[mikl_plkcc]

---

The contract made +2 (actually +1 but they discarded a wrong card at trick 12) by leading the obvious 4th best in ♦, but the ♣ suit was just half stopped with K5 and 92, and my partner had AJT743 but not enough values to enter a bidding with ♣ at the 3-level. Only one other table ended up in NT and the killing lead was not found as well, and most were in ♥.

Was it my fault or just unlucky that the killing lead couldn't be found?

[DavidKok]

It's difficult to tell without the full hand, but it sounds like partner should have opened 3♣?

[hrothgar]

Few thoughts about this hand

1. Overcalling 2!D - especially Red versus White - is insane
2. Feels like RHO is

(a) Prepared for a Diamond lead
(b) In a position to run a whole lot of Hearts

So, a Diamond lead might be counter indicated

3. A Club feels unilateral and speculative

I think that your best chance to set the contract is to lead the Ace of Spades, get a look at dummy, and see what partner signals

[mikl_plkcc]

---

This was the full hand. I wouldn't open 3♣ because I had only 6, and a 3-level opener required 7.

[jillybean]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-22, 14:48, said:

---

This was the full hand. I wouldn't open 3♣ because I had only 6, and a 3-level opener required 7.

You've lost your 6 card ♣ preempt to the strong 2♣ opening so just make 3♣ 6 or 7 cards.

[blackshoe]

Second seat, unfavorable, I would pass with the east hand. OTOH, the only way West is going to get off to the right lead is if he leads the ♣Q. A world class expert might find that lead, but I wouldn't be unhappy if I didn't.

[akwoo]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-22, 14:48, said:

---

This was the full hand. I wouldn't open 3♣ because I had only 6, and a 3-level opener required 7.

At some point you'll learn that the "rules" (that are not rules but only agreements between partners) are made to be bent.

I wouldn't open this 2nd seat unfavorable, but in just about any other situation it's 3♣.

[DavidKok]

For me this is a clear 3♣ opening, but then I'm sometimes more aggressive than most.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2025-March-23, 01:46, said:

For me this is a clear 3♣ opening, but then I'm sometimes more aggressive than most.

I wouldn’t say clear but since ditching “disciplined preempts”, I’m opening 3C too

[mikl_plkcc]

I play disciplined preempts at the first or second seat because I want the ability to bid a making 3NT, or a making slam, directly after a preempt by directly counting tricks / losers.

I will be extremely upset if I get 6♥-1 after my partner opens 2♥, having the KQ in my hand and 1 outside loser, because the preempt was opened with JTxxxx.

[DavidKok]

There are many ways for a preempt to win. It can push the opponents too high, keep them out of the auction, identify a profitable raise or sacrifice, or even indicate a lead. If you play sound preempts you are ahead every time one comes up, as you now have a very accurate picture of your partner's hand. However, you are behind on the hands where preempting might be profitable but the preempt isn't traditionally sound.
These days a lot of pairs trade stability for frequency when it comes to preempting styles. Bidding wins, applying pressure wins, and all of this comes up much more often than the game and slam profits from sound preempts. This deal is an example.

Many players still prefer sound preempts, and I think if that fits your partnership style you should absolutely continue with them. At the same time I think it's good to acknowledge that on this deal that decision was costly.

[awm]

 DavidKok, on 2025-March-23, 14:34, said:

There are many ways for a preempt to win. It can push the opponents too high, keep them out of the auction, identify a profitable raise or sacrifice, or even indicate a lead. If you play sound preempts you are ahead every time one comes up, as you now have a very accurate picture of your partner's hand. However, you are behind on the hands where preempting might be profitable but the preempt isn't traditionally sound.
These days a lot of pairs trade stability for frequency when it comes to preempting styles. Bidding wins, applying pressure wins, and all of this comes up much more often than the game and slam profits from sound preempts. This deal is an example.

Many players still prefer sound preempts, and I think if that fits your partnership style you should absolutely continue with them. At the same time I think it's good to acknowledge that on this deal that decision was costly.

Realistically, I suspect a 3♣ preempt would just convince opponents to play 4♥; they aren’t going to commit to 3nt with Kx as a stopper and a nine card heart fit.

[akwoo]

awm, on 2025-March-23, 15:31, said:

Realistically, I suspect a 3♣ preempt would just convince opponents to play 4♥; they aren’t going to commit to 3nt with Kx as a stopper and a nine card heart fit.

I'm not playing against top level competition that frequently, but I think there's a good chance you'd get to play 4♣ undoubled.