[chalks]

I'm south.

In a recent game, two separate auctions caused some discussion at our virtual table. Here they are:

---

EDIT: my hand posted below. I had KJxxxx♣ and a relatively balanced hand (no singletons/voids) with 5 more hcp (for 9hcp total) scattered throughout. We made the contract, got a significant IMP score for it (~8.5) and I explained my bid to my partner: "I'll bid 3c with only six if I'm in first seat and relatively decent clubs." My LHO immediately said that I would find very little support for that in the bridge community at large. So:

Is he right?
In what situation would you consider a 3c opening with that hand to be "right" (if ever)?
If never, is there a 6 card club suit that you would open at the 3 level? When/why?

---

EDIT: my hand posted below. I had AQJxx♣, xx♥, and 8 more hcp scattered (15hcp total) through my hand shape 5332. My partner was incensed at my bid of 3nt, and insisted I should have explored slam with a bid of 4♣ and clarified that "it's like blackwood, but at a lower level". I'm assuming he meant Gerber. When I argued about the appropriateness of that bid, he continued to insist that at the very least I had underbid.

4♣ is only Gerber over a nt bid, right?
4♣ is never Gerber when clubs has previously been bid by our side, right?
I'm inclined to agree that I was underbid (though we could not have made 6 of anything). Is there a good way for me to show my partner my values?


Thanks.

[Fluffy]

If you are a decent player 4♣ is never Gerber, 4NT might

I open 3m with 6 cards more than most people I know, it backfires from time to time, but I am happy.

Anyway you want extra offence to compensate for the lack of power in the 7th card. A very good suit such as KQJ9xx might be enough, or a side 4 card suit, or some strong 3 card holding such as KJ10, or even a favourable vulnerability. But scattered values and a shitty suit that you call decent are not worth it.

[ArtK78]

Fluffy, on 2012-January-11, 15:31, said:

If you are a decent player 4♣ is never Gerber

That is a little strong, although I have to admit I don't know of anyone who would play 4♣ as Gerber in this auction.

[daveharty]

First, a suggestion. Rather than trying to describe a hand in a roundabout way like "KJxxxx and a relatively balanced hand with 5 more HCP scattered throughout", could you just include the hand (or as close an approximation as possible if you can't remember it, but that shouldn't be the case if the hand was played on BBO)? It's much more concise and provides a helpful visual reference for those of us who might want to respond to your questions, and we don't have to wade through different variations for which our answers might be very different. Also I believe it serves a useful function for you as it encourages more precise pattern recall.

Re. your first hand: your question about whether your LHO was right depends on what exactly he meant. If he meant that you would find very little support in the bridge community for opening 3C with a six card suit under any circumstances, of course he is wrong. On the contrary, given a hand like Fluffy suggests (say, xx xx xxx KQJ9xx) you would more likely be hard-pressed to find someone would wouldn't open 3C, at least at favorable or equal vulnerability. Especially if you play a system where 2C is your strong artificial bid, 3C becomes almost by necessity your "weak 2 bid" in clubs. If, on the other hand, he meant that you would find little support for your personal criteria for opening on a six card suit--"first seat and relatively decent clubs"--then he might well be right, especially if this is an example of "relatively decent". The club suit you give is NOT relatively decent, it's quite poor. Preemptive bids should have a very high offense:defense ratio, as Fluffy suggests; your partner is never going to be able to make intelligent decisions over your preemptive bids if they have virtually no definition aside from moderate length in the suit opened. Again, it's hard to answer your other questions without seeing your specific hand, but in third seat, I might very well open 3C on a hand that I wouldn't open 3C in first seat for various reasons, so the hand might well have been appropriate for a third seat opener.

Re. your second hand, you didn't include anything about the system you and your partner were playing, which is often useful if not crucial information. If you play 2/1, then 3NT was almost certainly not the right call, as you were in a game-forcing auction already with no need to go jumping around. 2NT would have left more room for exploration and still left open the possibility of playing 3NT if slam looked unlikely. If you are instead playing something "Standard American" based, then you have to establish a game force by other means. However, your partner's suggestion that 4C was the correct bid is completely bizarre (especially if you were playing matchpoints) as it blows by your most-likely game contract, 3NT. And it certainly isn't Gerber.

[quiddity]

chalks, on 2012-January-11, 14:48, said:

Is he right?
In what situation would you consider a 3c opening with that hand to be "right" (if ever)?
If never, is there a 6 card club suit that you would open at the 3 level? When/why?

I think he is right - very few people would open 3♣ with that hand. It's too dangerous. I would never open 3♣, even w/r in 3rd seat. Consider that if clubs are moderately stacked behind you (say LHO has AQT8), you'll lose 4 trump tricks! This is the kind of preempt which can go for a number even when the opponents can't make anything.

