Bidding opposite a pre-empt

[kenberg]

I watch a fair amount of vugraph and I see preempts that I would not make, made by very good players. So while I gave some reasons that I would not open the sample (actual?) hand 3C I am less certain that this would be the universral, or near universal, view of the expert community.

 

 

Just for comic relief, or whatever, I will give you a non-preempt I made the other day.

Team game, victory points, red against white, I am in first position with a 2=2=2=7 shape, the clubs are AQJxxxx, absolutely nothing on the side. The death hand, I believe it is called. Anyway, I passed. Partner opened 2NT(20-21) back to me. I thought for quite a bit and bid 6NT. Maybe yes, maybe no. This time it was yes.

 

An old book, perhaps by Sheiwold, described a preempt as turning out the lights. Before making one you should decide if it is a good idea to turn out the lights. Everyone feels his way as best he can. When I am in first position red against white, I figure if I preempt there will be many times when partner will be faced with the guess of whether to bid 3NT. I hope to present him with a hand where he won't regret doing so.

[MrAce]

partner's vul against not. he has at least 7 clubs, often 8.

 

No they do not have 8 card club often. In fact they VERY rarely have 8 card clubs. Not that they would open something else but it is really rare to hold an 8 card suit to start with.

 

KQJTxxx and out is more than enough for anyone to open 3♣. You can add ♦K or KJ next to it. You can add ♦K and ♠Q or even ♦ KQ next to it and make it a REALLY sound 3♣ opening if you like.

 

x

xx

KQx

KQJxxxx

 

Qx

x

Kxx

KQJxxxx

 

Kxx

xx

x

KQJTxxx

 

xx

KJx

x

KQJTxxx

 

Most of these hands are way too strong for a preempt, so just because the hand is not a 3♣ opener given by OP does not make 3 NT any better. It is just bad to go -200 -300 or -400 undoubled when +110 or +130 was available. Especially when the defense is alarmed by the fact that we are bidding 3 NT on a long running suit.

 

One of the beauties of preempts is to steal a very good partscore from opponents when both sides are making a partscore. But most people bid games with this type of hands and ruins it.

[billw55]

Just for comic relief, or whatever, I will give you a non-preempt I made the other day.

Team game, victory points, red against white, I am in first position with a 2=2=2=7 shape, the clubs are AQJxxxx, absolutely nothing on the side. The death hand, I believe it is called. Anyway, I passed. Partner opened 2NT(20-21) back to me. I thought for quite a bit and bid 6NT. Maybe yes, maybe no. This time it was yes.

 

An old book, perhaps by Sheiwold, described a preempt as turning out the lights. Before making one you should decide if it is a good idea to turn out the lights. Everyone feels his way as best he can. When I am in first position red against white, I figure if I preempt there will be many times when partner will be faced with the guess of whether to bid 3NT. I hope to present him with a hand where he won't regret doing so.

Surely the hand you give fits this last criteria. If partner has the ♣K there are 7 cashers, and if not he is expecting to lose one trick to establish the suit anyway. He certainly should not expect side suit honors. If he regrets 3NT, his own hand will be the cause.

[The_Badger]

Having read all the replies - interesting topic - there's an expression in bridge "Never pre-empt your partner".

 

Whilst making life as difficult as possible for the opponents, it is imperative that your partner understands your pre-empts, and how they may vary in different positions.

 

Whilst the given hand by spil - Opener actually held AT x JTxx KJT9xx... - perfectly illustrates this, a poor 3♣ pre-empt, in my opinion, in 1st position becomes an acceptable one in 3rd, even at adverse vulnerability.

 

Bridge is a bidder's game, as they say nowadays, but pass is a bid too :)

[msjennifer]

just read others and saw hand... player who opens 3 clubs in first seat unfav vun does not understand game!!

Or perhaps he was playing for marbles and not money !

[cynac]

Depends on your preempting/opening style, most of the hands where game is good would be opened 1 by us. There is a serious danger that partner has say xx, x, xxx, KQJ10xxx and you lose the first 9 or 10 tricks for more than opps game which they might not have bid anyway.

[cynac]

Classic style would be 7 tricks for a vulnerable pre-empt. So should not have the hand you state.

[cynac]

Last comment was re cyberyeti's suggestion. Meanwhile the "actual hand" is not a pre-emptive vulnerable hand - again classically. "Very good players" do odd things to throw opps off in situations.....doesn't make this a standard pre-empt. The more you do this, the more partner has to guess....until, as suggested above, he is essentially "fielding" and you'll have to let opps know that he/she does this.

[kenberg]

Having read all the replies - interesting topic - there's an expression in bridge "Never pre-empt your partner".

 

Whilst making life as difficult as possible for the opponents, it is imperative that your partner understands your pre-empts, and how they may vary in different positions.

 

Whilst the given hand by spil - Opener actually held AT x JTxx KJT9xx... - perfectly illustrates this, a poor 3♣ pre-empt, in my opinion, in 1st position becomes an acceptable one in 3rd, even at adverse vulnerability.

 

Bridge is a bidder's game, as they say nowadays, but pass is a bid too :)

 

Thanks. He had first given a hypothetical hand and it took over my brain. I could easily restrain myself with this holding.

[spade7]

Having read all the replies - interesting topic - there's an expression in bridge "Never pre-empt your partner".

 

Whilst making life as difficult as possible for the opponents, it is imperative that your partner understands your pre-empts, and how they may vary in different positions.

 

Whilst the given hand by spil - Opener actually held AT x JTxx KJT9xx... - perfectly illustrates this, a poor 3♣ pre-empt, in my opinion, in 1st position becomes an acceptable one in 3rd, even at adverse vulnerability.

 

Bridge is a bidder's game, as they say nowadays, but pass is a bid too :)

 

Pass is a call too :)