[gprentice]

Is 3 spades a reasonable opening bid here? At my table, west bid 4 hearts over 3 spades and we got a bad board because most tables were in 4 spades making. Should south bid 4 spades over 4 hearts or immediately over 3 spades. It's match-points. Dealer is north, no-one vulnerable.

---

[mike777]

One spade

[jillybean]

3S is fine, this is not a 1S opening for most pairs.
Your partner was comatose, 4S is automatic after 3S, and west had a death wish

[Huibertus]

gprentice, on 2025-December-17, 21:55, said:

Is 3 spades a reasonable opening bid here? At my table, west bid 4 hearts over 3 spades and we got a bad board because most tables were in 4 spades making. Should south bid 4 spades over 4 hearts or immediately over 3 spades. It's match-points. Dealer is north, no-one vulnerable.

---

Yes, this is a nice 3♠ opening. It depends a bit on your agreed range, but i'd assume it fits within. I always pick 3♠ when I want partner to raise with minimal ♠ support, and some quick tricks, which is what I'd do with the south hand and your partner should do too.

[DavidKok]

I would open 4♠, but I think 3♠ is probably more popular (albeit worse). At any rate 3♠ is very reasonable.

In my partnership South does not have a raise of 3♠.
In other partnerships I think the raise is indicated but not automatic - I can't quite count 10 tricks, and have decent defence against any 4-level contract. However, I sometimes joke that opposite a more standard preempt style I should estimate what I think I can make, then bid two more to account for partner's conservative bidding. Using that rule this is an easy 4♠ raise.

[mw64ahw]

I'd be happy with 1♠ or 3♠ depending on partner's expectations (outside Ace or not, light openings?). Three quick tricks in South's hand with another possible would be an automatic raise for me at equal vulnerability and of course the adjusted mod. loser count works in favour of a raise.

[AL78]

The North hand is a 3♠ opening as far as I'm concerned. South has three and possibly four tricks to contribute on a good day so is very marginal for a raise, it depends on what your min and max expectations are for a 3♠ opener. I don't think I would raise and it makes because both hands have values to spare and the hands are a near perfect fit. I tend not to worry about missing very marginal games that make because there is no wastage.

[pescetom]

The North hand is at the top of my 3S range, but still there. As South I would not raise 3S at MP.

[mikeh]

David got there first, lol. Thirty years ago…ok, maybe 40 years ago..that would be a 3S bid. It’s an automatic 4S bid these days. 3S if red v white, but only because that’s the vulnerability where one has to be conservative.

Since that’s an automatic 4S bid these days, that in turn means that it would be an error for south to raise.

Those who think this is a 3S bid presumably don’t much watch or read reports about high level bridge.

Now, if you believe this is a 3S bid, then south perhaps should raise.

So the discussion is sort of circular. But there’s a reason most top players would open 4S….this type of approach is winning bridge. Top players don’t make aggressive preempts because they enjoy losing…they do it because they enjoy winning, and exerting maximal pressure is winning bridge. Understand that is not just about opening 4S with this hand. It’s also about opening 3S with weaker playing hands. If you open 3S with weaker hands, you need to open 4S here, since otherwise you miss good games as well as exerting less pressure.

[jillybean]

This is why we are still playing club bridge.
David, Mike please describe hands with a 7 card suit which you would preempt 3.
Please don't include Multi in your preempt scheme as this is unavailable for those of us who are not in the Reisinger

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2025-December-18, 09:34, said:

This is why we are still playing club bridge.
David, Mike please describe hands with a 7 card suit which you would preempt 3.
Please don't include Multi in your preempt scheme as this is unavailable for those of us who are not in the Reisinger

Take away the club ace and I’d happily open 3S. At favourable….take away the spade Jack at mps. I won’t tell you the minimum for a favourable 3S at imps because you might not believe me, lol.

[DavidKok]

In first seat, nobody vulnerable, I would open 3♠ with seven cards with for example ♠K9xxxxx, ♥Qxx, ♦Kx, ♣x. It is an unpleasant preempt, but unsuitable for either pass or 2♠.

