3 club opening bid with 14 HCP

[Liversidge]

We play at an EBU registered club with a mix of player levels. everyone plays Acol. My partner and I are relatively inexperienced. Noone uses convention cards. Last night an experienced player opened 3 clubs (his partner said nothing) and my partner overcalled 3 hearts, which went two off. The opening bidder turned out to have seven clubs to AQJ and an outside Ace and King (in separate suits), 14 HCP, which surpirsed us. Opener's partner led her singleton ♣K which opener overtook and then played the ♣Q. Later on opener played the outside Queen, and my partner finessed the other opponent for a King, assuming (wrongly) that opener could not have it.

As it turned out, our opponents could probably have made 3NT due to a lucky distribution of other cards, so the bid got what it deserved.

My question is, regardless of how sensible (or silly)the bid was or the outcome, is such a bid legal if the opponents play that it might have opening points, but don't say anything? My partner felt that she would only have been one off if she had been misled into going for the finesse. I assume that if opener's partner was as surprised as us then it was a permissible psyche.

[Cyberyeti]

Was their agreement that it was a normal preempt ? Some old versions of precision use an intermediate 3♣ to distinguish a nice 14-15 with 7 clubs from the sort of lesser hand that opens 2♣ for them.

 

It's not clear whether this is alertable, it's a natural bid but has a potentially unexpected strength.

[Vampyr]

Was their agreement that it was a normal preempt ? Some old versions of precision use an intermediate 3♣ to distinguish a nice 14-15 with 7 clubs from the sort of lesser hand that opens 2♣ for them.

 

It's not clear whether this is alertable, it's a natural bid but has a potentially unexpected strength.

 

I think it's clear that it is.

[blackshoe]

Is there evidence that this pair open this hand 3♣ by agreement? Other than the fact that one player did, I mean.

[mr1303]

This sounds like the bidding of a weak player to me. One of these "everyone plays Acol" types won't have an agreement to open 3C on a 14 count, they just think that a 3C opening shows a hand with 7 clubs. Note that "experienced" doesn't mean the same as "good"

[WellSpyder]

One point that has not been mentioned is that you haven't told us which seat the 3♣ opening bid was made in. In 3rd seat after two passes many people play much wider-ranging pre-empts. At the bottom end it could be as few as 0 points since you can be pretty sure oppo have a game on if you have nothing and partner has declined to open the bidding. At the top end it could be as many as 14 points since as a passed hand partner is unlikely to want to bid anything whatever strength you have and you are unlikely to be missing game yourself. In 4th seat after three passes, pre-empts are also likely to depart from the norm since there is no point in pre-empting opponents who have both already declined to open the bidding. So it is normal to play such pre-empts as showing decent hands - unless you have a reasonable expectation of making the contract you are better off just passing the hand out in 4th seat!

 

The different expectations of pre-empts in 3rd and 4th seat might be regarded as general bridge knowledge, and therefore something that does not need to be alerted.

 

(Having said that, I do play opening bids of 3 of a minor in any seat with one partner as showing good 6-card suits and 10-14 points in an otherwise Acol-based system. We always alert these since although they are natural they may well contain unexpected strength.)

[Liversidge]

The opening bid was in first seat.

Afrer the game, when we realised what opener held, we expressed surprise, and opener smiled and said he liked to be awkward every now and then. His partner said nothing and we didn't challenge as we had never come across this before. It was only later that we discussed it among ourselves.

If we had asked after the game opener's partner admitted that opener occasionally make such a bid, would we have been justified in saying that it should have alerted to the effect that it might show unexpected strength?

[RMB1]

I don't think alerting/disclosure is going to help much.

If 3♣ is explained as "natural, usually less than opening values but sometimes can be opening values" what are you going to do? Next hand is going to act as if it is a normal pre-empt. Responding won't be able to penalize or bid game because he does not know that opener has opening values, and opening bidder will usually be in the dark if he wants to try to show opening values later.

 

Nevertheless, I think the bid should be recorded (in the dreaded "pysche book" :)). If these actions are sufficiently common, this is evidence that responder should be describing the "sometimes can be opening values" aspect accurately.

[StevenG]

I've only occasionally seen experienced players do this, but when I have, it's been because they are, unfortunately, starting to "lose it". They remember that a 7-card suit means to pre-empt, but don't recall the bridge logic behind it, and that you don't (normally) do it with values. Under those circumstances, I don't see that recording it would be very useful.

[Liversidge]

This sounds like the bidding of a weak player to me. One of these "everyone plays Acol" types won't have an agreement to open 3C on a 14 count, they just think that a 3C opening shows a hand with 7 clubs. Note that "experienced" doesn't mean the same as "good"

He and his partner are very good. Regularly come in the top two at our club. They are the ones who very rarely miss a biddable slam.

[barmar]

If a player "likes to be awkward every now and then", that's allowed. The Laws specifically allow players to deviate from their agreements occasionally. As long as he doesn't make the same kind of psychic bids often enough that his partner is likely to expect it (so it becomes an implicit partnership understanding), there's no problem.

 

Since they might have been able to bid to 3NT if opener had bid normally, his partner presumably didn't do anything to cater to this possibility. So it doesn't seem like there was an implicit agreement about it, and he didn't field the psyche, so you weren't damaged.

[Liversidge]

If a player "likes to be awkward every now and then", that's allowed. The Laws specifically allow players to deviate from their agreements occasionally. As long as he doesn't make the same kind of psychic bids often enough that his partner is likely to expect it (so it becomes an implicit partnership understanding), there's no problem.

 

Since they might have been able to bid to 3NT if opener had bid normally, his partner presumably didn't do anything to cater to this possibility. So it doesn't seem like there was an implicit agreement about it, and he didn't field the psyche, so you weren't damaged.

Makes sense1| Thanks

[Vampyr]

Makes sense1| Thanks

 

Makes a little sense maybe.

[sanst]

OT: Barmar has explained why this is not good bridge, at least not in a Acol based system. I'm sorry to say that, although this pair often comes on top in your club, that doesn't prove that they are very good. When my partner and I started to play gridge at a club, we were in a couple of months one of the strongest pairs. What that was worth we found out when we went to another club with some real good players, who competed at top level in Holland. But there we really learned to play bridge.

 

Joost