[1eyedjack]

As above.
Answer may depend on how disciplined your preempts are? That may in turn depend on vul, position and scoring? Assume for this purpose that responder is not a passed hand.

[EricK]

I'm wary of saying that anything with regards to bidding is mandatory, but this comes close. Partner's 3NT could be based on a number of hand types some of which have support for your suit, some of which don't (eg solid minor and two outside aces). If you don't want to trust partner in this situation then you shouldn't have opened 3M in the first place.

[P_Marlowe]

To play.

If I open 3M, I have described my hand,
partner did not as he bid 3NT.

There is only one excepion: I opened 3M
with an 8 card suit headed by the jack or
something similar, nothing else.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Hanoi5]

What if your suit is not 'good enough' for No Trump?

J10985432
3
KQx
x

I'd rather not leave it. What I'm saying is that it is pullable, especially when you know you shouldn't have opened with 3M.

[the hog]

Hanoi5, on Sep 13 2008, 07:20 PM, said:

What if your suit is not 'good enough' for No Trump?

J10985432
3
KQx
x

I'd rather not leave it. What I'm saying is that it is pullable, especially when you know you shouldn't have opened with 3M.

Then don't open with 3M if that is what you think. Your argument is foolish to say the least.

[rogerclee]

The_Hog, on Sep 13 2008, 06:50 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on Sep 13 2008, 07:20 PM, said:

What if your suit is not 'good enough' for No Trump?

J10985432
3
KQx
x

I'd rather not leave it. What I'm saying is that it is pullable, especially when you know you shouldn't have opened with 3M.

Then don't open with 3M if that is what you think. Your argument is foolish to say the least.

I would pull this to 4♠.

[pclayton]

You can certainly pull with a 2 suiter. I'd also pull the hand with 9 spades, although realize that the KQx is very useful for 3N.

[Hanoi5]

Only one, Mr Lall?

Quote

Then don't open with 3M if that is what you think. Your argument is foolish to say the least.

You must be the perfect player then if you have never done anything wrong at the table and then try to "correct" it...

[dburn]

1eyedjack, on Sep 13 2008, 02:07 AM, said:

As above.
Answer may depend on how disciplined your preempts are?  That may in turn depend on vul, position and scoring? Assume for this purpose that responder is not a passed hand.

It is not easy for me to imagine a passed hand that would respond 3NT to an opening bid of three of a major. But such a hand would certainly have a fit for my major, and of course I could then pull.

Facing a non-passed partner I would side with what I expect to be the majority view. Whatever your style of opening pre-empts, partner's 3NT response is final. If you are contemplating pulling it, you should have contemplated opening something else (and then done so).

[whereagles]

1eyedjack, on Sep 13 2008, 07:07 AM, said:

Answer may depend on how disciplined your preempts are?

Yes and no.

What the textbooks usually say is "Don't pull. Pard may have 3NT on his own." What they mean is if you open with a very normal 3 level pree, say

KJT9xxx
x
xxx
xx

and pard bids 3NT, it's possible be has

x
Kx
Axx
AKQxxxx

in which case you may end up looking silly by pulling to 4♠.

HOWEVER... we all know that, for some reason, pard never has that hand. In practice he has a couple top tricks and a semi-fit, say xxx or Hx, and is hoping to cash 9 tricks on a wing and a prayer. And I'm not even into account ill-advised pards who bid 3NT on a 1444 with 15 points and no source of tricks.

So, I would advise to look at your hand, but mostly look at what pard you have, and decide whether to pull or not. For instance, holding, say

AQxxxxx
x
xxx
xx

is a no-pull. If pard has the 9 tricks running minor hand, you're gonna make the 3NT, whereas 4♠ may be a struggle if pard has little support. If he has instead the semi-fit variant, say

Kx
Axx
Axx
JTxxx

then 3NT is all you make and you should let it be.

But if your pree is something more like

KQJxxxx
x
xxxx
x

unless I knew pard is the sort of guy you'd only bid 3NT on the solid minor hand, I'd definitely pull it to 4♠.

[matmat]

Hanoi5, on Sep 13 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

Only one, Mr Lall?

Quote

Then don't open with 3M if that is what you think. Your argument is foolish to say the least.

You must be the perfect player then if you have never done anything wrong at the table and then try to "correct" it...

uhhh...
i guess your point is
"i pull when i lied the first time and didn't really have a 3M call."
?

if you have a 4M call and open 3M, then maybe the real question is whether you should open it 4M in the first place and not advocate a partnership-trust breaking pull to 4M

[kenrexford]

I have trouble imagining a hand where pulling to 4♠ is right. I could imagine some hands where pulling to a description bid of 4♣, 4♦, or 4♥ might be right.

[Flameous]

Agree with Ken here, although I guess 4♠ can give some description too.

But hand like

KJxxxxx
-
xxxx
xx

is clear 3♠ opener but I won't let pard play 3NT since my hand contains features that are not frequent in 3♠ openers. Typically I must have void to even consider pull.

[bid_em_up]

Hanoi5, on Sep 13 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

Quote

Then don't open with 3M if that is what you think. Your argument is foolish to say the least.

You must be the perfect player then if you have never done anything wrong at the table and then try to "correct" it...

As much as it pains me to say this....

I agree with The_Hog.

(no insult intended this time, Ron)

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Sep 13 2008, 11:05 PM, said:

I have trouble imagining a hand where pulling to 4♠ is right. I could imagine some hands where pulling to a description bid of 4♣, 4♦, or 4♥ might be right.

Pulling to the initial suit seems kind of odd to me. I'm sure that people could make up a 7-0-0-6 freak where nobody would open it with 4 or leave in 3NT.
But they all have a second suit to pull to.

[mikeh]

I can't imagine pulling.

Give me a 6-6 hand, and maybe I'd want to think about pulling, but I have never opened 3♠ in 1st or 2nd seat with that type of hand, so it isn't going to happen to me.

My take is that while it may be possible, with a lot of work, to come up with a hand on which I might be tempted, it is simpler and, for practical purposes, workable to have the rule that you must always pass.

My experience with trying to recover from bidding errors is that the recovery effort usually generates a worse result than one would have got from passing, and this is leaving aside the partnership destroying nature of such bidding. Make a mistake... ok... apologize to partner later... make a mistake and then mastermind in an effort to make up for it, and partner may not stick around to hear about it.