All News

An “honest” pre-empt…or not!

Pre-empts work. Well, sometimes they do. They seem to make life awkward for one side and usually that does not seem to be the side who pre-empt. Let’s look at this situation. We are playing Teams.

 

The usual vulnerability which means the pre-empt could be just a little shaded…or not!

We have 3 realistic options: Pass, 3NT or 4. This group seem quite happy with their decision:

Michael Ware “Pass: basically, always pass with 4 trumps.”

Wayne Burrows “Pass: I will take the almost certain plus in 3x. 3NT is far from certain and 5 is a long way off. I have a likely trump trick and sharpish cards for defence as well as ruffing prospects with a singleton heart.”

With an eye on an aggressive pre-emptor, perhaps, is:

Lysandra Zheng “Pass: I'd really like to pass. (You may!) I'll pass and think about the consequences later -- especially if North pre-empts like I do at these colours! Surely, my trumps are not great, but neither are my majors. 3 isn't necessarily going to go down an enormous amount (it might!), but I do not know what's really making for our side. I've already passed, so it is not too likely partner is feeling pressured to act with relatively minimum hands. The double must also be more flexible at the 3-level, and I would not blame them for doing it without real club support. If this does not work out, well, smile, apologise, and tell partner "at least they were not vulnerable". It could be worse than -470.”

Nigel Kearney “Pass: This will not always work but we have a useful hand for defence. It is far from certain we can make game. If North is a conservative pre-emptor, it might be right to bid, but against most people I think pass is the percentage action. If I was going to bid, I prefer 3NT to 4.”

There may well be more to gain from playing game than in clubs at the 4-level. We only like playing 4 when it is spot-on right! This next group do seem less happy with their decision, especially:

Andy Braithwaite “3NT: Horrible decision. 3NT looks best but if doubled may look at a 4 run if partner redoubles to express doubt.

Pam Livingston "3NT: 3 at this vulnerability could be very weak and the double will be sound.  We are vulnerable and any making game is good. I have a stop in diamonds and my clubs could be a source of tricks. Cross my fingers.”

Michael Cornell “3NT: Tough problem and could easily be wrong. However, partner knows that he is opposite a passed hand so his double should be pretty good and may be very good.

He also knows I will not have a stack in diamonds as I would always pass with this so I should have a couple of outside honour cards.”

Those black suit honours could be useful in 3NT should you survive the expected diamond attack. 

Stephen Blackstock “3NT: It may not be a great contract (presumably not, or why the question?) but what else? I might pass if we were behind and running out of boards, but otherwise that looks dangerous.”

Bruce Anderson “3NT: this may not work out well but 4 is anaemic and it is a lot easier to make 9 tricks than 11 So, I am not bidding 5. Obviously I am hoping our opponents have no communication in the diamond suit.”

Yes, 3NT can gain though if our partner has a small singleton diamond and South honour x, then we are likely to be in the wrong game.

No-one felt we were strong enough to try 5 though 4 did gather support: 

Leon Meier “4:  not enough for 5.”

Peter Newell “4: Seems clear to me.  Quite a good hand if partner has clubs, but partner may not. Partner may have a strong single suited heart hand or something like 4/6 shape in the majors.  While Pass could be right, it could be very wrong too.  If partner has a singleton or void in diamonds, 3 doubled could easily make and unless I get a heart ruff, I am unlikely to make a trump trick.  On the other hand, partner may have a strong hand and we can make a vulnerable game and we may not get very rich off 3 doubled.  3NT could work, but we may not have a stopper and even if we do, we may not have 9 tricks.”

That seems a good balanced answer. “One swallow does not make a summer” and the actual hand lay-out below does not mean passing will always be correct.

 

At the table, West did bid 4 and rather unwisely was raised to game by East. West could not avoid 2 diamond losers and A. Meanwhile, the diamond lay-out was fine for any West in 3NT as all West had to do was to lose to the A to score 9 tricks.

However, this could have been “payback” for those who like to pre-empt aggressively. 3 heart tricks, AK, 2 diamonds and a club adds up to +800 for those defending 3x.

It is interesting to reflect on the wide viewpoints from the Panel, from Michael Ware in particular defending most of the time with 4 trumps to those who view defending as dangerous. One’s partner will not always hold Qx in such a situation though in an age of aggressive pre-emptors, there seems more chance they might.

Interestingly, when the board was played, out of 18 tables, only 5 pairs bid and made 3NT while at one more, the full 800 was extracted from 3x. 3NT was rather a fortuitous make with the diamond blockage saving East-West. There are so many “ifs and maybes” about what the doubler might have that here what is the least successful answer, 4, may on balance be the best. However, keeping pre-emptors “honest” does have its virtue, too.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items