3 level major suit pre-empts with 6 cards

[Wackojack]

I held at green ♠AJ7642, ♥953, ♦7, ♣1097. I was playing a strong 1♣system and a particular feature is that we do not play weak major suit 2's. These bids are reserved for 55+ in the majors with 9-15HCP. So weak 3's could be 6 carders. I decided to open this 3♠and RHO overcalled 4♦ with ♠Q83, ♥AJ4, ♦KQ9864,♣J. 4♦went off when 3NT is an easy make. RHO was warned that any 3 level pre-empt could be 6 cards but was upset after the hand was played. I do not want to discuss the rights or wrongs of RHO's attitude or call. I am interested in who does make 3 level major suit pre-emps with 6 cards now and I am particularly interested in whether or not this practice goes back to an earlier generation say the 60,s and 70's. I can find examples of 3♠openings at the top level around 1969 in Robert Ewan's book on pre-emptive bidding, but these are examples with 64 distribution. Do we have examples such as my opening bid with 6331 distribution?

[Trinidad]

I sometimes open at the three level with a six card major. It will typically be in third seat NV vs VUL and more frequently in hearts than in spades.

 

Rik

[Shugart23]

Partner and I open 3 level preempts frequently with 6 card suits and no defensive values....We base our bids entirely on trick counts and vulnerability. If we are in 1st or 2nd seat, down 2,4,or 5 (unfavorable vul, equal vul, favorable vul respectively). Partner then just can add his hand and decide what to do. If partner is a passed hand (I am in 3rd or 4th seat), we adjust to down 2,3,4.

 

With your hand showing 6 cards to the Ace, I assume that I can take 4 tricks. With Favorable vulnerability in 1st or second seat I open that had 3 Spades all day long.......But I also play Matchpoints.

 

We do it differently with IMPS

[Siegmund]

At favorable, sure, a 6-card suit is possible/normal -- but mine will tend to be KQT9xx type suits, that have some reasonable chance at 5 tricks. But I think of myself as a quite classical (rule of 2-3-4) preempter, not a wild gambler. So I am sure the people who prefer a wilder preempting style do it on all kinds of AJxxxx type suits.

[PhilG007]

I held at green ♠AJ7642, ♥953, ♦7, ♣1097. I was playing a strong 1♣system and a particular feature is that we do not play weak major suit 2's. These bids are reserved for 55+ in the majors with 9-15HCP. So weak 3's could be 6 carders. I decided to open this 3♠and RHO overcalled 4♦ with ♠Q83, ♥AJ4, ♦KQ9864,♣J. 4♦went off when 3NT is an easy make. RHO was warned that any 3 level pre-empt could be 6 cards but was upset after the hand was played. I do not want to discuss the rights or wrongs of RHO's attitude or call. I am interested in who does make 3 level major suit pre-emps with 6 cards now and I am particularly interested in whether or not this practice goes back to an earlier generation say the 60,s and 70's. I can find examples of 3♠openings at the top level around 1969 in Robert Ewan's book on pre-emptive bidding, but these are examples with 64 distribution. Do we have examples such as my opening bid with 6331 distribution?

There is a case for opening pre-empts with only 5 cards,but the philosophy is the shorter the suit,the stronger it has to be. The example hand you gave

is,IMHO,too weak for a 3 level pre-empt. Exchange one of the low ♠ for the 10♠and it just qualifies for 3 level pre-empt..but it's still full of risk.... As with all matters pertaining to laws and ethics,partner must be equally deceived as well as the opponents...

[Shugart23]

At favorable, sure, a 6-card suit is possible/normal -- but mine will tend to be KQT9xx type suits, that have some reasonable chance at 5 tricks. But I think of myself as a quite classical (rule of 2-3-4) preempter, not a wild gambler. So I am sure the people who prefer a wilder preempting style do it on all kinds of AJxxxx type suits.

