3S - 3N

[rob88s]

Hi Guys,

 

Playing a fairly constructive vul 3♠ opening, should you, or are you allowed to remove partner's 3NT with certain ♠ holdings?

[pooltuna]

Hi Guys,

 

Playing a fairly constructive vul 3♠ opening, should you, or are you allowed to remove partner's 3NT with certain ♠ holdings?

 

Your partner has to be William Bligh (so what if he was innocent, his reputation precedes him :) )

[helene_t]

The short answer is no.

 

Maybe with something like QJTxxxxx-(void)-xxxx-x but not everyone opens 3♠ with that hand. If you have something resembling a textbook 3♠ opening you should certainly pass.

[ArtK78]

I cannot imagine any hand that would open 3♠ that should act over 3NT, unless the opening 3♠ bid was a psyche.

[barmar]

In general, when you preempt or open NT, partner becomes the captain. You've described your hand pretty narrowly.

[wyman]

If you have something resembling a textbook 3♠ opening you should certainly pass.

This.

 

If you have something that doesn't resemble a textbook 3S opening, there's no law that says you have to pass. But you and partner need to be on the same wavelength about this.

 

You also may have issues if partner does not bid 3N in tempo and you bid again.

[nigel_k]

I don't believe in passing in first seat with really shapely hands just because they don't look like a 'typical' preempt. You can have an agreement about playing strength (sound, average or aggressive) which will dictate the level to which you preempt. But your standards should not mandate a pass on distributional hands.

 

With something like QJT9xxx - Jxxx xx you might open either 2♠ or 3♠ when vulnerable. If partner bids 3NT there are two possibilities:

 

1) Partner has nine tricks in their own hand in 3NT but there are four losers in spades

2) Partner has a fitting spade honour and a hand that looks like nine tricks may be easier than ten when your preempt is more typical.

 

Act according to which you think is most likely.

[mycroft]

"playing a fairly constructive [preempt style]" - is explicitly going to pass on hands that Nigel, for instance, will open. So will I. But I don't claim to play constructive preempts (of majors - I happen to like 1/2-seat 3m openers that say "partner, feel free to bid 3NT", but I've played every style I can think of, from super-sound to insanely aggressive to hugely wide-ranging).

 

But, given the constraints, where second-seat vul, QJT9xxx -- Jxxx xx isn't even close to a 3♠ opener, and partner will freak right out if it happens to be wrong, whether you end up 3Sx-4, or 4Sxx-1, or 3NT-5; if you opened 3♠ and you think you're in bounds for your call, you sit 3NT. Partner Knows What You Have - that's why you play constructive preempts, right? (It's not because the preemptive value is higher than wide-ranging, purely aggressive, or "hope-to-survive" preempts, I'm sure)

 

Are you allowed to pull 3NT? Sure, the Laws say you can make any legal call you want. But my guess is that if you do, it will be the *second* misbid you've made on this hand, and you're doing it because of the first one.

 

As a final note, let's say everything worked. 3♠ was the right call on this hand, and pulling 3NT to 4♠ was also right - 3NT has 11 tricks after you lose your 6, but you have trump control of the death suit after you lose your spade. You've just told partner "I think my bidding judgement is superior to yours, even when I know nothing about your hand and you know everything about mine." Do you really want to do that?

[Phil]

Of course you can pull to 4♠.

[Siegmund]

There was a cogent argument in Preempts from A to Z that if you preempted in a minor, you were expected to almost always leave in partner's notrump correction, but that if you preempted in a major it was quite normal to wind up in 4M instead. (Mostly meaning that partner should be raising you to 4M and very very rarely bidding 3NT - but I wouldn't think it unreasonable to have a rule of thumb like "with an ace or king outside your suit, leave 3NT, without one go back to 4M".

