[Fluffy]

♠x
♥Q9x
♦Qxx
♣AQ9xxx

favourable (opps vul), first position

[MrAce]

To me 3♣ > pass > 1♣

I have a tendency to choose the bids that makes it harder for opponents to find their major suit when i am short in them.

My majors are in the correct order also, if we happen to miss a heart fit because of my choice, then they will have a spade fit most of the time. And getting in at 3 level before everyone else at the table is advantage, tells my hand to pd in 1 shot.

Vulnerability supports us in different ways, we are not going to bleed as much as if we were red if things go nuts, we will lose less if we miss game. While it is the opposite for opponents and puts way more stress than us on them for both same reasons.

[broze]

Would never consider 1♣ with only 1 A/K, and I hate passing with 4 cards in the majors w/r so I'd bid 3♣ at any form of scoring and would feel pretty happy about it. How much does/should IMPs vs MPs affect people's decisions in these situations?

[gszes]

i echo the 3c > p > 1c

do no see the benefit of a 1c opening bid. Not enough defense and it fails to
stress the only decent thing about this hand a fair club suit. 3c will not keep
us from bidding/making game when it is there (mostly 43 heart fits) and gets
our hand info across in one quick volley. IMPS/MP all the same thinking here.

[EricK]

I hate 1♣ on this - it makes it easier for LHO to bid a major suit as most play that an overcall can be weaker than an opener. If my methods allowed 2♣ (either as a minimum Precision opener, or a Fantunes/EHAA style 2 level bid) then I would happily bid that. Otherwise I would go with 3♣ unless I was playing with a partner who really didn't like this sort of pre-empting style.

[Cascade]

gszes, on 2012-November-18, 05:58, said:

i echo the 3c > p > 1c

do no see the benefit of a 1c opening bid. Not enough defense and it fails to
stress the only decent thing about this hand a fair club suit. 3c will not keep
us from bidding/making game when it is there (mostly 43 heart fits) and gets
our hand info across in one quick volley. IMPS/MP all the same thinking here.

Wow I don't think I have ever managed to bid a 4=3 major game after pre-empting in a minor. I can't imagine how the auction would go? Does responder introduce a four-card suit or does opener rebid 4♥ over 3♠ say?

[gwnn]

I don't hate 1C as much as others, in fact I would probably do it if we had Kxx JTx in the reds or so. But 3C is better on this hand. Pass is also legit but not my favourite call in this position.

[Lord Molyb]

I would open 1♣ in first/second seat. But my partner hates when I pre-empt on more than 9 points, so I'm probably in the minority here.

[Cascade]

A maximum with a decent 3-card major is certainly a flaw for 3♣. Whether that outweighs the advantages I am not sure but I too would routinely open 1♣ in 1st/2nd seats.

[ggwhiz]

MrAce, on 2012-November-18, 05:38, said:

My majors are in the correct order

I'm in for 3♣ but it's a chosen partnership style that doesn't always work. Just not up to scratch for 1♣ for us.

As MrAce points out, they can land on their head if they come in (wrong major etc.) and at these colours the profits outweigh the losses imo.

[Phil]

Pass>1♣>3♣

I prefer pass to 1♣because I have short spades and Qxx are terrible holdings. Passing and bidding clubs describes my hand to a tee.

With these red suit holdings, 3♣ is just an oddball bid. I like to pressure my opponents but I'd rather not toss 7 IMPs playing 3♣ when partner has a routine pass. Plus howw can partner reliably judge to bid 5♣ if you open 3♣ on this as well as x xxx xxx KQxxxx?

[Codo]

I would never ever pass, but whether it is 3 or 1? No idea...

[gnasher]

1♣ ~= pass >> 3♣

I loathe 3♣, which has at least four flaws (♥Q, ♦Q, ♣A, bad suit). Personally I'd open 1♣, but I don't see anything wrong with pass.

[ggwhiz]

Phil, on 2012-November-18, 11:18, said:

Plus howw can partner reliably judge to bid 5♣ if you open 3♣ on this as well as x xxx xxx KQxxxx?

My partner can reliably judge that I never own THAT piece of garbage.

[aguahombre]

With Phil, on this. I don't like preempting 3 people with those outside queens. Every once in a while, when I don't have an opening bid, pass works out well.

[655321]

With gnasher, I would open 1♣, don't mind pass, but hate 3♣.

For me, being w/r as dealer is the biggest factor. This is a time we want to preempt, but (to me) this means we happily open 3♣ on Qxxxxx and out, it doesn't mean we preempt with decent (opening/near opening) hands with empty suits and scattered values outside.

[JLOGIC]

I also think 3c is a joke. Pass or 1c is a style thing, I'd pass playing relatively standard

[EricK]

Phil, on 2012-November-18, 11:18, said:

With these red suit holdings, 3♣ is just an oddball bid. I like to pressure my opponents but I'd rather not toss 7 IMPs playing 3♣ when partner has a routine pass. Plus howw can partner reliably judge to bid 5♣ if you open 3♣ on this as well as x xxx xxx KQxxxx?

Presumably if you play this style of pre-empt then you take the view, in many more cases than "normal", that the opening pre-empt has done its job. i.e. you don't extend the pre-empt as freely, and you tend not to sacrifice. You have taken away 2 levels of bidding in a situation where other people might have passed. The hope is that this will put your side ahead often enough that your side don't have to take the last guess.

[aguahombre]

EricK, on 2012-November-18, 23:50, said:

Presumably if you play this style of pre-empt then you take the view, in many more cases than "normal", that the opening pre-empt has done its job. i.e. you don't extend the pre-empt as freely, and you tend not to sacrifice. You have taken away 2 levels of bidding in a situation where other people might have passed. The hope is that this will put your side ahead often enough that your side don't have to take the last guess.

Yes, this is the view of those who prefer to do everything from one side of the table at the outset. Some of us are not prescient enough to make all the decisions from our side based on no particular information, and must use that person we invited to sit across from us as a crutch.

[EricK]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-19, 00:03, said:

Yes, this is the view of those who prefer to do everything from one side of the table at the outset. Some of us are not prescient enough to make all the decisions from our side based on no particular information, and must use that person we invited to sit across from us as a crutch.

That's a bit harsh. You can tell your partner you have at least 6 clubs and less than opening strength and let him make a decision - but he will make more cautious decisions than those whose partner promised at least 7 clubs. Or you can pass and tell him you have less than opening strength and let him make a decision based on that. It is not clear that he will make better decisions in the latter scenario. It is clear that the opponents are likely to make better decisions in the latter scenario though.