[peachy]

gwnn, on Aug 27 2008, 08:08 AM, said:

For those of you wjoing with no qualm, would you also come in over 1N?

If the meaning of 3C overcall on their 1NT opening is "weak/preemptive" then yes.

[the hog]

Pass. I think 3C with this hand is a really bad bid.

[Lobowolf]

I think the benefits of the 3♣ bid, when it works, are obvious and sometimes spectacular, which somewhat skews the perception of the aggressive preempt; the benefits of pass, when it "works" aren't even always recognized as ancillary to the pass, e.g. 4♥ off 1 at one table where declarer bangs down the AK of trump, and 4♥ making at the other table where declarer picks up Qxx in the hand of the preemptor's partner.

[pclayton]

Lobowolf, on Aug 27 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

I think the benefits of the 3♣ bid, when it works, are obvious and sometimes spectacular, which somewhat skews the perception of the aggressive preempt; the benefits of pass, when it "works" aren't even always recognized as ancillary to the pass, e.g. 4♥ off 1 at one table where declarer bangs down the AK of trump, and 4♥ making at the other table where declarer picks up Qxx in the hand of the preemptor's partner.

Or we find a cheap sac against 4♥, or they miss a slam when RHO is jammed over 5♣ and can't make a strong raise of 3♦/♠.

Bidding could be wrong, but our shape is security against going for a huge number.

Its a bidder's game after all.

[zasanya]

awm, on Aug 26 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

If opponents open things change a bit. Now it is much less likely that partner has a good hand, and it is more likely to be the opponents I am interfering with. Also, with the points on my right it is fairly likely that if the opponents win the auction I will be on lead (say after a negative double or a raise by LHO).

So I'd bid 3♣ over any of 1♦, 1♥, 1♠ by RHO but would pass in first chair.

Isn't the idea of preempting " to prevent supposedly stronger opponents from exchanging information"?If one of them has already bid then already some information has been passed and in fact LHO might actually benefit from the call of 3♣?Don't i need to guide P regarding lead or possible sacrifice?Wont 3♣
misguide him about the lead?How can I be sure that I will be on lead?
For the record I won't dream of preempting with this hand in either of the 4 casess.
Yet if someone forces me to preempt then dealer position seems 'safer' compared to overcall.
Could you please elaborate?

[brianshark]

In a club game the other day, Partner passed, RHO opened 1♣ and at favourable holding ♠xxx ♥98xxxx ♦Jxxx ♣-, I jumped to 3♥. The bidding proceeded 5♣ - 5♥ - 6♣ - All Pass. I can't remember if this was the hand where 6♣ is down 1 or the one where 6♣ is cold, but they are also cold for 6♠ which is trivial to reach if I stay quiet. Either way, we got a good score. Pre-empts work, and sometimes you just know that you are unlikely to get punished and highly likely to pressure a guess out of the opponents.

[Lobowolf]

pclayton, on Aug 27 2008, 09:39 PM, said:

Or we find a cheap sac against 4♥, or they miss a slam when RHO is jammed over 5♣ and can't make a strong raise of 3♦/♠.



Bidding could be wrong, but our shape is security against going for a huge number.

Agreed, and the scenarios you mention are pretty much what I mean by the benefits of 3♣ when it's right being more obvious.

It's a combination of a judgment call and partnership understanding (and the success of either bid is partially dependent on those understandings and the corresponding inferences partner draws). On any given hand, pass could be the winner, or 3♣ could be the winner. Both bids come with potential upside and downside; I was mostly trying to elaborate on the potential downside to 3♣, which was (is) going largely uncommented-upon (except by Adam).

Agree with the "huge number" comment. I think the more likely downsides are encouraging a phantom sac, misdirecting the defense, and assisting declarer.

[Lobowolf]

brianshark, on Aug 28 2008, 03:15 AM, said:

In a club game the other day, Partner passed, RHO opened 1♣ and at favourable holding ♠xxx ♥98xxxx ♦Jxxx ♣-, I jumped to 3♥. The bidding proceeded 5♣ - 5♥ - 6♣ - All Pass. I can't remember if this was the hand where 6♣ is down 1 or the one where 6♣ is cold, but they are also cold for 6♠ which is trivial to reach if I stay quiet. Either way, we got a good score.