[nigel_k]

But, given the constraints, where second-seat vul, QJT9xxx -- Jxxx xx isn't even close to a 3♠ opener, and partner will freak right out if it happens to be wrong, whether you end up 3Sx-4, or 4Sxx-1, or 3NT-5; if you opened 3♠ and you think you're in bounds for your call, you sit 3NT. Partner Knows What You Have - that's why you play constructive preempts, right? (It's not because the preemptive value is higher than wide-ranging, purely aggressive, or "hope-to-survive" preempts, I'm sure)

If the hand doesn't meet our agreed standards for 3♠ I open it 2♠.

 

But passing is just wrong because it reduces your expected score under any plausible set of agreements. It is a bridge error in the same way that miscounting trumps is a bridge error. It may be hard to assign a number to the cost of passing because you'll never know what would have happened if you bid, but the cost is real and substantial.

 

Having correctly decided to open because it maximizes your score, the decision whether to pull partner's 3NT response (to either 2♠ or 3♠) should also be based on maximizing your score, not ideological purity or other irrelevant considerations. It's a somewhat harder decision than whether to open but I would always pull.

 

In no way is this an insult to partner. He made a judgment about what will work best given his hand and the range of hands I might hold. Now I am exercising judgment based on my hand and the range of hands he might hold. On that basis, it's likely that both of us made the correct call and we are now in the correct contract.

[Trinidad]

If the hand doesn't meet our agreed standards for 3♠ I open it 2♠.

Funny you say that. I believe in constructive weak two's and garbage preempts which translates to: If the hand doesn't meet our agreed standards for 2♠ I open it 3♠.

:)

 

Rik

[Flameous]

Certainly, but it takes some exotic hand you've pre-empted with.

 

Typical might be QJ 8th which might not play too well in 3NT opposite partner's Kx.

Also if you might open with some wild two-suiters, it's reasonable to pull and show your other suit.

 

One consideration is of course whether it's IMPs or MPs. Partner might be holding some rock and bidding 3NT cause it will certainly have same tricks as 4S, it's not usually a big loss, but loss anyways.

[Fluffy]

I pulled a 3♦-3NT once with Q 8th a t favourable, it was a success. With a major I think you shoul ddo it even more frequently. You don't need the pull to work all the time, just to work more frequently than not pulling. Having nothing resembling an entry looks like it.

[whereagles]

Even something like QJxxxxx xx xxx x is not automatic since pard can have AKx. But yeah, weak major with extra length is a good type of hand to pull to 4M.

[jschafer]

I don't understand bidding 3N on things like Kx or AKx. You have no guarantee that you can cash the ♠s on the first and could be using those ♠s to ruff things on the latter example. I would not bid 3N over 3♠ on a hand that relies on the ♠ suit as a source of tricks, 4♠ seems safer for those hands. When my p bids 3NT over 3♠ I expect him to have a source of tricks outside of ♠s, maybe a hand like ♠T ♥KQ ♦AKQT8542 ♣KQ. If I were to pull 3N it would be on an extreme hand, maybe on a 6-5 spade/minor two-suiter or something.

[whereagles]

Kx is excellent to bid 3NT on.

 

Kx

Axx

Axx

xxxxx

 

is an obvious 3NT bid over a vulnerable 3S.

[tolvyrj]

If u play fairly constructive pre-empts and thats u agreement AND u have opened accordingly, i dont see why u shld.

U made u bid and prd made his/hers, why shld u start to second guess u own prds bidding. I cant see nothing good to come from such actions.

If u shld have done that on a that particular deal, dont worry about it; in a long run passing must be right.

[barmar]

This is why I generally try to agree on sound preempts vulnerable, where sound means 2 of the top 3 honors. If partner has honor doubleton, he can count on 7 tricks in the suit, and can then place the contract pretty accurately based on his holdings elsewhere.

 

If you've opened on QJxxxxx, partner COULD have AKx when he bids 3NT, but I wouldn't count on it. It's much more likely that he's expecting you to have most of the control in your suit, and he has the other suits protected. Although if you're non-vulnerable, partner should be aware that your suit could be this bad, so you should probably still trust him.

