[32519]

What should your partnership agreement look like when responding to a 3-level minor suit pre-empt? We play 5-11 NV, 8-11 V, 7-card suit.

[manudude03]

Really up to your partnership to decide, but prefer 5-9 NV 6-10 vul, 3m can be 6 card suits (of reasonably quality vul)

[Zelandakh]

Have you considered new suits forcing; 4 of the other minor asking for key cards? There are other things you can do but that's a sensible basis for an intermediate pair.

[Codo]

3 ♦ ask partner to bid a 3 card major, bid 3 NT without.
3 ♥/♠ 5+ (over 3 ♣ 6+) forcing. 3 NT denies fit, anything else is a control+ fit+maximum.
3 NT to play
4 ♣ more preempt (or KC for diamonds)
4 ♦ RCK for clubs (or raise of preempt)
I would change my responding structure to KC to 0+,1-,2-,1+,2+
4 ♥/♠ to play

[billw55]

 Codo, on 2012-November-28, 05:44, said:

...
3 NT to play
...

Or with a weak hand that can safely run to 4 of partner's suit - a common bluff bid.

[32519]

Roland’s post so far is the most helpful. Let me see if I understand this –
1. Over a 3♣ pre-empt, 3♦ asks opener to bid a 3-card major? Bid 3NT without a 3-card major?
..a. Why would I bid this way? If I hit on an 8-card fit with partner, the stronger hand ends up on table?
..b. The positive side will be that partner gets to play in 3NT if no 8-card fit is found?
..c. Another positive is that partner now knows 10 of my cards (so do the opponents!), maybe assisting him to place a final contract because of known ruffing potential in the remaining 2 suits? But the opponents know this as well and can hurt your ruffing potential by leading trumps?
2. What must happen over a 3♦ pre-empt?
..a. 3♥/3♠ = 5+ card suit and forcing (6-card suit over 3♣)
.....i. 3NT by opener denies 3-card support
....ii. Anything else is a control, 3-card fit and maximum (maximum being 8-11). So 3♠ over 3♥ shows either a singleton or the Ace (or both)? 4 of the other minor, likewise shows a singleton or the Ace (or both)? 4♥/4♠ shows a minimum (minimum being 5-7)
..b. 3NT is to play
3. Lifting the pre-empt to level 4 seems to be messy. I need to decide between RKC or a further pre-empt.
..a. If I choose to use it for RKC, how many cards in the suit does partner promise (none, one, two, more?)
..b. If partner finds out we have all the key-cards, he may well choose a final contract in NT? So if after e.g. 4♣ as RCK for the suit, I answer 4♠ (2 without the Queen), partner now bids 4NT, is it a signoff or a King ask?
4. 4♥/4♠ to play

Roland, thank you for a very helpful post. You get my vote as well. If you can maybe just give some more clarity above, it will be appreciated.

[PhilKing]

 32519, on 2012-November-28, 14:15, said:

Roland’s post so far is the most helpful. Let me see if I understand this –
1. Over a 3♣ pre-empt, 3♦ asks opener to bid a 3-card major? Bid 3NT without a 3-card major?
..a. Why would I bid this way? If I hit on an 8-card fit with partner, the stronger hand ends up on table?

I am genuinely impressed.

Obviously, after 3♣-3♦ it is better for the preempter to bid 3♥ with three spades and 3♠ with three hearts, but I assume he thought (wrongly - shame on you, Roland!) that you were not ready. As you correctly noted, for responder to end up playing the hand would not be optimal.

Best is for 3♥ to show no 3-card major (3♠ now asks for good clubs), 3♠ to show three hearts and 3NT to show three spades, but the world is not ready. That way you get no trumps played the right way up as well, and when the 3♣ opener has 3♠, it may be right for 3NT to be played from his side.

[nige1]

IMO, over partner's minor pre-empt

• New suit at the three-level = Stop-ask (3N = stop for notrump, 1-suit-step = singleton or void, 2-suit-steps = doubleton, 3-suit-steps = trebleton).
• 4 of other minor = Key-ask (1-step = 0, 2-steps = 1, 3-steps = 1+Q, 4-steps = 2, 5-steps = 2+Q).
• 3N, 4 of major = .Natural, to play,
• Raises = Pre-emptive.

[the hog]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-November-28, 05:37, said:

Have you considered new suits forcing; 4 of the other minor asking for key cards? There are other things you can do but that's a sensible basis for an intermediate pair.

Not just an intermediate pair. I recommend this method also.

[32519]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-November-28, 05:37, said:

Have you considered new suits forcing; 4 of the other minor asking for key cards? There are other things you can do but that's a sensible basis for an intermediate pair.

What are the "other things?" How much can you add/improve on Roland's post?

[32519]

What about a good defence when the opponents pre-empt in 3 of a minor? Does your defence change over -
1. A 3♣ pre-empt?
2. A 3♦ pre-empt?
3. In the direct seat?
4. In the 4th seat when opener's partner passes? Obviously your partner has also passed. So how does that affect your defensive agreements?

