[jillybean]

Hi, I am reviewing my very old fashioned "2 of the top 3 honors" preempt style.

---

What is your preempt style 1st, 2nd seat, all vulnerabilities, MP and IMP

Thanks

[DavidKok]

Spoiler

It's close between 2♦ and 3♦. The missing intermediates argue strongly in favour of 2♦, especially in second seat. In first seat I would probably open 3♦ though - the hand is just so offensively oriented. Between two seats, four vulnerabilities and two forms of scoring there's 16 different ways to thread the needle, and not only do I not really feel like writing the full crosstable (sorry), also I think staring at a hand for that long would create mistaken answers and false senses of confidence. But as a quick overview, probably superfluous:

• First is better than second.
  
• Vulnerabilities rank "NV vs V" >> "NV vs NV" > "V vs V" > "V vs NV".
  
• Preempting is better at IMPs than at MPs.

The relative weights are complicated though. At any rate I would not pass under any of the circumstances, but 3♦ versus 2♦ is a close call.

[mw64ahw]

For me 9.5 modified losers with the long suit at least QTxxxx.
I'll also open with any 4-card side suit and use a 2♥ relay to resolve the shape/strength.

[mycroft]

You know my answer, when it comes to preempt style :-)

• Play what partner wants. Results really don't matter unless you can both agree that another style would be better. Better results on this board will be paid back with bad results on future boards when either partner does what they always do and you don't have it this time, or doesn't do what they always do because you didn't have it last time.
  
• Play what partner expects. Sort of the same thing, but even more so - and especially when it comes to preempts opposite an unpassed hand. Sure, two times out of three the person you disrupt will be an opponents, but nobody will remember those, and your partner definitely will remember the other third, whether it's 3NT-1, or 5♦x-4, or 2♦+3.
  
• Play what your system is designed for (or redesign your system around what you choose to play). If your partnership is "2/top 3", then why are you playing Ogust (what's the difference between a good suit and a bad suit?) If you play Feature to find 3NT, is partner going to be happy when you have your hand with the ♠K? If you play "feature only with good suit", is partner going to be happy when you bid 3♦ with this and she's looking at ATx?

I play everything from Sound-and-Disciplined (partner thinks, with good reason, that we defend better than the field, so we don't gamble in the auction. She also likes bidding and having me make game when I preempt) to "anything goes" (and this isn't even a dead minimum, except maybe 2nd and unfavourable. Okay, the 7 being the highest spot is ugly) to EHAA (which to the letter of the book, is a pass if the vul is not such that we can open 3♦. But that was because of the GCC restrictions; with the liberalizing of the Open chart, it's probably a 2 bid) - and anything in between. I will play whatever preempt style partner is comfortable with (but if given the choice, would prefer to be more aggressive than "the field" at MPs or NV IMPs). It's just easier that way.

Now everything David said is valid in theory, and should definitely be used in those partnership discussions. Oh, and find a copy of "Prempts from A to Z" for lots more theory (and a lot of practical ideas). However, bridge isn't played by theoretical players, and "in theory, theory is the same as practise. In practise, that's a good theory." So my arguments are all social.

I do think VUL at IMPs is dangerous; you can go 500 into nothing (or 800 into game) very easily. I like having the kind of internal suit consistency that means I can't have "all the finesses offside". I don't find it happens often, even, though - but when it does, it can throw an entire match. And at teams, you have three "partners" to keep happy. But - making it just that much harder to work out game vs slam, or making a lead-director that sets their game or slam can swing the entire match too.

Now, I also believe in "Rule 1": "if mycroft violates system, or makes an unusual judgement call, and it's wrong, it's his fault no matter what partner did after." If partner is okay with that, and okay with mycroft stepping out occasionally (because I'm right, a lot), and comfortable knowing that they won't be blamed for the disaster later, fine. If not - well, I could change; but those people are likely to want other partners in the first place.

