When to go to 3NT over partner's preempt

[SimonFa]

I cost us a game swing in a teams night by not bidding over partner's 3♦ because I was worried about entries and was wondering what sort of rules I should think about when considering a 3NT bid over a pre-empt.

 

A new partner and to be fair to partner he did say that he does promise a good pre-empt in first chair but by the time we got round to this hand I had forgotten this comment. My other partners tend to be somewhat random when pre-empting so unless I have a good suit raise I tend to stay quiet.

 

Both white, contract 3♦ with no ops bidding. My hand was:

 

♠AKQxx

♥Kxx

♦J

♣Qxxx

 

I can't remember partner's hand but that's not the point - should I have bid with just a singleton J in partner's suit? I read somewhere that you should really have three cards in partner's suit to bid 3NT, but that seems excessive.

 

Different at MPs?

 

I suppose I should have realised that most of the field would bid 3NT and and played the percentage of following suit and also heeded some advice I was given that when I doubt at teams, bid game. (Followed by when in doubt don't bid slam)

 

As always, thanks in advance,

 

Simon

[wyman]

I would not bid 3N over 3D with AKQxx / Kxx / J / Qxxx

 

♦AK10xxxx and out is a perfectly reasonable 3D call, and I've got 5 tricks, probably 6 by giving up a spade, 7 because they have to lead something. 9 is pushing it.

 

It would help if we had partner's hand, but I suspect it's closer to an opener than to a 3D call if 3N is cold.

 

edit: (actually, so is ♦ KQ1098xx, in which case we score 0 diamonds).

[mikeh]

it's not possible to comment with assurance on your partner's preempt, since we don't know what he had...but I suspect that either 3N was odds-against (but made) or he didn't have what most people here would consider to be a normal, albeit 'good', preemptive hand.

 

It would not occur to be to bid over 3♦ with your hand. It is so far from being a 3N bid that I would think poorly of any teammate who made that call, and I wouldn't change my view merely because it worked on the given hand.

 

As for 'different at mps', well, yes....we should be bidding differently at mps, but not in the way I think you were suggesting.

 

We should be LESS prone to bid 3N at mps than at imps, and at imps, less prone non-vul than vul.

 

At mps, we want to maximize our chances of a plus score. Sometimes it is correct to risk a minus in pursuit of a bigger plus, but only when we feel that the plus we have coming won't be big enough....thus if we are in a minor auction and we have gone by 3N, and fear that the field will be in 3N, we may risk a thin slam, since 620 or 600 will be a bad plus score if the field is +630 or 660.

 

But that isn't this situation. We are far more likely to make 3♦ than 3N, and likely to fail by less in 3♦ should both contracts go down. So we don't try to get a big plus score, unless we feel that we need a big pickup and thus knowingly make a swingy and anti-percentage move.

[han]

I also think it is a clear pass. I don't agree that you necessarily need 3 cards in partners suit to bid 3NT. For example if you have a good hand with Ax or Kx of partners suit and partner is vulnerable you will often bid 3NT, certainly with this partner. You might also bid 3NT when you expect to take a lot of tricks outside of partner's suit.

 

With regards to mikeh's comment that you should bid 3NT at imps more often than at mps, that's of course true in general and probably also here. But when you bid a 3NT that makes if partner's suit runs and goes down a lot when partner's suit doesn't run, the IMP odds for bidding game aren't as favorable as usual.

[MrAce]

I agree with all the posters above. It would not occur to me to bid something over 3♦

[S2000magic]

Unless partner notoriously preeempts with a solid suit, there are generally two types of hands on which you want to bid 3NT (seriously) opposite an opening 3-bid:

 

1. A hand which has a good fit for partner's suit, and stoppers in the other three suits
   
2. A hand in which you expect to take 9 tricks without help from partner's suit
   

 

Opposite a non-vulnerable 3♦ opener, this would be a typical hand of type 1:

 

♠ A 7 3 2

♥ K Q 6

♦ J 7 5

♣ Q J 10

 

while this would be a typical hand of type 2:

 

♠ A 6

♥ K Q 6

♦ 4

♣ A K Q J 9 6 3

 

A good way to look at it is to give partner a normal preempt and count your tricks. Opposite:

 

♠ 8 5

♥ 9 4

♦ K Q 10 8 6 3 2

♣ 4 2

 

either of the hands above makes game in notrump; the original hand might make only 3 tricks; 4 or 5 would be about average.

 

As wyman says,

 

♠ 8 5

♥ 9 4

♦ A K 10 8 6 3 2

♣ 4 2

 

would be a good preempt in this situation, and you'll probably make 5 or 6 tricks; you won't make 9.

 

(Of course, if partner held:

 

♠ J 5

♥ 9 4

♦ K Q 10 8 6 3 2

♣ 4 2

 

you make game in notrump opposite the original hand. Sometimes that happens.)

 

-----------------------

 

Coincidentally, I had exactly this situation arise in a game two days ago. RHO opened 3♣ on:

 

♠ 6 5 2

♥ K

♦ 9 2

♣ K J 9 8 7 6 4

 

I doubled with:

 

♠ A K 7 4

♥ J 9 8 7 5

♦ K 10

♣ A 3

 

and LHO bid 3NT on:

 

♠ Q J 8 3

♥ A 6 2

♦ A Q 7 5 3

♣ 2

 

Down 4.

 

-----------------------

 

(If you can find a copy of Bob Ewen's excellent book Preemptive Bidding, snatch it up. It's not very big, but it's packed with great information, and it's fun to read. More than once.)

[SimonFa]

Thanks for all the helpful replies, they make think I'm starting to get a feel for the game.

 

A special thanks to S2000magic for all those examples and I shall be adding the book to my ever increasing Christmas wish list.

 

Simon

[S2000magic]

Thanks for all the helpful replies, they make think I'm starting to get a feel for the game.

I'm glad that you are. It's exhilarating and exasperating at the same time.

 

A special thanks to S2000magic for all those examples . . . .

My pleasure.

 

. . . I shall be adding the book to my ever increasing Christmas wish list.

It's out of print, but you can find used copies on Amazon, I believe.