, responder can bid 3M competitively, cuebid with a good hand, jump raise with a preemptive hand, double to show the other major... 3♣ doesn't make the auction all THAT awkward in the 21st century (though it paves the way for partner to bid 5 or 6, which might very well do so). As against that, the playing strength is poor, and partner may misjudge to sacrifice too expensively, or even as a phantom. In hearts, declarer could be on his way to a bad heart split that he's not ready for; in spades, I could pick up a heart ruff and still have a trick coming with my K♠. In contrast, declarer's game-making trick could be blown at trick 1 by partner leading from the K♣ after my bid.

 

Best case scenario is that partner jams it up and they guess wrong, but it's almost as likely that partner will make the last guess, and THAT will be wrong.

 

IMO, some upside; lots more downside.

 

With respect to helping declarer play the hand, one of my favorite hands was one on which I passed with a hand actually a little better than the one given, and my RHO got to a major suit contract. Declarer won the opening lead, and decided to cross to dummy to take a trump finesse; the side suit he crossed in was Qxx opposite AKx, and he almost fell over dead when partner ruffed the first round of the suit.

[jdonn]

I don't think that the disruptive value is particularly great, although it's there.

It seems pretty clear that is not true.

Nowadays, responder can bid 3M competitively

Losing a level to investigate, and possibly just being too high already

cuebid with a good hand

With support you mean, right? So you have to bid 4♣ instead of 2NT, how is that not disruptive?

jump raise with a preemptive hand

A jump raise doesn't even show a preemptive hand!

double to show the other major

If you have the right length in it. What if you have five and not quite enough to bid? Even if you can double, you are far from guaranteed to find a fit and the preempt has clearly disrupted you. To say nothing of the potential rebid problems opener might have after you double. And even if you bid your major, you lost TWO levels! 1♥ (3♣) 3♠, does opener raise with a doubleton? Rebid a six card suit? What if he is 1543 with no club stopper? What if responder is 5-5 in spades and diamonds and opener rebids 3NT or 4♥? Just because responder had an easy bid to make doesn't mean the preempt didn't do its job.

3♣ doesn't make the auction all THAT awkward in the 21st century

 

Again you seem to be mixing up concepts. Just because people have (supposedly) come up with very good meanings for all the bids in these situations doesn't mean their auction hasn't been completely disrupted.

 

Preempting on this seems quite clear to me in general. Too much to gain. But even if you disagree, it should certainly not be because you think the disruption in the opponents auction is not there.

[SoTired]

Preempt, preempt, preempt... 40 years ago when the dbls were penalty and most bidding was seat-of-the-pants, it made more sense to have constructive preempts, but nowadays, you have to get the opps out of their powerful, fancy bidding tools and back into seat-of-pants bidding.

[rogerclee]

Not bidding 3♣ on this hand is really bad.

[Guest Jlall]

3C always, also jdonn I was about to make almost the same reply as you wtf B)

[kfay]

If I didn't open 3♣ on this hand my regular partner wouldn't shut up about it for at least 2 weeks.

[awm]

I would not open 3♣ on this hand. If partner has a good hand (fairly likely) then he will far too often judge incorrectly about our correct contract, expecting me to have a better suit. There is also the possibility of partner leading a club against a contract by LHO, which could easily be a disaster (especially from Ax or Kx).

 

If opponents open things change a bit. Now it is much less likely that partner has a good hand, and it is more likely to be the opponents I am interfering with. Also, with the points on my right it is fairly likely that if the opponents win the auction I will be on lead (say after a negative double or a raise by LHO).

 

So I'd bid 3♣ over any of 1♦, 1♥, 1♠ by RHO but would pass in first chair.

[Lobowolf]

I don't think that the disruptive value is particularly great, although it's there.

It seems pretty clear that is not true.

Nowadays, responder can bid 3M competitively

Losing a level to investigate, and possibly just being too high already

cuebid with a good hand

With support you mean, right? So you have to bid 4♣ instead of 2NT, how is that not disruptive?

jump raise with a preemptive hand

A jump raise doesn't even show a preemptive hand!

double to show the other major

If you have the right length in it. What if you have five and not quite enough to bid? Even if you can double, you are far from guaranteed to find a fit and the preempt has clearly disrupted you. To say nothing of the potential rebid problems opener might have after you double. And even if you bid your major, you lost TWO levels! 1♥ (3♣) 3♠, does opener raise with a doubleton? Rebid a six card suit? What if he is 1543 with no club stopper? What if responder is 5-5 in spades and diamonds and opener rebids 3NT or 4♥? Just because responder had an easy bid to make doesn't mean the preempt didn't do its job.

3♣ doesn't make the auction all THAT awkward in the 21st century

 

Again you seem to be mixing up concepts. Just because people have (supposedly) come up with very good meanings for all the bids in these situations doesn't mean their auction hasn't been completely disrupted.