[Zelandakh]

 32519, on 2012-November-28, 23:04, said:

What are the "other things?" How much can you add/improve on Roland's post?

Other things were add-ons such as the 3♦ gadget (there are several forms as Phil touches on and Justin occasionally posts something in this area too), changing the RKCB responses, or perhaps using new suits as 2-way (could be a real suit, could be a lead-directer). But all of the extras are only small improvements and probably not worth it for a typical partnership. There are just more important things out there to concentrate on.

 32519, on 2012-November-28, 23:10, said:

What about a good defence when the opponents pre-empt in 3 of a minor?

Double for takeout, including a flexible hand; new suits natural; jumps one-suited and strong. This is standard and it works. If you want to take it one stage further then you can look at using the 4m bids to show 2-suiters. For example, over 3♣ you can play 4♣ as majors and 4♦ as diamonds plus a major. Better yet is to play 4♣ as the other minor plus a major and 4♦ as majors over either 3m opening. Obviously there are many many defences to preempts out there, for example I have played x3x, FILM plus a couple others at various times. Most have been abandoned in favour of Standard, with good reason.

Perhaps more important than which variant you play is to discuss with partner when forcing passes are on. This is really a whole thread all on its own. Suffice to say that if it is obvious that the opps are sacrificing you should probably have a FP available. But this is a huge area and every partnership has different rules. Another thing you might discuss is dealing with psyches. Responding to a preempt is one of the classic psyching positions and it is necessary to be able to deal with this. Generally, common sense and awareness is a good basis.

[Codo]

Phil and Zel, thaks for your corrections. Actually we indeed just have the "natural" version in our bag- and it did never happen so far. But you are right, it is MUCH better to play the answers your way.

[Codo]

 32519, on 2012-November-28, 14:15, said:

Roland’s post so far is the most helpful. Let me see if I understand this –
1. Over a 3♣ pre-empt, 3♦ asks opener to bid a 3-card major? Bid 3NT without a 3-card major?
..a. Why would I bid this way? If I hit on an 8-card fit with partner, the stronger hand ends up on table?
..b. The positive side will be that partner gets to play in 3NT if no 8-card fit is found?
..c. Another positive is that partner now knows 10 of my cards (so do the opponents!), maybe assisting him to place a final contract because of known ruffing potential in the remaining 2 suits? But the opponents know this as well and can hurt your ruffing potential by leading trumps?
2. What must happen over a 3♦ pre-empt?
..a. 3♥/3♠ = 5+ card suit and forcing (6-card suit over 3♣)
.....i. 3NT by opener denies 3-card support
....ii. Anything else is a control, 3-card fit and maximum (maximum being 8-11). So 3♠ over 3♥ shows either a singleton or the Ace (or both)? 4 of the other minor, likewise shows a singleton or the Ace (or both)? 4♥/4♠ shows a minimum (minimum being 5-7)
..b. 3NT is to play
3. Lifting the pre-empt to level 4 seems to be messy. I need to decide between RKC or a further pre-empt.
..a. If I choose to use it for RKC, how many cards in the suit does partner promise (none, one, two, more?)
..b. If partner finds out we have all the key-cards, he may well choose a final contract in NT? So if after e.g. 4♣ as RCK for the suit, I answer 4♠ (2 without the Queen), partner now bids 4NT, is it a signoff or a King ask?
4. 4♥/4♠ to play

Roland, thank you for a very helpful post. You get my vote as well. If you can maybe just give some more clarity above, it will be appreciated.

Thanks for your nice words.

1. I made a mistake to play it this way and learned here and now that another structure is much better. Your points are really drawbacks, but luckily Phil and Zel had answers.
2. Any strength showing bid with a major fit can show any kind of control, even some bad controls like Kx..., but it is of course very likely to be a shortage.
3. Over 3 ♣ 4 ♣ is preemptive and 4 ♦ RCKS for clubs. Over 3 ♦ 4 ♣ is RCK, 4 ♦ preemptive. I do not know how many cards in my suit partner holds to ask. AS we do not have weak twos in the minors, he ecpects at least 6 cards in my hand, so he usually holds at least two cards himself. When we play teams, we use 4 NT still as an asking bid, because sometimes we need to find out about the queen of trumps before we can bid slam or not. You cannot afford this luxury playing mps. But your example is flawed anyway: If partner cannot bid slam opposite 2 KCs, why did he ask at all?
3b you did not ask, but I am a big fan of range asking KC over a preempt. So, 3 ♣ 4 ♦ 4 ♥ shows a minimum preempt- esp. with just a six card suit or with 7 cards and at the lower range.

[goodwinsr]

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I thought I would add a method from the 1960's, part of the Flint-Pender system (Tiger Bridge, 1970). It's short, so I might as well quote the whole thing:

"Responding to three clubs or three diamonds is often difficult because so much may depend on whether the opener's suit will run for seven tricks opposite a doubleton honor. Partner opens three diamonds and you hold: AQx Kxxxx Kx Kxx. Three notrump could be a laydown or preposterous, depending on partner's diamonds.

