[Wackojack]

---

At green I decided to pass this hand and the opponents bid to 6NT. Partner led a spade and the contract duly made. The only lead to defeat the contract was a club.

Now forget this hand and think of pre-empting in general and give probabilities for the advantages and disadvantages in making a pre-empt. Say the pre-empt gives you:
x times more chance that partner leads your suit to get the contract off.
probability y that you will get penalised too much for your pre-empt.
z times more chance that the opps will read the cards correctly to make the contract when you pre-empt against when you don't pre-empt.
m times the chance the opps will get to the wrong contract for any lead.
n times the chance that when the contract belongs to your side you get to the wrong contract.

How can we evaluate these factors? It is noticable that over the years all 3 level pre-empts are getting weaker and on fewer cards.

Now back to my particular hand. Anyone to put figures for xyzmn and any other factors you think relevant?

[Phil]

Even knowing the result, I wouldn't preempt because of all the negative factors:

1. We are 6322 which lowers the trick-taking capability.
2. The suit has no texture, so if partner bids 3N it may be a negative.
3. We have an outside Ace. Even the King of our suit may take a trick and this was apparently the case. If partner decides to sac, it may be a phantom.
4. If we don't buy the hand, declarer will be finessing the secondary honors through partner.

Sometimes you get another chance to bid and get the lead director in.

[ArtK78]

You didn't mention whether this was at IMPs or at matchpoints. I know some people who would open this hand 3♣ at matchpoints. I know of only one person that I can think of offhand who might open it 3♣ at IMPs.

My regular partner and I adopted a method of minor suit preempts supposedly played by Barry Crane. The idea is that 3 of a minor preempts are generally not very effective, so one might as well make them constructive. A 3 of a minor preempt in 1st or 2nd seat shows a suit headed by the AQ or AK or better. This agreement allows for very accurate constructive bidding and great defensive decision making. What it does not allow for is kamikaze type preempts like the one in the OP. We have had some great results with this treatment, although there have been some occasions where we regretted that we could not open 3 of a minor (and some that we were thankful that we could not open 3 of a minor).

I would guess that for every triumph earned by a 3 of a minor preempt such as the one in the OP, there are at least 2 disasters (and a number of hands where it makes no difference). But that is just my opinion.

[steve2005]

Nice theory, but do you really think you can tell with any certainty that a club lead will save a trick at mp or defeat contract at IMPs when it's your turn to bid?

[nige1]

Wackojack, on 2015-June-24, 10:17, said:

At green I decided to pass this hand and the opponents bid to 6NT. Partner led a spade and the contract duly made. The only lead to defeat the contract was a club.
Now forget this hand and think of pre-empting in general and give probabilities for the advantages and disadvantages in making a pre-empt. Say the pre-empt gives you:
x times more chance that partner leads your suit to get the contract off.
y probability y that you will get penalised too much for your pre-empt.
z times more chance that the opps will read the cards correctly to make the contract when you pre-empt against when you don't pre-empt.
m times the chance the opps will get to the wrong contract for any lead.
n times the chance that when the contract belongs to your side you get to the wrong contract.
How can we evaluate these factors? It is noticable that over the years all 3 level pre-empts are getting weaker and on fewer cards.
Now back to my particular hand. Anyone to put figures for xyzmn and any other factors you think relevant?

---

IMO 3♣ =10, Pass = 9 (Assuming you're systemically allowed to open 3♣ with a weak 6-carder, as dealer, at green).
Victor Mollo said that, if offered the opportunity to play with open cards (i.e double-dummy) then defenders should accept but declarer should refuse. Guessing answers to Wackojack's queries:

• x = 20% chance that your pre-empt will guide partner to a successful defence.
• y = 10% chance that you will score below expectation in 3♣ passed out or doubled.
• z = 10% chance that your pre-empt will allow declarer to make a contract that would normally fail.
• m = 20% chance that your pre-empt will cramp the bidding so that opponents reach the wrong level or strain.
• n = 10% chance that your pre-empt will cause you to play in the wrong contract. (IMO it's more likely to get you to the right contract).

[SteveMoe]

Supporting Nigel and 3♣ - Larry Cohen published a series of meta analyses called "One Million Deals" Check out this one on The Most Successful Opening Bids: https://www.larryco....nter/detail/384 1N is the most successful low level opening bid. But the most successful opening bid of all:

"Surprisingly, the most successful opening of all was 3♣. This was worth an average of almost 1/4 imp per board and a whopping 60% of the matchpoints. This seems like an aberration to me, but this is based on 8,201 3♣ opening bids -- not exactly a small sample. If anyone wishes to opine on why this bid might be so successful, please write me."

[WesleyC]

I think a major consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet is your seating position. For me this hand is an automatic 3C preempt in 1st/3rd, but I would pass in 2nd.

Especially at green, RHO's pass actually shows [0-10 HCP, without a (5)6c suit] which suggests that your side will often hold the balance of the power. For this reason you're better off adopting a descriptive rather than destructive preempting style in 2nd seat.