When deciding whether to preempt I tend to look at the interiors of my suit (the QJT9), the vulnerability, the seat, and the shape. Opening a 6-card suit at the 3-level is already pushing it, so the rest of the hand would have to be pretty favorable. I would want equal or favorable vul, lots of interiors, and hopefully a side singleton.

As for the other one, 3NT sounds fine to me as a way of showing a balanced hand with some extras and not much going on in partner's suit.

[chalks]

Sorry, I was at work and couldn't access BBO without IT getting a little peeved. Here are the hands (and I mis-remembered them a tad):

1st hand:

---

Actual bidding:

---

made

2nd hand:

---

We were not playing 2/1, it would have made things much easier if we were. If your curious, my partners hand:

---

I'm particularly unhappy with the bidding on the second hand. I didn't want to jump to 3nt, but I didn't know how to force my (unfamiliar) partner to continue bidding. We were ostensibly playing SAYC, but... I'm still a little shaky on a few things, so there may be a bid that I missed here.

[aguahombre]

IMO, B/I partnerships should stick to 2-bids and 3-bids which show 6 & 7 card suits (respectively), and not have two outside cards of value. Then the partner of the preemptor can make some judgements about further bidding...with or without competition.

Otherwise, partners learn quickly to just butt out of your operations regardless of their support for the suit. Later on in development the partnership can revise to more frisky methods, and partner will relearn to butt out of your operations regardless of support.

[daveharty]

chalks, on 2012-January-11, 19:14, said:

2nd hand:

---

We were not playing 2/1, it would have made things much easier if we were. If your curious, my partners hand:

---

I think 3NT was an entirely reasonable bid by you. If your partner insists on criticizing your bidding, you might ask him why he didn't rebid 2D with his hand.

[bluecalm]

a)Play conservative preempting style.
It's important to have what partner expect you to have. Stick to 7 carders or 6-4's. Maybe some xx xx xxx KQJxxx non vul vs vul or nonvul in 3rd seat and that's it. Not only this style contribute to trust in your partnership, it's used by some very best players in the world and they are happy with it.
Sometime in the future you might develop serious partnership and you may decide to change preempting style to more aggressive after discussing things which your partner (like which hands qualify and which don't).
If someone tells you that "you have to make those aggressive preempts to win" then they are completely clueless.

b)
Your bid is fine, system sucks though. Change to 2/1 because it's simpler. While "standard" (pre 2/1) style might have merits it requires much more fine judgement and partnership understanding to make it work.

[Charlie Yu]

1. entirely reasonable.
2. You don't want to go to slam with this hand opposite 12-14, WTP?

[bluecalm]

Quote

1. entirely reasonable.

No it's not reasonable. It's bad bid regardless of style. Jumping around vulnerable with KQ8 sixth with Kxx of spades on the side is losing bridge.

[CSGibson]

1) I would preempt that hand first seat without thinking too deeply. I believe that it is winning bridge, long term, to be aggressive preempting first and third seat, because you are preempting the opponents more than partner (either 2 opponents vs 1 partner, or 1 opponent vs no partners).

People bid in smooth, uninterrupted auctions, and less well over preempts. Also, first seat is not a time to worry about suit quality (or at least not about opponents penalizing you; what partner may expect is between you and him). It is hardest for opponents to penalize an opponent when they make a first seat preempt. If you preempt 3rd seat & the next opponent passes, his partner will strive to reopen with a double, because his partner is marked with values. If you open 1st seat preempt, your partner could still have enough values that your opponents aren't guarenteed half the deck; it will be less obvious to reopen aggressively, and the opponent in the direct seat may feel the pressure to act on a hand that he would love to make a penalty double on normally.

[JLOGIC]

I would never consider preempting on the first hand.

[JLOGIC]

That said, I do think preempting is the biggest "style thing" and just overall philosophical difference between bridge players, as evidenced by bluecalm and csgibsons posts. I do have a hard time believing that opening 3C without any discussion with your partner that this is a 3C bid can be right, but I could imagine that if your partner knew you played very wide ranging preempts it would have a better chance (though partner is going to be guessing a lot over very wide ranging preempts, at least he will not be assuming you have textbook preempts and bidding according to that).

I do think if you're posting in the beginner/intermediate section and your goal is to improve as a bridge player that playing relatively normal conventions, preempting styles, and opening bid styles is best, but if your goal is to win more often in the short term then agreeing to random preempting and weird conventions and aggressive openings is probably best.

[Zelandakh]

I am one of those who believes fervently in wide-ranging preempts in favourable spots and do so with 6 card minors more frequently than anyone else I know. However I just cannot see any reason to open this first hand 3♣. We have a great hand for spades here and we can just open 1♣ and let things develop normally. I also agree with others that a more traditional preemptive style is probably best at first to provide a baseline for which direction you want to go in as you improve.

