[sceptic]

Hi,

Why should a 3 level preempt be a solid suit



Why is gambling 3NT so popular (I think)

[paulg]

sceptic, on May 20 2006, 10:33 AM, said:

Hi,

Why should a 3 level preempt be a solid suit

It doesn't have to be a solid suit. Standards have been dropping for years but the original carved stone had the rule of '2 and 3' for preempts - namely, you expect to go 2 off vulnerable or 3 off vulnerable. Nowadays, if you are a junior, this may reflect the number of tricks you expect to make

Many people like to have a reasonable suit for a preempt so that partner can judge what to do - perhaps a 1.5-loser suit opposite a singleton is typically (KQTxxxx). Vulnerability and position really matter too: 2nd at red and you should be pretty good; 3rd at green and the world is your oyster.

I find that the US players tend to keep their preempts up to strength, whereas Europeans are more flexible. This is also reflected in the respective attitudes to what a weak 2-bid looks like.

As always, Karen Walker's site has good information and advice.

Quote

Why is gambling 3NT so popular (I think)

Because none of us can think of any thing else to use an opening 3NT for.

Paul

[Walddk]

cardsharp, on May 20 2006, 12:20 PM, said:

Quote

Why is gambling 3NT so popular (I think)

Because none of us can think of any thing else to use an opening 3NT for.

Paul

Many can, and I am one of those. I use 3NT to show a pre-empt in either minor (denies a solid suit). Then you have 4♣ and 4♦ available as Namyats. The one thing you should not use 3NT as, in my opinion, is to show a solid minor.

As Fred has said on several occasions: "You should only open 3NT if you do NOT want to play there". If my memory serves me correctly, Fred and Brad Moss use 3NT as showing 6-5 or better in the majors.

Apart from that I agree with Paul's thoughts about 2 and 3-level preempts.

Roland

[Free]

There is no such thing as 'a 3-level preempt'. You need to consider the vulnerability. 'a 3-level V vs NV preempt' is something completely different from 'a 3-level NV vs V preempt', at least for me that is .

I'm a European citizen, so our preempt are probably way more agressive than the other side of the ocean. Here's how we play them:
NV vs V, 1&2 seat: 0-7HCP, 5+ card suit
NV vs V (3rd seat) or NV vs NV: weak, 6+ card suit
V vs V: good 6+ card suit
V vs NV: good 7+ card suit

Basicly a V vs NV preempt seldom comes up, because they are near a limited opening (we play strong ♣ with limited openings of 10-14HCP). NV vs V we use it to the biggest advantage possible. Usually you have a fit somewhere, and it's playable to go maximum 3 down when opponents have game.

Whenever NV vs V, our 2-level preempts are stronger than our 3-level preempts!

We got these ideas by reading a book about preempts from a Dutch writer, but I forgot his name. He had lots of good points about this topic imo, and in practice it works. If it's too wild, just make them more solid, but it fits my partner's and my style very well.

[pclayton]

I prefer that my 3 level preempts specifically DENY a solid suit. Otherwise, how can pard evaluate for 3N?

Case in point - you are vul/ not at IMPs. Pard opens 3C as dealer and you hold: Axxx, AQxx, Axx, xx. If pard might have a solid suit, then 3N could be right. If pard denies a solid suit, I would feel less confident about my chances.

[jdonn]

Walddk, on May 20 2006, 06:37 AM, said:

cardsharp, on May 20 2006, 12:20 PM, said:

Quote

Why is gambling 3NT so popular (I think)

Because none of us can think of any thing else to use an opening 3NT for.

Paul

Many can, and I am one of those. I use 3NT to show a pre-empt in either minor (denies a solid suit). Then you have 4♣ and 4♦ available as Namyats. The one thing you should not use 3NT as, in my opinion, is to show a solid minor.

I've been through this with people a million times. It is so much better, immeasurably better, infinitely better, to reverse your meanings and play the 4♣ and 4♦ openings as natural preempts and the 3NT opening as the strong 'namyats' bid in either major. I've converted so many people to the right way of doing this that several have admitted to me they feel like fools for having done it the wrong way for so long (Roland is certainly no man's fool but it's still a foolish treatment as opposed to the way I suggest.)

[blackshoe]

It may be better (you apparently have strong opinions on that, but you've presented no evidence, so I'll withhold judgement), but is it legal under the convention regulations where you play?

It's not allowable in ACBL until you get to the Super Chart.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on May 21 2006, 02:53 PM, said:

It may be better (you apparently have strong opinions on that, but you've presented no evidence, so I'll withhold judgement), but is it legal under the convention regulations where you play?

It's not allowable in ACBL until you get to the Super Chart.

The main reason (there are other smaller ones I won't get into) is that you force the opponents to make an immediate decision over a natural 4♣/♦ bid, but give them two rounds to make slower decisions over a 3NT opening bid.

Consider a pair with good agreements over such 3NT bids. I'll keep it simple, double is values, double then double and pass then double are takeout, 4♣ is majors.

Balanced 16
Over 4m: Pass? Double? who knows?
Over 3NT: Double, then pass later if partner can't contribute

Good hand with both majors
Over 4m: Double or bid a major? Either smacks of guessing.
Over 3NT: Bid 4♣. Life is good.

Huge 22 count with a good 6 card major
Over 4m: Bid it, but probably miss slam if you have it since partner has to cut you slack.
Over 3NT: Double, then bid it next round, showing that you really mean it.

12 count with perfect takeout shape
Over 4m: Either pass and maybe be stolen from, or overbid to double and maybe pay when partner does too much or erroneously passes.
Over 3NT: Pass, then double next round, showing just what you have.

The list goes on...

[EricK]

jdonn, on May 22 2006, 03:26 AM, said:

blackshoe, on May 21 2006, 02:53 PM, said:

It may be better (you apparently have strong opinions on that, but you've presented no evidence, so I'll withhold judgement), but is it legal under the convention regulations where you play?

It's not allowable in ACBL until you get to the Super Chart.

The main reason (there are other smaller ones I won't get into) is that you force the opponents to make an immediate decision over a natural 4♣/♦ bid, but give them two rounds to make slower decisions over a 3NT opening bid.

4m is one of the most effective pre-empts in practice. It would be a shame not to be able to use it. The point is that unless LHO has equal length in both majors he often has to guess at the correct strain, or double and hope partner guesses the best strain correctly.

Even if 3NT as Namyats is not allowed, I don't think it is worth giving up 4 level minor pre-empts (especially when non-vul) to play two strengths of 4 level major pre-empts.