 

Preempting on this seems quite clear to me in general. Too much to gain. But even if you disagree, it should certainly not be because you think the disruption in the opponents auction is not there.

 

And even if you think the upside outweighs the downside, and even if you think it FAR outweighs the downside, if you're being intellectually honest, you have to admit there's some downside, too.

It's pretty clear that the disruptive value of a 3♣ bid is "particularly great"? Gotta disagree.

 

As I mentioned in my initial post, my disagreement isn't based on the premise that the disruption "is not there," but that its value is limited, and that there's a lot of downside to the action in addition to the upside it provides. Sure, I'd rather respond to 1M - (P) than 1M - (3♣); having said that, though, I'd rather play any contract having heard one opponent throw in a 3-level bid than play the same contract with both opponents having passed. I'd also rather make my lead decisions free from the influence of partner's bidding a jack-high suit, and I'd like to make my competitive bidding decisions based on my partner's preempts having more playing strength (at least except at favorable vulnerability).

 

Even if you disagree, it should be based on something I said (that the disruption of a 3♣ isn't great) and not something that I didn't (that the disruption of a 3♣ bid isn't there). And even if you think the upside outweighs the downside (and even if you think it FAR outweighs the downside), if you're being intellectually honest, you have to admit, there's some downside, too.

[jdonn]

Sorry I'm not going to argue with the semantics police.

[Lobowolf]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skxxhxdxxcjt7xxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

If East was dealer, he either opened 1♦, 1♥ or 1♠.

 

In which of these 4 situations (1: you're dealer 2-4: RHO is dealer and opened 1♦, 1♥ or 1♠) would you bid 3♣? Why? Why not?

It's also worth noting that part of the answer is dependent on partnership agreement/understanding, which will maximize the benefit of whichever way you go on this. If your understanding is that you're always going to jam up the auction, or you're always going to jam it up when you're not vulnerable, then you get the advantages of jamming it up, and some of the corresponding disadvantages (lead direction, competitive decisions) are mitigated, because partner won't take your 3♣ bid too seriously. If your agreement/understanding is that hands like this should usually be passed, you don't get the advantage of disruption as often, but when you do, partner will on balance have better information regarding his leads, or his competitive decisions.

[Echognome]

Clearly it cannot be answered definitely without simulations as it's the only proof.

[peachy]

I would only Pass this as dealer vulneranle 2nd seat and of course any time in 4th seat if nobody opened (this hardly possible to happen).

Otherwise, 3C open or overcall looks clear to me.

[helene_t]

Clearly it cannot be answered definitely without simulations as it's the only proof.

Hey Han will you please stop using Matt's account :)

[jvage]

I am a preemptor, but partnership style is also a factor. I once played a tournament with a player who became so upset by my preempts that we both knew it would be our only tournament together. As it happened all 3 preempts he disagreed with were successful and we won the tournament with less margin than we won on these 3 boards :)

 

Since all posters so far are either passers or preemptors it is worth noting that there is a significant difference between the 3 situations where RHO opened (Josh did touch into this aspect). It is much more attractive bidding 3♣ over 1♦ than over 1♥/♠. After a majoropening LHO can safely support with 3+. Over 1♦ there are many difficult responding hands with only one major-suit, while the diamondholding is less important after a majoropening when considering a negative double. Even if LHO manage to double with 43 majors and is lucky to find partner with 44 they are not guaranteed to find their 44 fit.

[gwnn]

For those of you wjoing with no qualm, would you also come in over 1N?

[Guest Jlall]

For those of you wjoing with no qualm, would you also come in over 1N?

Yes if I played methods that made a 3C bid primarily WEAK, but I do not play those methods so no.

[peachy]

For those of you wjoing with no qualm, would you also come in over 1N?

If the meaning of 3C overcall on their 1NT opening is "weak/preemptive" then yes.

[the hog]

Pass. I think 3C with this hand is a really bad bid.

[Lobowolf]

I think the benefits of the 3♣ bid, when it works, are obvious and sometimes spectacular, which somewhat skews the perception of the aggressive preempt; the benefits of pass, when it "works" aren't even always recognized as ancillary to the pass, e.g. 4♥ off 1 at one table where declarer bangs down the AK of trump, and 4♥ making at the other table where declarer picks up Qxx in the hand of the preemptor's partner.

[pclayton]

I think the benefits of the 3♣ bid, when it works, are obvious and sometimes spectacular, which somewhat skews the perception of the aggressive preempt; the benefits of pass, when it "works" aren't even always recognized as ancillary to the pass, e.g. 4♥ off 1 at one table where declarer bangs down the AK of trump, and 4♥ making at the other table where declarer picks up Qxx in the hand of the preemptor's partner.

Or we find a cheap sac against 4♥, or they miss a slam when RHO is jammed over 5♣ and can't make a strong raise of 3♦/♠.

 

Bidding could be wrong, but our shape is security against going for a huge number.

 

Its a bidder's game after all.