Pre-empts work, and sometimes you just know that you are unlikely to get punished and highly likely to pressure a guess out of the opponents.

They work even better against people who jump to 5 of a minor while holding a major! Maybe I'm just a pessimist...If I had that hand and bid 3♥, it would have gone negative double on my left, 5♥ across from me, and RHO would have settled into an unbreakable 6♠.

Then my teammates would come back and tell me that at THEIR table, it went:

1♣ - (P) -1♠ etc., and when they got to 6♠, the guy with my hand made a Lightner double, got his club ruff at trick one, and beat the slam.

"Tough luck, partner...next hand?"

[Lobowolf]

zasanya, on Aug 28 2008, 02:44 AM, said:

awm, on Aug 26 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

If opponents open things change a bit. Now it is much less likely that partner has a good hand, and it is more likely to be the opponents I am interfering with. Also, with the points on my right it is fairly likely that if the opponents win the auction I will be on lead (say after a negative double or a raise by LHO).

So I'd bid 3♣ over any of 1♦, 1♥, 1♠ by RHO but would pass in first chair.

Isn't the idea of preempting " to prevent supposedly stronger opponents from exchanging information"?If one of them has already bid then already some information has been passed and in fact LHO might actually benefit from the call of 3♣?Don't i need to guide P regarding lead or possible sacrifice?Wont 3♣
misguide him about the lead?How can I be sure that I will be on lead?
For the record I won't dream of preempting with this hand in either of the 4 casess.
Yet if someone forces me to preempt then dealer position seems 'safer' compared to overcall.
Could you please elaborate?

I'm in some agreement with this post. Although Adam raised some very good considerations, I think he left out one that swings me the other way on the "preemptive opening v. preemptive overcall" distinction -- the preempt itself is more likely to be disruptive with the opponents not having communicated information. So although I'm a passer (other than at 3rd seat favorable), if I were going to take action, I'd rather open 3♣ than overcall 3♣. Not so much out of safety, but out of getting more value from the preempt. It's easier for the guy behind me to know what to do when he knows his partner has an opening hand and he knows what suit he opened with. I'd rather leave him to a less educated guess as to whether to take action, or possibly create a double-or-overcall problem that might lead to their getting to the wrong major.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Aug 28 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

They work even better against people who jump to 5 of a minor while holding a major!  Maybe I'm just a pessimist...If I had that hand and bid 3♥, it would have gone negative double on my left, 5♥ across from me, and RHO would have settled into an unbreakable 6♠.

Shockingly, people make mistakes and misjudge over preempts! That's why they tend to work! Maybe responder was 4-7 and figured the negative double was a bad description. Maybe opener was 5-6 and figured 5♠ would just be a cuebid over 5♥. When you take away their room they constantly guess wrong, it's no accident that people preempt on trash.

By the way this goes against your previous (false) point that the success of the preempt is general spectacular and easy to remember. The opponents bid a making slam over the preempt and all seems good for them, and everyone forgets or doesn't even realize you took away their room to find a higher scoring slam. The main successes are subtle, that the opponents have a reasonable auction over the preempt but simply don't reach the right contract with their room taken away. It's not that you so often find an awesome save or something.

Lobowolf, on Aug 28 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

So although I'm a passer (other than at 3rd seat favorable), if I were going to take action, I'd rather open 3♣ than overcall 3♣.

This consideration is irrelevant to the problem, all that matters is whether you would rather overcall 3♣ than pass over the opening bid. I'd rather bid 7NT than 7♦ too, but if 7♦ is all that will make then that's what I bid!

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Aug 28 2008, 01:17 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 28 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

They work even better against people who jump to 5 of a minor while holding a major!  Maybe I'm just a pessimist...If I had that hand and bid 3♥, it would have gone negative double on my left, 5♥ across from me, and RHO would have settled into an unbreakable 6♠.