On the second hand your 3NT bid showed ~13-15. That's a perfectly reasonable description of your hand and if slam is good your partner can probably move over this himself. Whether 4♣ is Gerber or not is a matter for agreement. There are plenty of B/Is that have the agreement that 4♣ is always Gerber. I would not recommend such an approach. Assuming normal agreements, 4♣ is only Gerber after a 1NT or 2NT opening; many (myself included) prefer to discard Gerber even then. A 4♣ bid in the auction given would be a strong 1-suiter not interested in playing 3NT.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

On the 2nd hand......

North's 2H rebid did not show great strength and South doesn't have ANY key cards.
As South, I wouldn't expect North to have 4 "Aces".

[Cyberyeti]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-January-12, 09:51, said:

On the 2nd hand......

North's 2H rebid did not show great strength and South doesn't have ANY key cards.
As South, I wouldn't expect North to have 4 "Aces".

Exactly right. 3 aces + K♥ is too much for a 2♥ bid, and that's the minimum to make a slam barring a freak like xxxx, AKxxxx, void, AJx.

On hand 1, looks like a 1♣ opener for me, would not open 3 in 1st seat, although might in 3rd.

[MrAce]

Justin said it all imo.

Eventhough the way i like preempting doesnt match with Justin's style he nailed it when it comes to analysis of how to act with different styles in different situations and conditions.

Personally i prefer the style Bluecalm suggested in a field or a match that my opponents do not know me. But if i was a player who is playing frequently at top level bridge and frequently against top class same opponents, then i would definetely want to have an "unpredictable" style. Especially in first seat.

Everyone of course have their own experiences about bidding. What i have learnt over the years is, if you let your GOOD opponents have their constructive bids, even your BAD opponents, you lose the boards in long run. Of course pimpin aint easy and definetely not free of risks. There are downsides to try to be unpredictable because as Justin said if you are an ethical player you will be unpredictable for your pd as well. This is the price you accept to pay playing this style.

For example w/r first seat

xx
JT9xxxxx
x
xx

I open 4♥ and i also open 4♥ with

x
AQJT9xxx
x
xxx

Just because i open 4 with first hand, i dont open something else with 2nd hand like some do. If i do so, against good players who i play frequently this becomes very predictable imo. If i am taking a risk to go down for a phone number, i wanna make sure they take the risk too when i have the nuts. This makes me extremely uncomfortable if we have a slam going hand and if i prempted my pd, but as i said thats the price i accepted to pay in long run.

There are other prices to pay also of course besides going for a phone number or missing a slam. People tend to bid more agressively over preempts also. Sometimes you find yourself pushing opponents to a game or slam that they would probably not reach had u decided to leave them alone by themselves. But to me none of those are as important as starting the auction at 3 or 4 level when there are 3 other players who has not expressed anything about their hand yet, especially if they know you are capable of doing this with wide variety of hands.

I appologize if i went off topic a bit

[neilkaz]

Hand 1) Unless playing a very wide ranging preemptive style, I'd not preempt this. Give me some ♣ spots and I'd reconsider, but then the hand would seem good enought to open 1♣ to me. As it is, I just pass playing normal style with B/I. To open 1♣ I want a bit better hand unless playing a limited opening system.

Hand 2) Your partner was out of this world nuts and your 3NT bid is quite reasonable.

[CSGibson]

I have a couple more comments about both preempting style, which may inform my comments about hand 1:

First of all, what I believe is most important is that you are consistent in the decisions that you make about what is and what isn't a preempt at various vulnerabilities and seat positions. Not only will it save you the trouble over agonizing over hands in the bidding, but it will make life much easier for your various partners, especially if you get a chance to discuss preempting styles before you play.

Secondly, the term "winning bridge" has been tossed about both in favor of conservative and aggressive preempting. Frankly, both can be played in a winning manner, whatever your preference. While I believe that aggressive preempting is a long term winner in expected value of imp/mp gain, I also believe that it dramatically increases the variance of those imp/mp for any particular hand, meaning that preempting those hands tends to gain or lose bigger amounts on average than passing.

I got into an interesting discussion about imp expectation vs variance with one of my teammates at the Seattle NABC. We were discussing a minor suit slam bid by our third pair (we were on a six bagger), which went down. It was a 50% slam, and the expected gain was about 0 for either bidding or not bidding it, but my teammate, (a grand life master), was of the opinion that bidding the slam was a mistake because we were in a good position to qualify for the final day of the event, and that we shouldn't be swinging. In his opinion, even though the imp expectation of the decision was nothing either way, the variance was larger for bidding the slam than not bidding it since minor suit slams around 50% are less likely to be bid (people are reluctant to go past 3N, and bidding tools are often centered around major suit openings & responses). If we were struggling and needed to make up ground, then his opinion was that the slam should be bid, however, because we would need large variant actions to make up ground quickly.

All of this rounds out to a do what suits you and your partner.