[manudude03]

---

MPs, 1st seat, favourable, what do you open? If you open 1C, what would you do if you systemically had to open a nebulous 1D if not pre-empting?

[SteveMoe]

Other = 3N as 4-level minor preempt so partner can declare. 4♣ otherwise.

[nigel_k]

4♣.

If partner fits clubs, we could be too low but I can't really bid more than 4 with a suit like this. I don't pass or open 1 with these hands.

[PhilKing]

My head literally exploded when I saw the votes, since this looks like a choice between Pass and 1♣.

I avoid preempting with two outside first-round controls, but apparently that is a hopelessly outdated notion.

[MrAce]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-07, 04:42, said:

My head literally exploded when I saw the votes, since this looks like a choice between Pass and 1♣.

I avoid preempting with two outside first-round controls, but apparently that is a hopelessly outdated notion.

I hear ya. I also am not proud with my preempts on hands like this. However i hate more when i allow them to start auction at low level when i hold only 2 cards in majors. I never said anything but it was always painful when listening to teammates or pd why they did not preempt (they always seem to have an excuse for it) when we were put under tremendous amount of pressure at our table by the time we had a chance to look at our hand. I know it really sux and it is a bad feeling when you preempt with hands like this and caught your pd, but imho odds still favour the preempt in the long run.

As a matter of fact, players like you can benefit more from wide range type of preempts, since you are playing in EPL every year, and i assume probably against same very decent players. Predictibility is the last shirt you wanna be wearing and letting your good opponents bid in their comfort zone should be your bigger concern when you are lack of dominating suits.

Putting too much restrictions in preempts can cause

a-Making less preempts
b-Once you choose to make one, it becomes predictable, and due to this in some cases it becomes helpful to opponents more than putting pressure on them.

But otoh your side makes better decisions when it was your pd caught in the fish net, instead of other 2. But i am pretty sure you already know these trade offs and decided what is best for ya and i am rpobably writing all this because i was bored and had nothing else better to do today

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-07, 04:42, said:

My head literally exploded when I saw the votes, since this looks like a choice between Pass and 1♣.

I avoid preempting with two outside first-round controls, but apparently that is a hopelessly outdated notion.

I think the decision between 1♣ and 4♣ is close for the reasons you mention.
But Pass, though very safe for the moment, is not an option for me, in particular at these colors.
I just do not believe it to be a winning option at the table.

Rainer Herrmann

[ggwhiz]

I voted for 1♣ cause I like to have a secret weapon if it gets competitive and our pre-empts here are never this good. 4♣ most often takes away pards bidding box except for the pass cards or unless they want to take a phantom save.

If I had to open a nebulous diamond instead I would shred my convention card into confetti and sprinkle it on my salad.

[JLOGIC]

I would bid 4, having 2 major suit cards white/red is just tempting me too much to preempt. If partner ends up bidding 5C my hand is very good offensively as he will have some kind of fit so I'm not too concerned. If we need to play 6D or 7D I am screwed, oh well. AVALANCHAaaaaaaaaaa

[gszes]

there are several downsides to a club preempt the most glaring of which is the fact that
we have a 2 suited hand and we are pretending to have a 1 suited hand. While I have no
major qualms with having a side A and a void I would at least like to have some semblance
of suit body to make a 4 level preempt. xxx void Axx KJT8xxx might be a reasonable 4c bid
at favorable. This hand might be vastly superior if played in dia vs clubs and once we blast
with our not so great clubs the dia suit pretty much has disappeared. I choose

pass

[the hog]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-07, 04:42, said:

My head literally exploded when I saw the votes, since this looks like a choice between Pass and 1♣.

I avoid preempting with two outside first-round controls, but apparently that is a hopelessly outdated notion.

Your head appears to explode fairly often.
I would certainly bid 4C on this hand at this vul. Passing is for losers in my opinion and 1C will certainly lead to problems later on.

[bigbenvic]

I'm in the 5♣ or 1♣ camp, 4♣ gives way to much room at this vulnerability to let them get their major suit in. Make them guess at the 5 level.

[cherdano]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-07, 04:42, said:

My head literally exploded when I saw the votes, since this looks like a choice between Pass and 1♣.

I avoid preempting with two outside first-round controls, but apparently that is a hopelessly outdated notion.

I am happy to make this post every time it comes up: major suit shortness is underrated as a factor favoring preempts.

[JLOGIC]

the hog, on 2013-May-07, 18:02, said:

Your head appears to explode fairly often.
I would certainly bid 4C on this hand at this vul. Passing is for losers in my opinion and 1C will certainly lead to problems later on.

PhilKing: loser

[nige1]

manudude03 writes "MPs, 1st seat, favourable, what do you open? If you open 1C, what would you do if you systemically had to open a nebulous 1D if not pre-empting?"

---

IMO 3♣ = 10, 5♣ = 9, 4♣ = 8, 1♣ = 6, Psych = 5, Pass = 4.
3♣ allows your partner to risk 3N. If he can do so, he may well make it
If you open 3♣ or 4♣ and opps bid 4M then (at green) you may decide to flout the textbooks and continue with 5♣ or 4N

[FM75]

With my regular partner:
1♣ = 16+ any distribution except 4441
2♣ = 11-15 with strong 5 card clubs, example AQJT9, or decent 5 card clubs and 4 card major. Partner can ask for major with 2♦
3♣ = 11-15 6 card clubs and 4 card major or very weak 7+ card club suit.
So 4♣ is our first available preempt in clubs - our bid on this hand
With something like:
♠ xx
♥
♦ xxxx
♣ AKJT942
at these colors, I might consider 5♣ in 1st seat

Red v White with that hand, 3♣ looks OK.

[nigel_k]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-07, 19:28, said:

PhilKing: loser

Now that his head has literally exploded the game was going to become a lot tougher anyway.

[gnasher]

nigel_k, on 2013-May-08, 00:54, said:

Now that his head has literally exploded the game was going to become a lot tougher anyway.

It's become a bit easier for the rest of us though.

[PhilKing]

I generated a few hands to validate my position with a few carefully chosen examples. Conclusion - 4♣ was a fairly clear winner (1♣ was OK, Pass avoided a few bad boards but left us floundering too often) . There were a couple of caveats:

After the auction 4♣-Dble-Pass-4M or 4♣-Pass-Pass-4M, we should double for takeout (we are bidding in front of partner whilst on lead).

After the auction 4♣-4♠-Pass-Pass, we should make a LIGHTNER double. I know not everyone plays it this way, but it merely requires partner to have one reentry and can score some huge goals. However, it does mean we can't double 4♥ in the pass out seat as "extras".

We needed these agreements or similar in order to punish sufficiently or bid on when right. In fact, on this particular hand, the right agreement was to play double as "lightner" even when on lead, suggesting a surprise in defence if partner leaves it, but a good hand for play if he removes.

[manudude03]

Approximate hands below:

---

Yes, I hate partner's 6NT bid, but the arguing was over if this is a 4C opener, hence the topic. Luckily he avoided a spade lead and guessed the clubs.

[JLOGIC]

If you pass and you're from this forum can't you never bid again because everything will be a fit non jump?

As for philkings points, I would double 4S in passout for lightner but I would not double in direct seat, I play that shows more of an offensive hand (for instance 7-5 in the minors or something). I am not surprised that we should be more aggro in getting them though, but I think in the current state of bridge Xs in direct seat are more about offensive potential than defensive potential. Maybe this shouldn't apply to 4m openers.