Shockingly, people make mistakes and misjudge over preempts! That's why they tend to work! Maybe responder was 4-7 and figured the negative double was a bad description. Maybe opener was 5-6 and figured 5♠ would just be a cuebid over 5♥. When you take away their room they constantly guess wrong, it's no accident that people preempt on trash.

By the way this goes against your previous (false) point that the success of the preempt is general spectacular and easy to remember. The opponents bid a making slam over the preempt and all seems good for them, and everyone forgets or doesn't even realize you took away their room to find a higher scoring slam. The main successes are subtle, that the opponents have a reasonable auction over the preempt but simply don't reach the right contract with their room taken away. It's not that you so often find an awesome save or something.

Lobowolf, on Aug 28 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

So although I'm a passer (other than at 3rd seat favorable), if I were going to take action, I'd rather open 3♣ than overcall 3♣.

This consideration is irrelevant to the problem, all that matters is whether you would rather overcall 3♣ than pass over the opening bid. I'd rather bid 7NT than 7♦ too, but if 7♦ is all that will make then that's what I bid!

I actually said "sometimes" spectacular, and I still think to the extent that the successes of the preempt may be subtle, they're less subtle than the successes of the pass. You're more likely to attribute a good result to a good bid than you are to a good pass.

When the auction includes a 3♣ - 5♣ jam followed by the opposing side's getting to the wrong spot, I think it's usually pretty clear that the preempts helped get them to the wrong spot. Contrast this to an uncontested auction where declarer goes down; it's much less likely that someone's going to say, "Gee, you almost had a 3♣ bid. I bet if you hadn't passed, declarer would have played the trump right and made it" or something like that.



The original problem posed different scenarios - 3♣ as opener, or after three different bids. I think it also asked "why or why not?" implying that the poster wanted to know about the types of considerations that went into the thought process, rather than just taking a survey, so I don't think that comparing the relative merits of the overcall vs. the opening is irrelevant. At any rate, I wasn't the first (or second) person to compare the two, so don't pick on me just because I'm not voting for Obama.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Aug 28 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

At any rate, I wasn't the first (or second) person to compare the two, so don't pick on me just because I'm not voting for Obama.

Yes that's exactly why. Doesn't have anything to do with you just posting and posting and posting and posting in the same thread simply because so few agree with you. I also get tempted because you are the semantics police, which I have to admit always tempts me. Sorry "sometimes" you are

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Aug 28 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 28 2008, 01:42 PM, said:

At any rate, I wasn't the first (or second) person to compare the two, so don't pick on me just because I'm not voting for Obama.

Yes that's exactly why. Doesn't have anything to do with you just posting and posting and posting and posting in the same thread simply because so few agree with you. I also get tempted because you are the semantics police, which I have to admit always tempts me. Sorry "sometimes" you are

As for posting and people agreeing with me, that's partly true. Not with respect to whether anyone should pass or bid 3♣...don't care about that at all. But yes, with respect to acknowledging that there are some advantages to passing, because I think those advantages are often hidden and pass without comment. See also: Fred's comments on 1S-1NT; 2S-2NT; 3H re: hidden advantages of passing. So I do think that it's important to acknowledge them, and enumerate them, even if there's strong disagreement on the correct action on a particular hand.


As for Semantics Police...you got me busted 100% guilty as charged. What can I say? I was an English major.

[skjaeran]

I'd overcall 3♣ over any non-club 1-level opening and also open 3♣ as dealer with this hand. All four actions seem pretty clear to me - IMO the upside far outweigh the downside.

[the hog]

The problem with 3C on this hand is that if you also bid 3C on KQ to 7 and out, partner wil never kno when to bid a decent thrunt.
I think the 3C bidders like playing with themselves too much.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Aug 28 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

I think the 3C bidders like playing with themselves too much.

I have absolutely no clue what you mean by that, but for the second time recently you made me laugh.

[655321]

Always 3♣, not close for me.

In fact, if 3♣ was missing from my bidding box, I would bid 4♣ instead of passing.

[rogerclee]

655321, on Aug 28 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

In fact, if 3♣ was missing from my bidding box, I would bid 4♣ instead of passing.

lol let's not go overboard