[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would assume weak, and the meaning certainly
can change with the vulnerability, because red. vs.
green there are not a lot of weak hands I would
want to bid 3M.

To a certain degree it depends what you play against
a strong NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

Preemptive for me, although at vulnerable it shades towards intermediate (must be a very good suit).

[whereagles]

Opposite a strong NT, one can bid 3M on just about anything because game is unlikely to be on for our side.

"Lots of hearts, good suit and 0-15 hcp" seems just about correct.

Opposite a weak NT it's another story, of course. Then it should look more like a classic, sound preempt.

[helene_t]

Agree with Whereagles.

[sceptic]

♠ Q876532
♥ 6
♦ T863
♣ Q
how about this?

[FrancesHinden]

whereagles, on Aug 16 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

Opposite a strong NT, one can bid 3M on just about anything because game is unlikely to be on for our side.

"Lots of hearts, good suit and 0-15 hcp" seems just about correct.

Opposite a weak NT it's another story, of course. Then it should look more like a classic, sound preempt.

I've never really understood the philosophy that puts such a sharp distinction between defending a strong NT ("bid on anything") and a weak NT ("bids must be up to strength because it's likely to be our hand").

I don't really change my defensive methods that much between the various ranges of NT (other than to penalty double the mini rather more aggressively). Vulnerability and form of scoring are far more important than their nominal HCPs.

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Aug 16 2007, 07:58 AM, said:

If the opps open a strong NT and you overcall 3M what kind of strength is it standard to play this as showing, and does it change whether you're vul or NV.

I don't know what counts as 'standard'; it may vary depending on your other defensive mathods. For example, if you don't have a penalty double available the 3M bid may be useful as a fairly strong call.

I play 3M as pre-emptive and thus heavily dependent on vulnerability. 3S is by its nature a little more random than 3H, as you are usually trying to pre-empt the other major.

To me they look rather like my opening 3-level pre-empts at the same vulnerability, except that I will have a 7-card suit rather more often NV.

Also, while (nearly) everyone plays double of an opening 3-level bid as take-out, there are plenty of people around who play double of an overcall as penalties. That makes me more likely to pre-empt NV as I think penalties is an inferior method.

[jtfanclub]

I play it as a 6 winner suit with nothing quick outside.

KQTxxxx or better
x
xxx
Qx

would be a good example. This is a hand that would be very lucky to take more than 1 trick in 4 hearts, so it's important I not let them look for a fit.

[skjaeran]

I play it as a weak preempt.
Of course I'm only half mad at red. (Not all would agree on the "half" part.LOL)

[pclayton]

Its a preempt, but I tend to have good intermediates when Vul. It's a better preempt than (1x) - 3 major. I'd make the call on KQT9xxx, xxx, x, xx, but I'd slow down with: KQxxxxx, xxx, x, xx.

Note: If I'm playing something like Woolsey, my 3♣ and 3♦ calls become very wide ranging, since I can't make a direct or delayed natural 2 minor bid.

[cherdano]

I have no idea what is standard, but (as Justin may have noticed) I prefer intermediate over purely preemptive when vulnerable.

[kenberg]

Seems to me that it's to play. Taking vul, scoring, state of match, the phase of the moon, whatever, into account you
a. Don't expect partner to raise
b. Hope to land on your feet if doubled
c. Are very sure you want a lead of M if lho bids 4 of OM (usually, as far as I know, Texas is played on if the interference is 3C or less so lho playing the hand after you bid 3M becomes likely).


Ill be interested to hear what prompted this question since I wouldn't expect much deviation in answers here.

Ken

[jikl]

Quote

c. Are very sure you want a lead of M if lho bids 4 of OM (usually, as far as I know, Texas is played on if the interference is 3C or less so lho playing the hand after you bid 3M becomes likely).

I am not sure this last point is entirely thought through. Let me explain...

I have 7♠, NT opener has 2. So we are up to 9 already. Now most of the hands quoted so far have been headed by KQTxxxx. Now it comes down to whether this is the normal case scenario. If it is, then the NT is most likely to have the ♠A. Realistically in this scenario it comes down to whether partner is leading from (0), 1, 2 or 3 ♠. From 3 ♠ we do not want them lead, from 1 ♠ they would probably have led them anyway. The only really important example, probability wise is when the remaining ♠ are 2-2. And in this example we may be gaining a slow tempo trick whilst giving up another oppurtunity. Given that we have a 7 card suit, we also have a shortage somewhere (most likely in trumps). Perhaps the opening leader should be looking at their own suit unless they have distinct shortage to maximise the gain of the pre-empt and not put some constraint on suit quality as point "c." suggests.

An example:

---

Is this a preempt? Yes, is it a suit you want partner to lead? No. Enough ranting.

Sean

[kenberg]

You have a point alright. Still...

If lho bids 4H over my 3S and I hold something like QJTxxxx I may not much want a spade lead, true enough. On the other hand, if partner has four tricks on top I suppose he will ignore me and take them, and if he doesn't have four tricks on top declarer will likely have time ot get some pitches anyway.

But I am being a bit simplistic and really I agree that I might not be all that pleased with the result if partner leads a spade. Especially if he leads the ace, declarer ruffs in his hand, draws trump, and goes to dummy to take a pitch on the K, scoring up his vulnerable game. Now there's an oops.

Definitely something to consider before preempting with QJTxxxx.

K

[han]

cherdano, on Aug 16 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

I have no idea what is standard, but (as Justin may have noticed) I prefer intermediate over purely preemptive when vulnerable.

I don't think we ever discussed this, it seems ok with me. NV I would my 3M bids vary quite widely in HCP.

[whereagles]

sceptic, on Aug 16 2007, 01:01 PM, said:

♠ Q876532
♥ 6
♦ T863
♣ Q
how about this?

That one's rather dangerous... RHO has 2+ spades and they rate to be AK

Bid if you must, but keep it at the 2 level

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 16 2007, 01:21 PM, said:

I've never really understood the philosophy that puts such a sharp distinction between defending a strong NT ("bid on anything") and a weak NT ("bids must be up to strength because it's likely to be our hand").

I don't really change my defensive methods that much between the various ranges of NT (other than to penalty double the mini rather more aggressively). Vulnerability and form of scoring are far more important than their nominal HCPs.

Well, but you must agree it makes some sense to distinguish the situations. To what point is probably more of a personal thing, I give in.