[rob88s]

Hi Guys,

Playing a fairly constructive vul 3♠ opening, should you, or are you allowed to remove partner's 3NT with certain ♠ holdings?

[pooltuna]

rob88s, on 2011-September-21, 12:34, said:

Hi Guys,

Playing a fairly constructive vul 3♠ opening, should you, or are you allowed to remove partner's 3NT with certain ♠ holdings?

Your partner has to be William Bligh (so what if he was innocent, his reputation precedes him )

[helene_t]

The short answer is no.

Maybe with something like QJTxxxxx-(void)-xxxx-x but not everyone opens 3♠ with that hand. If you have something resembling a textbook 3♠ opening you should certainly pass.

[ArtK78]

I cannot imagine any hand that would open 3♠ that should act over 3NT, unless the opening 3♠ bid was a psyche.

[barmar]

In general, when you preempt or open NT, partner becomes the captain. You've described your hand pretty narrowly.

[wyman]

helene_t, on 2011-September-21, 12:55, said:

If you have something resembling a textbook 3♠ opening you should certainly pass.

This.

If you have something that doesn't resemble a textbook 3S opening, there's no law that says you have to pass. But you and partner need to be on the same wavelength about this.

You also may have issues if partner does not bid 3N in tempo and you bid again.

[nigel_k]

I don't believe in passing in first seat with really shapely hands just because they don't look like a 'typical' preempt. You can have an agreement about playing strength (sound, average or aggressive) which will dictate the level to which you preempt. But your standards should not mandate a pass on distributional hands.

With something like QJT9xxx - Jxxx xx you might open either 2♠ or 3♠ when vulnerable. If partner bids 3NT there are two possibilities:

1) Partner has nine tricks in their own hand in 3NT but there are four losers in spades
2) Partner has a fitting spade honour and a hand that looks like nine tricks may be easier than ten when your preempt is more typical.

Act according to which you think is most likely.

[mycroft]

"playing a fairly constructive [preempt style]" - is explicitly going to pass on hands that Nigel, for instance, will open. So will I. But I don't claim to play constructive preempts (of majors - I happen to like 1/2-seat 3m openers that say "partner, feel free to bid 3NT", but I've played every style I can think of, from super-sound to insanely aggressive to hugely wide-ranging).

But, given the constraints, where second-seat vul, QJT9xxx -- Jxxx xx isn't even close to a 3♠ opener, and partner will freak right out if it happens to be wrong, whether you end up 3Sx-4, or 4Sxx-1, or 3NT-5; if you opened 3♠ and you think you're in bounds for your call, you sit 3NT. Partner Knows What You Have - that's why you play constructive preempts, right? (It's not because the preemptive value is higher than wide-ranging, purely aggressive, or "hope-to-survive" preempts, I'm sure)

Are you allowed to pull 3NT? Sure, the Laws say you can make any legal call you want. But my guess is that if you do, it will be the *second* misbid you've made on this hand, and you're doing it because of the first one.

As a final note, let's say everything worked. 3♠ was the right call on this hand, and pulling 3NT to 4♠ was also right - 3NT has 11 tricks after you lose your 6, but you have trump control of the death suit after you lose your spade. You've just told partner "I think my bidding judgement is superior to yours, even when I know nothing about your hand and you know everything about mine." Do you really want to do that?

[Phil]

Of course you can pull to 4♠.

[Siegmund]

There was a cogent argument in Preempts from A to Z that if you preempted in a minor, you were expected to almost always leave in partner's notrump correction, but that if you preempted in a major it was quite normal to wind up in 4M instead. (Mostly meaning that partner should be raising you to 4M and very very rarely bidding 3NT - but I wouldn't think it unreasonable to have a rule of thumb like "with an ace or king outside your suit, leave 3NT, without one go back to 4M".

[nigel_k]

mycroft, on 2011-September-21, 18:07, said:

But, given the constraints, where second-seat vul, QJT9xxx -- Jxxx xx isn't even close to a 3♠ opener, and partner will freak right out if it happens to be wrong, whether you end up 3Sx-4, or 4Sxx-1, or 3NT-5; if you opened 3♠ and you think you're in bounds for your call, you sit 3NT. Partner Knows What You Have - that's why you play constructive preempts, right? (It's not because the preemptive value is higher than wide-ranging, purely aggressive, or "hope-to-survive" preempts, I'm sure)

If the hand doesn't meet our agreed standards for 3♠ I open it 2♠.

But passing is just wrong because it reduces your expected score under any plausible set of agreements. It is a bridge error in the same way that miscounting trumps is a bridge error. It may be hard to assign a number to the cost of passing because you'll never know what would have happened if you bid, but the cost is real and substantial.

