[inquiry]

cherdano, on Feb 12 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

I won't talk anyone out of the aggressive style to open 3♦ with the hand here. But if someone thinks this is comparable to opening 2♠ with any of the hands cited by Ben above, then I would claim his judgment of the suitability for a preempt, offense/defense-ratio etc. is off. (Of course, it may be that it is my judgement that is off, instead...)

Robson/Segal recommened opening 3♠ with each of these hands (not vul), not 2♠.

[david_c]

inquiry, on Feb 12 2007, 07:54 PM, said:

Robson/Segal recommened opening 3♠ with each of these hands (not vul), not 2♠.

Er, are you sure about that? In my copy they recommend a 2♠ opening.

[inquiry]

david_c, on Feb 12 2007, 01:57 PM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 12 2007, 07:54 PM, said:

Robson/Segal recommened opening 3♠ with each of these hands (not vul), not 2♠.

Er, are you sure about that? In my copy they recommend a 2♠ opening.

Whoops....... poor reading by me... you are right.. darn, and that huge 3♠ looked so emphatic....

[han]

OK, I was shocked by the big letters announcing the 3S bids. I'm relieved to see that R-S recommend 2S with those hands.

I don't mind opening 3D with the given hand, but I wouldn't consider it unless I was favorable in third seat (as we are here). I would likely open 1D though, I find that competing over a 1-level opening is often as hard as competiting over a preempt (although they have less room over 3D, their bids are better defined). The advantage is of course that we are less likely in a rediculous contract.

I prefer 3D over 2D.

[kenberg]

Since EW are cold for 3NT am I right in assuming NS did not fare too badly here?

[sceptic]

they made +3 if I remember correctly (due to one of my stunning leads I expect) , this is what prompted my post

[glen]

Third seat not-vulnerable can produce some interesting bids. All these below are in 3rd seat not-vulnerable.

Netherlands in the 2005 Worlds vs vulnerable:

Scoring: IMP

---

3♥

In the US 2004 Team Trials, Welland had this vs vulnerable:

Scoring: IMP

---

3♦

This is Fantoni in the 2006 Worlds vs not-vulnerable:

Scoring: IMP

---

3♠

Dating back a bit, here’s Huang in the 1996 Semi-Finals vs vulnerable:

Scoring: IMP

---

3♣

Now these are long events. In 12 board IMP Pairs events you will even see some really swingy stuff, especially by players trying to catch up (nothing to lose). Also heavy preempts below game are usually in a minor, since less chance of missing game opposite passed hand values.

[sceptic]

I am curious Glen, how did each of these actually work on the day?

[glen]

All are in 3rd seat not-vulnerable.

Netherlands in the 2005 Worlds vs vulnerable:

Scoring: IMP

---

3♥

Netherlands was against USA 1. De Wijs’s 3♥ opening saw Hamman overcalling 4NT for the minors, and Soloway bid 5♣ down 2, -200. At the other table, Meckstroth opened 1♦, raised Rodwell’s 1♥ to 2, and Rodwell bid 4. Down 1, -50. So 6 Imps to Netherlands.

See board 18 in:
2005 Worlds

--- ---

In the US 2004 Team Trials, Welland had this vs vulnerable:

Scoring: IMP

---

3♦

After Welland’s 3♦, and 3♥ overcall by Ekeblad, Fallenius jumped to 5♦ with 3-2-5-3, got doubled and Welland went for -1100. At the other table, it was only a 2♦ opening, which got bumped to 4♦ over the ♥ overcall and NS ended in 4♥ making 6 (cold on the layout of 2-2 trumps, and 3-3 spades with finesse on). So 9 IMPs to Ekeblad.

See board 18 (again!) in:
2004 US Team Trials

--- ---

This is Fantoni in the 2006 Worlds vs not-vulnerable:

Scoring: IMP

---

3♠

After Fantoni’s 3♠, Schwartz doubled and Willenken bid 3NT, down 3, -150. At the other table El Ahmadi opened 1♠, ended in 2♠, +140. No swing.

See board 11 in:
2006 Worlds

--- ---

Dating back a bit, here’s Huang in the 1996 Semi-Finals vs vulnerable:

Scoring: IMP

---

3♣

3♣ went around to RHO (Mouiel) who doubled, passed out for down 1, -100. At the other table a 1♣ opening found the 5-4 ♦ fit, so then Mari-Bompis drove the hands to 5♦, down 3. 2 IMPs for Taipei.

This is board 60 of the semi-finals, in one of the biggest books ever published on the World Championships.

So in general it seems somewhat random effects. To see the largest range of bids, check out expert four-of-a-major openings in 3rd seat white vs red. Top of the range is 9 tricks or so, while bottom is any excuse.

My study of preempts opposite passed hands show that a heavy preempt can be successful if it immediately puts the partnership in its most likely landing spot if partner has about 9 HCP and a flat hand. Given this, I don’t think the Welland bid was doing this with 3♦ so I don’t recommend the heavy three-level preempt with five cards, though I do have admiration for the imagination to make this call.

[whereagles]

officeglen, on Feb 13 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

My study of preempts opposite passed hands show that a heavy preempt can be successful if it immediately puts the partnership in its most likely landing spot if partner has about 9 HCP and a flat hand.  Given this, I don’t think the Welland bid was doing this with 3♦ so I don’t recommend the heavy three-level preempt with five cards, though I do have admiration for the imagination to make this call.

Sometimes it isn't imagination, but the system, that forces you to open 3♦. Welland would probably have preferred a 2♦ opener, but that might have meant something other than diamonds.

by the way.. heavy preempting in 3rd seat is a matter of judgement, not rules.

[glen]

The Welland-Fallenius 2004 cc says the 2♦ in 3rd/4th is a weak two.