[MrAce]

I don't understand bidding 3N on things like Kx or AKx. You have no guarantee that you can cash the ♠s on the first and could be using those ♠s to ruff things on the latter example. I would not bid 3N over 3♠ on a hand that relies on the ♠ suit as a source of tricks, 4♠ seems safer for those hands. When my p bids 3NT over 3♠ I expect him to have a source of tricks outside of ♠s, maybe a hand like ♠T ♥KQ ♦AKQT8542 ♣KQ. If I were to pull 3N it would be on an extreme hand, maybe on a 6-5 spade/minor two-suiter or something.

 

I disagree with you.

 

AKx KTx QTxx AJT.

I'd bid 3NT over pd's 3♠ on anyday with this (or similar) and would not even consider bidding 4♠. Hell, i would be scared to play 3♠ with this. But make my hand something like x Axxx AKxx AJxx i would bid 4♠.

 

Back to topic, imo previous posters said very well that opener is not expected to remove. If removing, it is probably 2nd bad bid by preempter. Sad part about it, is that pd by bidding 3NT may have recovered your bad bid and you are about to screw him up again. As mycroft and Helene already explained.

[mycroft]

If the hand doesn't meet our agreed standards for 3♠ I open it 2♠.

And if it doesn't meet your agreed standards for 2♠ either? Or if, if you believe it does, it violates the legality of your weak 2 followups?

 

But passing is just wrong because it reduces your expected score under any plausible set of agreements. It is a bridge error in the same way that miscounting trumps is a bridge error. It may be hard to assign a number to the cost of passing because you'll never know what would have happened if you bid, but the cost is real and substantial.

While I agree with you that this is not the best agreement, if it *is your agreement* to be disciplined with your 3-bids, violating that agreement because you don't think it's right is the same as any other system violation. You are 100% at fault if you get a bad score. If you do it often enough, there's an implied partnership understanding that changes your agreement, that does need to be divulged. If you don't anyway, you will be ruled against. If you continue to violate it, and partner keeps telling you that that is not our agreement, and we're not changing to your idea of what's right, and you continue to violate it, then you're probably looking for another partner - and that's probably a good thing for both of you.

 

But it's a bridge error to open QJxxxxx -- Jxxx xx if partner, with Kxx AKQTx KQ AK jumps to 6 without going through blackwood because *you've promised AQ seventh*. And, of course, he'd be right, if your red suits were backwards. Sure, *you'll* not jump to 6, because you'll have tools to find this out, and you'll use them, because you'll expect partner to open on the kind of crap that we do.

 

It's a bridge error to open that hand if partner, with Kxx Axxx Axxx Ax, *correctly* raises you to 4, knowing per agreement that it's cold. It's a bridge error to open that hand if partner doubles 4♥ with a spade stiff, knowing that you "certainly" have at least one spade trick (yeah, if it breaks 7-4-1-1, and partner has KQ,...)

 

Having agreed to open that hand, open it. Having agreed that that is *not* a preempt, psyching it anyway is a PLM.

 

Having correctly decided to open because it maximizes your score, the decision whether to pull partner's 3NT response (to either 2♠ or 3♠) should also be based on maximizing your score, not ideological purity or other irrelevant considerations. It's a somewhat harder decision than whether to open but I would always pull.

Having decided to psych, it's imperative to rescue partner from the consequences of his reasonable decision that he has 9 count-em tricks in NT, because he doesn't. FTFY.

 

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, and if we played wide-ranging 3M preempts, I'd likely pull too. But I stand by my original statement that says that *given the OP's agreement for sound preempts*, if you pull 3NT, that is almost certainly your *second* mistake on this hand.

 

In no way is this an insult to partner. He made a judgment about what will work best given his hand and the range of hands I might hold.

Of course not. You lied, and are rescuing partner. That isn't an insult to partner - but masterminding with the opening bid *was*.