"Our solution is to treat three of the next ranking suit as a conventional inquiry. With two top honors in his long suit, opener rebids three spades; with support for the relay suit, three notrump; with neither he repeats the suit. On the hand above, responder bids three hearts.

"Opener holds: xx QJx AJ10xxxx x: bid 3NT. x xx QJ109xxx QJx: bid 4D. xx xx AQxxxxx xx: bid 3S.

"Should opener happen to have both support for the relay suit and top honors in his own suit, he should give precedence to the latter and bid three spades, as he will have the opportunity of disclosing his support on the next round."

This just shows that somebody was working on this problem 40-odd years ago.

T. L. Goodwin

[mikeh]

I'm not crazy about the 3♦ gadget over 3♣. It seems to involve 2 ways of showing a forcing major response, one way being 6+ and the other precisely 5, and it seems to me to be a lot of work for small gain and with some small losses attached.

One obvious loss is that 4th seat may get to double 3♦ when 3M would have preempted him. Since he is probably on lead this won't impact the play but might lead to a good save by them.

Another small loss is that if our fit is, say, spades, we allow them a 3♥ overcall. Bear in mind that our 3♦ is essentially gf, so attentive opps, especially at favourable for them, will/should be sticking their noses into our constructive auctions.

Yet another small loss arises precisely when we do find a 3 card fit for our major. Partner has no choice but to show it, without in any way being able to describe any feature of his hand. When we respond in our major we can, as Roland suggests for the other major sequences, cue. Oddly, his method means we cue when we hold xx or better (when responder shows 6) but we don't get to cue when we hold, say Qxx and partner has only AKJ10x and so goes through 3♦.

Finally, tho this really does strike me as a tiny loss, we lose whatever we'd play 3♦ as. I have played a lot of bridge and yet can't ever recall a 3♦ advance of a 3♣ preempt. If I had to suggest an alternative, it would be to have opener bid a major suit stopper. Or ask about possession of the club A...often the key to being able to establish and run clubs.

The only other comment I have is that I do think that one should play a form of keycard optimized to the fact that RKCB really has no role. When was the last time anyone opened a minor preempt with 3 or 4 keycards?

The version I've seen and used is: 0, 1, 1 with the Q, 2, 2 with the Q. 4 om is the ask (and 4♣ is the ask over 3M).

[MickyB]

 mikeh, on 2012-December-03, 10:40, said:

The only other comment I have is that I do think that one should play a form of keycard optimized to the fact that RKCB really has no role. When was the last time anyone opened a minor preempt with 3 or 4 keycards?

The version I've seen and used is: 0, 1, 1 with the Q, 2, 2 with the Q. 4 om is the ask (and 4♣ is the ask over 3M).

I play something similar; 1, 0, 2 w/o Q, 2 with Q. I call it, "RKCB 10".

[ArtK78]

My partner and I have solved much of the problem by severly restricting the hand type for a 3 of a minor preempt.

My partner tells me this idea comes from Barry Crane, who thought that a 3 of a minor preempt on bad suits was not very effective.

All first and second seat 3 of a minor preempts promise the A of the bid suit plus the K or Q at a minimum. So, while a 3 of a minor preempt might be made on a six card suit (usually at favorable vul), the suit must be AQxxxx or AKxxxx or better.

Not only does this aid in constructive bidding, it also significantly improves your defense and allows you to double the opps more often.

Clearly you will not open 3 of a minor with the frequency you do now (opening 3 of a minor on even a strong suit like KQJxxxx is not permitted), but, as I mentioned, that may not be a significant loss. Besides, sometimes you can open 4 of a minor on those hands (our 4 of a minor preempt is 3NT).

Something to consider.

[han]

Another way for dealing with this problem is only opening 3m with 7222 shape and exactly 3 of the 4 top honors and no outside honors. Partner is often able to guess the best contract.

[mycroft]

Well, my style (when not playing EHAA-style preempts, but they're disciplined, as well, just bad) is "3m in first two seats is happy to hear 3NT from partner". Not as strict as the "Barry Crane" preempts above, but "with moderate support, the suit will run, eventually". Yes, I pass a fair number of hands others preempt on, and we can lose on that. Yes, it's difficult 5th in hand to bid these sometimes. But when partner does bid 3NT, I know we're not putting up -200 (NV!) when 3♣ is either making or going -50/100 - and we're not going +130 into game, either.

As always, it's a style thing. If you play undisciplined preempts, you will miss games, and you will play in the wrong spot, and you will bid games that have no hope. So will the opponents, a lot more frequently than against the more disciplined preempters. Your choice.

As always with preempts, points are useless; tricks rule. KQTxxxx and out is a 3♣ call in first seat, according to my above definition. Axxxxxx and a K and a bunch of quacks isn't, even if it is 11 high.