[weejonnie]

The thing about 3♣ is that it removes all 1 and 2-level options to discover information about partner's hand. As Barry Crane said, "The 3 level is dangerous". I think that psychologically people come in over 3♣ on hands where they really shouldn't. They feel that a 3-level bid is not that risky (and all three suits can be bid at the 3 level, which is a tempting ajar door) and are annoyed - so lose some objectivity.

As to strength.

1st hand - depends on vulnerability
2nd hand - be sound
3rd hand - anything goes.

[jodepp]

I know 3♣ is in the modern style, but I just can't bring myself to endorse it. So much is wrong with this hand;

1) The suit has a big gaping hole in it;
2) You have the worst shape possible - 3♣ would look more palatable if you had, say, 1=3=3=6 or 1=2=4=6;
3) You have way too much defense to preempt - the side ace is a defect (for preemptive purposes, not for hand value).

I know it's fun to bid on cheese. I know it's fun to push the opponents around. 3♣ on this collection still isn't for me. When it doesn't work, I don't like meeting partner's glare afterwards. I also hate saying 'sorry, partner - it's my fault'.

I'm sorry that you passed originally and the opponents bid and made a slam, but that's why bridge is such a fickle mistress - sometimes you do the right thing and still lose.

[helene_t]

Next time p has a natural lead from ♥QJxxx through dummy's king but if you preempt he will lead a club and dummy's heart losers go away. Or he will lead the ace from ♠Axxxx thinking you may have a singleton somewhere since you preempted.

I think that if you preempt on this hand it is because you want to disrupt opps' bidding. It is not about the lead. Well it sometimes is. If you preempt on ♣AKQxx for example. But not on this hand.

[lycier]

Opening 3♣? It is only a occasionally strategy,not a regular action,for example 3rd seat.
Bridge is a game of suits says Garozzo. If you have a preemptive bid that describes one suit only with 6-card length in the balanced hand,the most serious problem is you easily lost partner's trust in you because It does not conform to the standard of preemptive bidding.How difficulty anyone win partner's trust !

[NickRW]

Even at these colours I wouldn't even think about 3♣ in 1st or 2nd with this lot. I'd think about it in 3rd - and might actually do it if the mood struck me. I don't know what the xyzmn percentages actually are, but it strikes me they probably aren't good in 1st or 2nd seat.

[Wackojack]

I am going to try and develop Nigel’s assessments.

X A slam swing was lost on my hand, but on average the potential loss would be on the high side of a game swing say 13imps. 13 * 0.2 = +2.6 imps

Y My guess is that the median loss would be 3Cx-2 against a part score = 5imp. 5*0.1 = -0.5imp.

Z This is the obverse of x. 13*0.1 = -1.3imps.

M Say 50% of hands opps bid game and go down when 3♣ also goes down = +6imp. 50% of hands opps fail to reach a making game +10imp. 0.2*8 = +1.6imps.

N Here I would take issue with Nigel about being more likely that this particular pre-empt would get you to the right contract. Imagine partner considering 3N with ♣Ax. With a “pure” pre-empt KQJxxx partner would judge 6 or 7 tricks depending on 6 or 7 card suit. So would likely gamble on it yielding at least 6 tricks when there are only 2 tricks in the suit. Nevertheless I will stick with Nigel’s n=10%. Say (3N-2 against 3♣=) -5imp. 0.1*5= -0.5imp.

This gives a net average gain of 1.9 imps which is substantial.

Of course if we downgrade x and m and upgrade y,z and n we would get a very different result.

[Vampyr]

SteveMoe, on 2015-June-24, 19:26, said:

Supporting Nigel and 3♣ - Larry Cohen published a series of meta analyses called "One Million Deals" Check out this one on The Most Successful Opening Bids: https://www.larryco....nter/detail/384 1N is the most successful low level opening bid. But the most successful opening bid of all:

"Surprisingly, the most successful opening of all was 3♣. This was worth an average of almost 1/4 imp per board and a whopping 60% of the matchpoints. This seems like an aberration to me, but this is based on 8,201 3♣ opening bids -- not exactly a small sample. If anyone wishes to opine on why this bid might be so successful, please write me."

3♣ on any 13 cards though?

[eagles123]

you have a total pile of filth, you cant know the opps are going to bid 6N. 3c seems insane to me

[Zelandakh]

I am fine with opening this hand in 1st at green or in 3rd but also fine with not doing so. The main disadvantage of opening has not been mentioned - it is the difficulty for partner to know how to advance the opening even on normal hands. In isolation I think opening 3♣ is a winner; when adding this factor in it may well be a different story though. Certainly opening 3♣ on this hand in second (or fourth) seat is fairly insane whatever the colours.

[Lovera]

I prefer to follow my system (Stayman) that is not particolary favoureble to opening bidding of 3♣ and 3♦. These bidding have probably any preempt effort but more often can indicate at to opp that you have shortness in three suit and poor force. This instead is right (not vul) to bid 3♣: ♠ 95 ♥86 ♦ 32 ♣ KQJ10864 if partner bid 3NT you pass (pagg. 205 and 206 of the system book).