[phil_20686]

I strongly disagree with most of the comments posted here. Obviously these dedcisions depend hugely on style, but what would partner be expected to bid with:

 

x

KJTx

AKQxxx

Qx

 

or similar?

 

Given that most hands with spade support will be safe in 4S when you suit is reasonable, the biggest swing hands are hands like the above where partner is hoping for tricks in his own hand and to make a 3N opposite a broad variety of hands when you might have too many spade losers. I strongly feel this is the most common swing hand for these decisions and thus I would expect partner to pull to 4S anytime his hand is close to solid. A hand like:

 

KQJT9xx

xxx

xx

x

 

would be a completely automatic pull to me. As would any hand with a poor 8 card spade suit (without significant outside values).

 

Hands where partner bits 3N with Ax Axxx Axxx xxx come along once in a blue moon and even if you pull to 4S you might easily have a card that yields an extra trick anyway.

[MrAce]

I strongly disagree with most of the comments posted here. Obviously these dedcisions depend hugely on style, but what would partner be expected to bid with:

 

x

KJTx

AKQxxx

Qx

 

or similar?

 

Are you aware how poorly you choosed your example hands? Eventhough you tried to masterfully place your singleton vs pd's Qx and not his AKQxxx minor.

 

What kind of dreamer bids 3NT with this vs 3♠ ? Even if he sees the hand of opponents that ♦ suit is running, where does he think he will make 9 tricks and stop the ♣ at the same time when pd opened weak 3♠ ?

 

 

KQJT9xx

xxx

xx

x

 

No one will mind you lifting with this. Unless your pd is a jackass of course. He will understand your problem even if 4♠ turns out to be bad decision. I would lift with this too probably. But this is almost the only uniq hand that makes sense to lift to 4♠(solid without Ace and no entry), eventhough there are hands pd can hold that 3 NT makes and 4♠ dont and not restricted to 3 Aces hand as u used in your other example. But everything has exceptions, and those exceptions should not be used as a proof to make a point other than mentioning that they are exceptions.

 

 

... the biggest swing hands are hands like the above where partner is hoping for tricks in his own hand and to make a 3N opposite a broad variety of hands when you might have too many spade losers. I strongly feel this is the most common swing hand for these decisions and .......

 

Again, what broad variety are u talking about when u hold x KJTx AKQxxx Qx ? I am about to think that u have a misconcept of what a 3♠ bid looks like. You are suggesting this hand to bid 3NT and u are also suggesting that opener must bid 4♠ when he has solid suit. All the other hands that has a lot of ♠ losers are in "broad variety" to make 3 NT to justify 3 NT bid with the hand u gave

 

AJTxxxx

xx

x

xx

 

AQxxxxx

x

Jx

xxx

 

KQxxxxx

Ax

x

xxx

 

KJTxxxx

xxx

x

Kxx

 

 

etc etc, which one of these hands are u happy to be in 3NT with the hand u suggest to bid 3NT ? As i said EVEN if you score all 6 of your ♦ regardless of what pd holds, which one of these hands are u happy for being in 3NT ?

 

x KJTx AKQxxx Qx i auto pass at mp, i auto pass when white at imps, i may bid 4♠ red at imps. One thing i would never bid will be 3NT.

 

7+1 ♠ still looks like an 8 card major fit to me.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps I am missing something, but did the OP not ask for those exceptions? Something about "particular spade holdings" to remove 3NT. If the consensus here is "removing partner's 3NT is your second bad bid of the auction" and then you say "but of course this spade holding would remove", then surely we have advanced the discussion somewhat...?

[barmar]

Having agreed to open that hand, open it. Having agreed that that is *not* a preempt, psyching it anyway is a PLM.

Your general point is good, but I think it's an overbid calling these bids "psyches". A psyche is a GROSS deviation from agreements, while the examples of poor 3♠ bids have just been small deviations in suit quality.