Speaking of aggressive preempting

[pilowsky]

From today's club game, I'm South, what should I do?

Matchpoints. EW vul.

[hv=pc=n&s=skt98652ht64d62cq]133|100[/hv]

 

Edit: I'm the dealer.

[AL78]

Either 3 or 4♠ depending on what your partnership agreement is on pre-empting style.

[mw64ahw]

4.5 playing tricks white vs red suggests that 4♠ is too much

I'm more inclined towards 2/3♠

[mikeh]

4S simply invites them to defend, doubled, on far too many hands for my liking. 800 against 620/650 or even 680 when 3S interferes with slam

 

Plus bridge is a partnership game. Robot bridge isn’t, of course, but that’s one of several reasons robot bridge is an entirely different game

 

3S is a good description of the hand, and allows partner to bid intelligently

[DavidKok]

I think this is close between 4♠ and 3♠, given the position and vulnerability. I think I will settle for 3♠, but I don't love having to do so. As mikeh points out it is very likely that we will end up in 4♠X if I open 4♠, and I'm not actually looking forward to that contract. On the flip side opening 3♠ lets them bid 3NT, but they might miss a good slam or go off if partner has got some cards.

[jillybean]

Pass, I play disciplined preempts 1st and 2nd seat. The advantage of this is that partner knows they can bid 3NT with Hx and get to my hand.

My preempt style used to be any 6 card suit but I've been convinced otherwise.

 

Edit: posted this after getting home late, missed the 7th spade. 3♠

David, only in 3rd seat :)

[DavidKok]

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

P.S. If the goal is to keep 3NT open surely you can afford to play wild 4-level preempts, right? ;)

[thepossum]

Sorry Pilowsky

 

I was in the wrong thread

 

Will move my rant where it belongs

 

I would either pass or bid 3 spades (5+4 = 9 approximately) - on some days maybe even 2 spades

[paulg]

I think it is a consequence of aggressive pre-empting that nowadays this looks like a classic 3♠ opening bid.

[helene_t]

I might open 4♠ at IMPs but at matchpoints I believe we still need to be disciplined even at this vulnerability. So I open 3♠ but this is a minimum. I wouldn't be opposed to a style in which this one is only 2♠ but that's not what I would assume undiscussed.

 

I am not so afraid of going for 300 against air or 800 against a game. I am more concerned of being raised to 6 if I open 4♠ and we don't play Namyats.

[Jinksy]

Fwiw, looks like a clear 3♠ to me. There's plenty of room to get a good score if they bid 3N and we defend well. If 4♠ gets doubled, we've probably secured a bottom before the play even starts.

[mycroft]

Odd. I'm usually aggressive, but I give serious consideration to 2♠ instead of 3. I won't do it (except with one partner who I will apologize for the lack of the ♠Q and hope that the 7th spade makes up for it), but I'd much rather put in the weaksauce underbid than the "can't find our contract, let's take the points" overbid.

 

I'd be more interested in 4♥ with the majors switched - sure it's a "Zia transfer" to 4♠, but there's a good chance that's where I want them.

[pilowsky]

The hand was interesting (to me) because of the very large number of final contracts and outcomes.

The bidding started:

pass..=7

3S....=7

2S....=2

4S....=1

2D!...=3

And things went downhill from there, with scores ranging from +140 to -800.

I was in the pass camp having read a book on preempts (by a Canadian expert) that advocated very disciplined preempts.

It was a close decision between 3S and pass but in the end I wanted my partner to trust me (since it makes up in part) for the quality of my play.

Here's the full deal:

[hv=pc=n&s=skt98652ht64d62cq&w=sj4hq72da875cakt7&n=shakj83djt943cj95&e=saq73h95dkqc86432]399|300[/hv]

[the hog]

3♠ is clear.4 S is too much and 2 is poor.