 

At matchpoint play (real bridge), I don't think down 2,4, 5 is really particularly wild and might even be a more sound bidding philosophy. ....Party/Imp bridge I think the more conservative classical approach makes more sense. In both cases I think you have to modify the approach as to whether partner is a passed hand or you are in 1st or 2nd seat. But that's just my opinion but it works well for us

[Jinksy]

First in favourable, I think it pays to pre-empt aggressively, and would open 3♠ as long as my P was on the same page. Third in, I wouldn't bother to check the page.

[Finch]

First at favourable playing IMPs, my partner has been known to open at the 3-level on something like J10xxxx x xxx xxx

Your sample hand is too strong for us, I would open that a weak 2S (yes I know you can't)

[Finch]

At matchpoint play (real bridge), I don't think down 2,4, 5 is really particularly wild and might even be a more sound bidding philosophy. ....Party/Imp bridge I think the more conservative classical approach makes more sense. In both cases I think you have to modify the approach as to whether partner is a passed hand or you are in 1st or 2nd seat. But that's just my opinion but it works well for us

 

This is the wrong way round. You need to be more conservative/classical at matchpoints and can be wilder at imps.

[Vampyr]

As with all matters pertaining to laws and ethics,partner must be equally deceived as well as the opponents...

 

Ummm...it is their agreement.

[Phil]

AJxxxx sucks since we have a defensive trick and no texture. In addition we have 3-1 in the reds which makes it marginally less likely they have 4♥.

 

In our GNT final last month I opened 3 ♥ on xx KQJTxx xxx xx w/r as dealer. It was lose 4 versus teammates -1 in 2♠.

 

The primary effect of this call wasn't losing 4 IMPs; It was partner going on full/slow burn tilt for the next 8 hours...?

[mycroft]

As always, it's agreement. As for the particular RHO, my answer would be "we did warn you." One of the benefits of aggressive major preempts is exactly what happened - they don't have a cue available to find 3NT that those opening 2M give.

 

I know you don't care about Leftpondia, but to give an idea about what *we* consider unusual enough to note, the "really aggressive preempts" barrier requiring pre-Alerts is "preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx) suits". AJxxxx is *slightly* stronger than that, I would think.

 

With one of my partners, we started playing EHAA; then, when we switched back to our "normal" system, we kept the 3M requirements (ignoring the < 6HCP, of course) of "5-6 losers at unfavourable, 6-7 all red, ... 8-9 favourable" (We kept our 1/2 3m requirements "partner, if you bid 3NT I won't be embarrassed putting down dummy", though). That looks to be right in the wheelhouse.

[benlessard]

Any 5-5 or better is about 5.5% of hands.

You need to divide by 6 for specific both majors.

Or divide by 3 if its 5S+5m.

 

so you get 0.9% (both M) or 1.8% (5S+5m)

 

a 6 card suit (not 65) or 7222 is about 15.5% you have to divide by 4 for a specific spade suit = 3.9 %

 

You need to remove a couple of % pts because of a possible side 4 card majors 6430 unsuitable for 2M preempt. We also need to make a little corection since 9-15 is a bit less frequent than 5-10.

 

So not only the bid is easier to defend (only 2 possible outside trumps & 2 cue available) its also less safe (6??? tend to make slightly more tricks that 55??) and less frequent.

 

Also with a 5-5 you have the job to find the best fit or to find the best lead. Especially when its 5M+5m, sometimes its not clear if 3m is going to be better than 2M. You also pay a full trick tax if you play at the 3 level instead of the 2 level.

 

If they declare they are more likely to play double dummy since there is less 55 shapes than 6??? shapes.

[Zelandakh]

The lack of weak 2s makes quite a large difference here imo. I wonder if PK can pull off some Fantunes 3M openings, where I suspect we will see a lot more of this sort of thing. I think it is basically "just bridge" that 3 openings cover some of the weak 2 hands when these are not available. As usual, 1st/3rd seat and favourable colours increases the chances - I know for sure that I have opened JTxxxx and out 3M in third; sometimes 5 card suits too. But the OP hand would be a weak 2 if it were available. Hence you need to find pairs not playing weak 2s (or multi) for a fair comparison.