However, as an example, ♠QJTxxxx, ♥x, ♦xxx, ♣xx is a 4♠ opening. It is important not to conflate offensive potential, defensive potential, ODR, HCP or suit quality. Sometimes a hand becomes less suitable for a preempt by adding honours.

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2025-December-18, 08:50, said:

David got there first, lol. Thirty years ago…ok, maybe 40 years ago..that would be a 3S bid. It’s an automatic 4S bid these days. 3S if red v white, but only because that’s the vulnerability where one has to be conservative.

Since that’s an automatic 4S bid these days, that in turn means that it would be an error for south to raise.

Those who think this is a 3S bid presumably don’t much watch or read reports about high level bridge.

Now, if you believe this is a 3S bid, then south perhaps should raise.

So the discussion is sort of circular. But there’s a reason most top players would open 4S….this type of approach is winning bridge. Top players don’t make aggressive preempts because they enjoy losing…they do it because they enjoy winning, and exerting maximal pressure is winning bridge. Understand that is not just about opening 4S with this hand. It’s also about opening 3S with weaker playing hands. If you open 3S with weaker hands, you need to open 4S here, since otherwise you miss good games as well as exerting less pressure.

With all due respect, I think the correct approach does really depend on the opponents.

Against experts who are going to get 70% of their decisions right if you open 3♠, then, yes, 4♠ is the right partnership agreement for this hand. (There's a lot of randomness, so a pair that's getting 80% right over a decent sample is probably cheating.)

Even in an average regional pairs field, your opponents are only getting maybe 55% of their decisions right if you open 3♠. Now it might be right to agree to open 3♠ on this hand, because you're gaining both when they get it wrong and when par is 3♠ making.

Against beginners who get only 40% of their decisions right, surely it has to be better to bid less and let them get it wrong.

[DavidKok]

Finally! People told me for years "your aggressive preempts might work at the club level, but once you get to the next level they will punish you". Now the shoe is on the other foot, and I read "your aggressive preempts might be break even at the expert level, but are poor at the club level".

Thank you, I don't agree but I enjoy encountering this argument tremendously.

[mikeh]

akwoo, on 2025-December-18, 11:24, said:

With all due respect, I think the correct approach does really depend on the opponents.

Against experts who are going to get 70% of their decisions right if you open 3♠, then, yes, 4♠ is the right partnership agreement for this hand. (There's a lot of randomness, so a pair that's getting 80% right over a decent sample is probably cheating.)

Even in an average regional pairs field, your opponents are only getting maybe 55% of their decisions right if you open 3♠. Now it might be right to agree to open 3♠ on this hand, because you're gaining both when they get it wrong and when par is 3♠ making.

Against beginners who get only 40% of their decisions right, surely it has to be better to bid less and let them get it wrong.

I respectfully disagree, for several reasons.

1. If you preempt aggressively, it seems to me that you should bid the max on all such hands, seat and vulnerability allowing. Overloading 3S by including this hand and David’s Kxxxxxx (with which I agree) makes partner ‘s job more difficult…basically impossible

2. Preempting aggressively is, in my experience, really effective against club players. They bid when they shouldn’t, they pass when they shouldn’t. And they almost never penalize us when they should. So I WANT to make my aggressive 3 S bids….and that means I NEED to open this 4S.

3. Related to point 2, at the club very few players double (or pass a double) for penalty.

4. Most club players defend very badly. Thus if I’m in 4S that would go down one or two against good defenders, I will often do a trick or two better than I should. So my ‘cost’ cost from overbidding is less at the club than in strong competition. If it works in strong competition and, in a weak field, my downside risk (getting caught speeding) is reduced and my upside (taking more tricks than I should ) is increased, why should I turn conservative in the weak field?

5. It’s important, in a regular partnership, to stay true to the partnership style. Judgement is honed by repetition. Varying style according to who your opps are means that you’re not playing the same style all the time and that reduces the honing of judgement.see point 1.