Having correctly decided to open because it maximizes your score, the decision whether to pull partner's 3NT response (to either 2♠ or 3♠) should also be based on maximizing your score, not ideological purity or other irrelevant considerations. It's a somewhat harder decision than whether to open but I would always pull.

In no way is this an insult to partner. He made a judgment about what will work best given his hand and the range of hands I might hold. Now I am exercising judgment based on my hand and the range of hands he might hold. On that basis, it's likely that both of us made the correct call and we are now in the correct contract.

[Trinidad]

nigel_k, on 2011-September-22, 21:51, said:

If the hand doesn't meet our agreed standards for 3♠ I open it 2♠.

Funny you say that. I believe in constructive weak two's and garbage preempts which translates to: If the hand doesn't meet our agreed standards for 2♠ I open it 3♠.


Rik

[Flameous]

Certainly, but it takes some exotic hand you've pre-empted with.

Typical might be QJ 8th which might not play too well in 3NT opposite partner's Kx.
Also if you might open with some wild two-suiters, it's reasonable to pull and show your other suit.

One consideration is of course whether it's IMPs or MPs. Partner might be holding some rock and bidding 3NT cause it will certainly have same tricks as 4S, it's not usually a big loss, but loss anyways.

[Fluffy]

I pulled a 3♦-3NT once with Q 8th a t favourable, it was a success. With a major I think you shoul ddo it even more frequently. You don't need the pull to work all the time, just to work more frequently than not pulling. Having nothing resembling an entry looks like it.

[whereagles]

Even something like QJxxxxx xx xxx x is not automatic since pard can have AKx. But yeah, weak major with extra length is a good type of hand to pull to 4M.

[jschafer]

I don't understand bidding 3N on things like Kx or AKx. You have no guarantee that you can cash the ♠s on the first and could be using those ♠s to ruff things on the latter example. I would not bid 3N over 3♠ on a hand that relies on the ♠ suit as a source of tricks, 4♠ seems safer for those hands. When my p bids 3NT over 3♠ I expect him to have a source of tricks outside of ♠s, maybe a hand like ♠T ♥KQ ♦AKQT8542 ♣KQ. If I were to pull 3N it would be on an extreme hand, maybe on a 6-5 spade/minor two-suiter or something.

[whereagles]

Kx is excellent to bid 3NT on.

Kx
Axx
Axx
xxxxx

is an obvious 3NT bid over a vulnerable 3S.

[tolvyrj]

If u play fairly constructive pre-empts and thats u agreement AND u have opened accordingly, i dont see why u shld.
U made u bid and prd made his/hers, why shld u start to second guess u own prds bidding. I cant see nothing good to come from such actions.
If u shld have done that on a that particular deal, dont worry about it; in a long run passing must be right.

[barmar]

This is why I generally try to agree on sound preempts vulnerable, where sound means 2 of the top 3 honors. If partner has honor doubleton, he can count on 7 tricks in the suit, and can then place the contract pretty accurately based on his holdings elsewhere.

If you've opened on QJxxxxx, partner COULD have AKx when he bids 3NT, but I wouldn't count on it. It's much more likely that he's expecting you to have most of the control in your suit, and he has the other suits protected. Although if you're non-vulnerable, partner should be aware that your suit could be this bad, so you should probably still trust him.

[MrAce]

jschafer, on 2011-September-24, 03:04, said:

I don't understand bidding 3N on things like Kx or AKx. You have no guarantee that you can cash the ♠s on the first and could be using those ♠s to ruff things on the latter example. I would not bid 3N over 3♠ on a hand that relies on the ♠ suit as a source of tricks, 4♠ seems safer for those hands. When my p bids 3NT over 3♠ I expect him to have a source of tricks outside of ♠s, maybe a hand like ♠T ♥KQ ♦AKQT8542 ♣KQ. If I were to pull 3N it would be on an extreme hand, maybe on a 6-5 spade/minor two-suiter or something.

I disagree with you.

AKx KTx QTxx AJT.
I'd bid 3NT over pd's 3♠ on anyday with this (or similar) and would not even consider bidding 4♠. Hell, i would be scared to play 3♠ with this. But make my hand something like x Axxx AKxx AJxx i would bid 4♠.

Back to topic, imo previous posters said very well that opener is not expected to remove. If removing, it is probably 2nd bad bid by preempter. Sad part about it, is that pd by bidding 3NT may have recovered your bad bid and you are about to screw him up again. As mycroft and Helene already explained.