[neilkaz]

Hi JB...

In olden times classic preeempts were made by the rule of 1,2,3 and quite a few players needed 13 HCP to feel good about opening. Here, the hand opening 3♣ probably is only good for 7 tricks (sometimes the Q of ♣ is offside, and often the K of ♠ won't score a trick so that opposite a busted PD the hand figure to go down 2 tricks which adheres to the rule for equal vul.

In my grandmother's day, quite a few would open this hand 3♣, but in my father's day, what we consider to be an obvious 1♣ opening would have been more common.

.. neilkaz ..

[jillybean]

I doubt your average BBO player reads through the bridge laws, I was going to say new players but I have seen plenty of advanced/experts make td calls about this type of bid.

I was thinking more along the lines of explaing deviations from a partnership agreements and that it is within the laws to open a ‘usual’ 1♣ hand as 3♣ based on the vulnerability, seat position, suit quality, gut feeling, bad bid, misclick or anything else that makes you want to bid 3♣. An alert is not required unless your partner expects this bid, in this position, vulnerability and so on. To alert and explain ‘stronger than normal 3♣ gives your opponents more information than your partner has – they are entitled to know about your partnership agreements, implicit and explicit not the details of the cards you hold.

My understanding is the same for psyches, a players is is permitted to make deliberate and gross mis-statement of their hand, honor strength, suit length provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.
(law40)

[neilkaz]

I still wouldn't call the director here since East's actions indicate that nothing spurious was going on since he passed 3♥ rather than taking a shot at doubling it and he also didn't bid 3NT which would certainly seem to have real good chances since he stops ♥, if he had expected PD to have this monster for a 2nd seat 3♣ preempt.

In short, I don't think there were any undisclosed unusual agreements here concerning unusually (for "modern" bridge) strong preempts. So..I'd let the director rest and move onto the next hand.

.. neilkaz ..

[Cascade]

I like to be conservative opposite a passed hand and the opponent's pre-empt.

But this north hand needs so little for game/part-score so I am a bidder.

[kenberg]

The play and defense in 3N has some interesting aspects but it can be made (of course) and probably will be made. And probably bid after an opening of 1C. But it goes for quite a few if the spades are rearranged.

Anyway, my idea of a preempt is that it makes constructive bidding by everyone, includiing one's partner, difficult. West can do it when he thinks this is to his advantage, rather than when he has a certain number of points. I, myself, would not open this 3C. An opponent (even the one directly across the table) is free to do so if he chooses. To each his own. If 3C could not be bid on less, then they owe you an alert. But assuming, as seems likely from the E pass, that it just is a preempt, then it's fine (by me).

Over 3C I bid 3H, I think. I don't regard it as clearcut.

[the hog]

I was not going to post on this, as I thought it was self evident. When I read of the number of posters who don't bid H with the Nth hand though, I am amazed. This is a clear cut overcall. Roland puts it well,. "If you don't overcall H you are not playing bridge as I know it."
afa the C opening is concerned - its heavy, sure, but perfectly legal.