[ggwhiz]

 forgo, on 2016-August-18, 12:49, said:

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

That's a touch strong but passing and (hopefully) being able to back in with a club bid or a direct 3♣ bid are both legitimate styles. You just have to be aware and in a casual or evolving partnership you aren't.

[mike777]

 spil, on 2016-August-17, 16:11, said:

Many seem to be assuming that we have 7 club tricks.
Is Kxx x Qx QJTxxxx not acceptable as an opener or Axx x xxx KJTxxx or any other number of hands where we don't have 7, or even 6, guaranteed running club tricks.
We are not cold for 3NT opposite a very sound 1 club opener eg Kxx Kx Qx KQJxxx, although we have all been in worse.
Opener actually held AT x JTxx KJT9xx...When clubs didn't come in and JH was wrong that was 5 off.
Admittedly oppos now have a very good 4H contract and no double of 3NT is possible in practice.
Nevertheless I think 3NT, if bid to actually make, is optimistic beyond words...if bid tactically then I have sympathy...vulnerability be damned.
Perhaps my standards for pre-empting are too loose:)

NOt close to a unfav 3c opener, at the very least tell us you open this type of hand before you give the problem so we are all on the same page. YOUr examples are just plain silly. Please feel free to bid however you wish but if you post a problem at least let the rest of us in on the joke.

[miamijd]

Depends to some extent on your agreements with partner.

Is Ax xx xx KQJxxxx a 3C bid or a 1C bid?

Is x xxx xx KQJTxxx a 3C bid red v white 1st seat?

How about Axx x xx QJTxxxx?

There are no right and wrong answers to these questions, but if you haven't discussed this with your partner, then you basically have to guess what to do here.

And even if you answer those questions 3c, no, and no, it still might not be right to bid 3NT. You have a 10-card fit (partner shouldn't bid 3C on a six-bagger red vs white), so the opponents should have at least a 9-card fit. That means partner likely has a red-suit singleton (or a spade void). If it's hearts, the opponents could easily run 5-6 tricks (or not, maybe RHO will have the Jack). If it's diamonds, then your partner is going to have to have Kc and an outside Ace to make. If he has a spade void, the opponents generally are going to take at least the first 5 tricks, and maybe the first 10 if both majors lie badly.

In a pickup, I probably would try 3NT vul at IMPs (but pass at MPs or NV at IMPs). Since my partner and I tend to be very aggressive preemptors with respect to 3C and 3D bids, I probably would cross my fingers and pass in my regular partnerships.

Cheers,
mike



Cheers,

[mike777]

Posters, including the last above discuss agreements, what are our agreements, if none tell us.

This issue really makes people mad so mad they quit bridge because they think bridge is full of cheaters.


The opp dont know your agreements, they dont know if you have none when you are required to have something, some agreements.

This issue really ticks off a lot of people and makes them think bridge is full of secret agreements and full of cheats.

You preemept, you have a secret agreement, you cheat, yet you win.

Now to be fair perhaps many of these guys dont cheat, they just play random bridge and their partner guesses well enough to win.

perhaps such issues should not make players mad but over the decades, many decades I can attest it does.

[wank]

 spil, on 2016-August-17, 16:11, said:

Many seem to be assuming that we have 7 club tricks.
Is Kxx x Qx QJTxxxx not acceptable as an opener or Axx x xxx KJTxxx or any other number of hands where we don't have 7, or even 6, guaranteed running club tricks.
We are not cold for 3NT opposite a very sound 1 club opener eg Kxx Kx Qx KQJxxx, although we have all been in worse.
Opener actually held AT x JTxx KJT9xx...When clubs didn't come in and JH was wrong that was 5 off.
Admittedly oppos now have a very good 4H contract and no double of 3NT is possible in practice.
Nevertheless I think 3NT, if bid to actually make, is optimistic beyond words...if bid tactically then I have sympathy...vulnerability be damned.
Perhaps my standards for pre-empting are too loose:)

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

that partner didn't have 7 on the actual deal, just means that partner needs to readjust his idea of what an adverse vul pre-empt shows.

[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]

 wank, on 2016-August-19, 04:50, said:

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]

 kenberg, on 2016-August-19, 06:17, said:

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]

 forgo, on 2016-August-18, 12:49, said:

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]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-17, 05:07, said:

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]

 The_Badger, on 2016-August-19, 09:00, said:

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]

 The_Badger, on 2016-August-19, 09:00, said:

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