ATB

[kenberg]

I have been known to preempt with a major on the side, but not often. For me, and apparently for others, it seems safer to do so when the major is hearts. Having four hearts is only a problem if partner has fitting hearts, and then since I have a lot of diamonds and together we have a lot of hearts, probably the opponents have a lot of spades. Not always, but often.

 

On this hand it would not occur to me to open 3D even if we switch spades and hearts. I am not interested in making a call that is apt to land us in a diamond contract when I have a strong four card heart suit (assuming the actual spades are the hypothetical hearts) and a diamond suit headed by the QT9. If he opponents buy the contract I am not interested in a diamond lead. If opponents bid a game and partner has to decide in taking a sac, I have misled him and he may well make the wrong choice.

 

I am not as opposed, perhaps not nearly as opposed, to preempts with a side major as Mr.Ace is but I do think a side major is a drawback and here I don't think it is even close.

 

But, mostly, I don't think ATB really applies here. Or maybe I should say beyond my reach. The style is, to my mind, wild and crazy. Wild and crazy can work. In a sense, it did work. They can make 6, they stopped in 5. But then there was the double.

 

So I would not have opened 3D, and if partner had opened 3D I would not have bid 3NT. It's difficult to meaningfully say who I would blame for the eventual result when I would not have made either of the first round calls. Anyway, I always interpret ATB not as a moral judgment but as a question as to how to do better. Here, they might decide whether (and sure, this is just my opinion but posting the hand requests opinions) the highly undisciplined approach works for them.

[apollo1201]

In the pass out seat I think it would be called by a different name.

 

Hence the "brillant" qualification 😉

[Phil]

It's an entirely legitimate style to decide that by preempting with a wide range of hands in first seat you potentially mess up 3 people, and you're 2:1 that the person you mess up is an opponent. Not sure whether I would on this actual hand, but I wouldn't crime it if that's your general approach.

 

But one of those people has already passed.

 

I know its passe, but there's something to be said for a normal preempting style in 2nd seat.

[1eyedjack]

But one of those people has already passed.

In the OP, the 3D opener was in first seat.

[Phil]

In the OP, the 3D opener was in first seat.

 

Missed that. Then I don;t hate 3D quite as much, but with side spades its a poor call.

[1eyedjack]

It's an entirely legitimate style to decide that by preempting with a wide range of hands in first seat you potentially mess up 3 people, and you're 2:1 that the person you mess up is an opponent. Not sure whether I would on this actual hand, but I wouldn't crime it if that's your general approach.

I am familiar with this argument, presented eloquently in an article by Marc Smith many years ago, but I am unconvinced as to its validity. Validity and legitimacy are closely tied. As long as the argument remains unsettled it remains legitimate.

 

There are essentially two options: a narrowly defined pre-empt or a widely defined pre-empt.

 

The principal benefit of the wide definition is increased frequency. Increased frequency is not of itself necessarily a guaranteed long term gain, but it is fair to acknowledge that the 2:1 ratio of opponents to partner contribute to this being of net benefit in the long term.

 

The principal benefit of the narrow range definition is that its contribution to partner's assessment of the combined potential of the hand exceeds that of the opponents, on the reduced frequency of occasions when it arises. For a given combined strength of your partnership's holdings , it is broadly irrelevant how they are divided between the partnership. Not entirely irrelevant, but close.

 

The question before you is whether the increased frequency of the wide range more than compensates for the loss of pre-empter's partner's ability to judge the combined potential. I have not seen a convincing argument either way.

[cherdano]

Wow. This thread is just strange to me.

 

Let's start with 3♦. This diamond suit is often going to make 5 tricks in a diamond contract. Playing in a 4-4 spade fit, you'd often make 0 diamond tricks, and you wouldn't be surprised to make 0 diamond tricks in a 5-4 spade fit either (trumps splitting 3-1 and they get a force going immediately). To me, this is the prototype of a hand that I would open 3♦ in first seat and pass in second seat (though I am not sure the latter is right). Passing in first seat just because we are afraid of losing a 5-4 spade fit seems losing bridge to me.

 

Now to 3NT. In my view, there is not a single hand that would pass after (3♦) P (3N) and that would act after (3♦) P (4♦). The 3N psych is so frequent, and you have a better chance at finding your best fit over it (partner has a 4♦ cuebid available to find the right major fit, and you could get out in 4♣ if needed). Meanwhile, 3N also gives 4th seat the 4♦ cue to show both majors. In my view, this 3N psych is the dumbest frequently made bid in bridge.

 

To illustrate my point more:

btw i think the criticism of east is excessive. with 13 points the chances of getting 3NT under the radar are very reasonable, and whilst the undoubled penalty in 3NT would exceed the doubled penalty in 5D, that's because the hands fit very well and because west has such an atypical hand.

Sure it is true that 3N might go undoubled. But so might be 4♦ or 5♦! In fact, there are certainly hands that would pass a direct 5♦ that would act over 3N.

 

On to the final double. First, pass can't be forcing here. East had a lot of room to make a slam try over 3♦. We are never suddenly going to bid 6♦ in order to make it.

Having gotten that out of the way, what does East's pass mean? Surely, most hands that bid 3N and 5♦ to make would double. So for me the pass suggests either that East made the dumbest psych in bridge, or that his 3N bid was a bit of a gamble - say, QJx Kx AKxx Axxx. This hand is a legitimate 3N bid, a legitimate compete to 5♦, yet it doesn't expect to beat 5♥ if the opponents are serious and partner has no defense.

 

If you think East shouldn't make the dumbest psych in bridge, then the double by West is completely reasonable.

[MrAce]

 

Now to 3NT. In my view, there is not a single hand that would pass after (3♦) P (3N) and that would act after (3♦) P (4♦).

 

 

I nominate this comment being by far the biggest ever overstatement of, not the current year but the lifetime of BBF.

[cherdano]

I nominate this comment being by far the biggest ever overstatement of, not the current year but the lifetime of BBF.

Reading this line, I thought you were going to hit "The dumbest bid in bridge" :D :)

[MrAce]

Reading this line, I thought you were going to hit "The dumbest bid in bridge" :D :)

 

Heh, if it was not you I probably would have, but knowing how good player you are, and how you normally choose your sentences carefully to describe your opinion, I really took it as an overstatement, as I replied probably with a similar overstatement! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

 

EDIT: I like the analyse of forcing pass and final double though, most people misses it.

[cherdano]

I nominate this comment being by far the biggest ever overstatement of, not the current year but the lifetime of BBF.

On a more serious note, can you give an example of a hand that, in your opinion, would act over 4D but not over 3N?

[wank]

On a more serious note, can you give an example of a hand that, in your opinion, would act over 4D but not over 3N?

 

any 14-15 bal? and before you say there's only 1 diamond missing, i'd bet my house that the OP doesn't particularly expect 7, even missing the akj, considering his evident style.