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2025-December-18, 11:54, said:

5. It’s important, in a regular partnership, to stay true to the partnership style. Judgement is honed by repetition. Varying style according to who your opps are means that you’re not playing the same style all the time and that reduces the honing of judgement.see point 1.

I agree with this, but there are partnerships that are uninterested at playing at more competitive levels.

What's right for you is not necessarily what's right for a pair of intermediates whose primary aspiration is to average 55% in club games. (And what's right for a pair of beginners aspiring to average 45% in club games might also be different.)

(David - There is no question I bid more aggressively against good opposition. The standard line about psyching is that there's no point in doing it against a pair you expect to score well playing straight. It would seem to me the same applies to aggressive preempting.)

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2025-December-18, 10:29, said:

Take away the club ace and I’d happily open 3S. At favourable….take away the spade Jack at mps. I won’t tell you the minimum for a favourable 3S at imps because you might not believe me, lol.

Let's see it

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

For us the hand is between 3S and 4S, and I would most likely go with 3S.
Depending what your p expect that a 3S bid of yours looks like, he can raise
or should pass in a flash, sitting oppossite me, you should most likely raise.


As it is, he has 3 1/2 tricks for you, this should be enough to give 3S a
reasonable chance of making, and the 1/2 trick may be the 4th to make 4S. (*)
As it is, the Ace hits the KQ, assuming it this would not be the case, the
chances of making 10 tricks drops, and missing such a game, would not be the
end of the the world.

Position matters, Vulnerability matters, having spades matters as well.
Having spades matters, you dont need to go crazy. Know what you are playing.

(*) We had such a situation p, passed, they reopened and bid 4H.
My partner did bid 4S over their 4H, we got doubled and I made it.
Partner judged correctly, that 4S would not be expensive.
Our opponents were seasoned Internationals, no Bermuda Bowl regulars,
but they surely did know, what they were doing.
It also helps, if they think, that they have to enter, and so enabling you
you collect a penalty.
The thing is, do you have a firm understanding, what you can expect?
Because this will help you to judge correctly in later auctions,
if it is wide ranging, it wont help you a lot.


I rarely hear, that they claim, that I am way to shy with my preempts,
but I like going plus and avoiding stupid contracts.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-December-19, 01:03, said:

The thing is, do you have a firm understanding, what you can expect?
Because this will help you to judge correctly in later auctions,
if it is wide ranging, it wont help you a lot.


I rarely hear, that they claim, that I am way to shy with my preempts,
but I like going plus and avoiding stupid contracts.

My style is extremely wide-ranging. I would not go back to a more conservative and restrictive style unless partner absolutely insists. It's just so much better to have wide-ranging preempts than to have specific requirements. In my experience the ability to judge what to do shifts, but is only mildly reduced.

I can't speak for you, but about 90% of my local club thinks they are aggressive, and at least 75% thinks they are more aggressive than the field. I encourage people to question these assumptions, especially in a discussion where others are taking more extreme actions. As Mike said, aggression wins. Modus tollens, moderation loses, regardless of the label slapped on it.

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2025-December-19, 01:24, said:

My style is extremely wide-ranging. I would not go back to a more conservative and restrictive style unless partner absolutely insists. It's just so much better to have wide-ranging preempts than to have specific requirements. In my experience the ability to judge what to do shifts, but is only mildly reduced.

I can't speak for you, but about 90% of my local club thinks they are aggressive, and at least 75% thinks they are more aggressive than the field. I encourage people to question these assumptions, especially in a discussion where others are taking more extreme actions. As Mike said, aggression wins. Modus tollens, moderation loses, regardless of the label slapped on it.

Your partnerships needs to be happy with the style you employ, and yes the style we employ is
an outlier, lots of things we do, are, but it works, at least at the moment and for us.
And we are pretty open, we tell them, they dont believe us. It is possible, that I may feel
the need to adapt, I will, if I need to. But at the moment I am happy.

In Poker there is the Maniac, and the Stone Cold Killer (I am not sure this is the correct term), I prefer the later.

I think I am disiciplined agressive, whatever this may mean, I can ramp this up, and I can
cool this down.