In one of my games, there were three passes. Fourth seat elected to "pre-empt," three hearts with something like the following:
♠xx ♥KQJxxxx ♦Jxx ♣x
One of the opponents doubled (for penalties), after having passed, with something like:
♠Axx ♥ATxx ♦Kxx ♣xxx
The result was down two (doubled, not vulnerable). The three non pre-empters had about 11 points each, hence no bids.
I asked, "Why did you do that? You could have broken even by passing out the hand."
Bidder responded, "I bid my cards, that's what you're supposed to do with seven of a suit."
Did he overlook the issue of "position"? That is, if the bidder had been THIRD seat. after two passes, would pre-empting have made much more sense, to presume that (barring a freak distribution) that fourth seat might have had all the cards and that the pre-empt might then have saved a game?
Did it make sense to pre-empt in fourth seat with the cards that the bidder held? If his hand had been somewhat stronger (say a king of diamonds in place of the jack), could he have had a positive "expectation" with a different bid, such as a "weak" two hearts, or even one heart?