I would also warn against 2♦ openers; there's a reason there's so many other uses for that call. It's clearly the weakest of preempts. And also most likely to trigger the "is that weak?" ask, for what that's worth. Frankly, there are I'm sure several who would consider this a 3♦ call, at least NV, because of that.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

IMP / MP does not matter.

Assuming I have a weak two in diamond av., green vs. red in 1st, 3rd - 2D
In 3rd 3D is also an option, if I feel frisky, in all other scenarios I pass.

I dont need the 6th diamond, but the suit quality is lousy.
Exchange the Jack with the Queen, or at least add the ten, I would go with
3D in 1st and 3rd and 2D in 2nd.
With KQxxxx I want partner to lead diamonds, I am not so sure, holding KJxxxx,
obviously I want it, if he has a honor, but only than.

The first hit is important, but quite often peoble forget, that it is also
important, that partner knowes, what to do, if they come in over our preempt
opening, the preempt makes finding the 4-4 fits harder, and also makes it
harder to find the best fit, if they have multiple fits.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

I'm sorry for jumping on this, but this is a rare case where I disagree to such a large degree that I wanted to comment.

mycroft, on 2024-July-16, 11:46, said:

You know my answer, when it comes to preempt style :-)

• Play what partner wants. Results really don't matter unless you can both agree that another style would be better. Better results on this board will be paid back with bad results on future boards when either partner does what they always do and you don't have it this time, or doesn't do what they always do because you didn't have it last time.
  
• Play what partner expects. Sort of the same thing, but even more so - and especially when it comes to preempts opposite an unpassed hand. Sure, two times out of three the person you disrupt will be an opponents, but nobody will remember those, and your partner definitely will remember the other third, whether it's 3NT-1, or 5♦x-4, or 2♦+3.
  
• Play what your system is designed for (or redesign your system around what you choose to play). If your partnership is "2/top 3", then why are you playing Ogust (what's the difference between a good suit and a bad suit?) If you play Feature to find 3NT, is partner going to be happy when you have your hand with the ♠K? If you play "feature only with good suit", is partner going to be happy when you bid 3♦ with this and she's looking at ATx?

I play everything from Sound-and-Disciplined (partner thinks, with good reason, that we defend better than the field, so we don't gamble in the auction. She also likes bidding and having me make game when I preempt) to "anything goes" (and this isn't even a dead minimum, except maybe 2nd and unfavourable. Okay, the 7 being the highest spot is ugly) to EHAA (which to the letter of the book, is a pass if the vul is not such that we can open 3♦. But that was because of the GCC restrictions; with the liberalizing of the Open chart, it's probably a 2 bid) - and anything in between. I will play whatever preempt style partner is comfortable with (but if given the choice, would prefer to be more aggressive than "the field" at MPs or NV IMPs). It's just easier that way.

This part I 100% agree with, except for the 'gambling in the auction' part. You can't play the game solo, and this goes for pressure bidding more than anything else. If your partner will play you for a running seven card suit if you open 3m and won't budge, preempting on anything else has an increased risk. Or, less dramatically, if your partner has different expectations from you when it comes to preempts (in either direction), expect to run into problems. You are giving partner the last guess more often than desired.
In this post I assumed that the question should be read as "what do you think is a good partnership preempt style", rather than "how permissive are your partners". But the partnership understanding always comes first.

mycroft, on 2024-July-16, 11:46, said:

Now everything David said is valid in theory, and should definitely be used in those partnership discussions. Oh, and find a copy of "Prempts from A to Z" for lots more theory (and a lot of practical ideas). However, bridge isn't played by theoretical players, and "in theory, theory is the same as practise. In practise, that's a good theory." So my arguments are all social.

I do think VUL at IMPs is dangerous; you can go 500 into nothing (or 800 into game) very easily. I like having the kind of internal suit consistency that means I can't have "all the finesses offside". I don't find it happens often, even, though - but when it does, it can throw an entire match. And at teams, you have three "partners" to keep happy. But - making it just that much harder to work out game vs slam, or making a lead-director that sets their game or slam can swing the entire match too.

Now, I also believe in "Rule 1": "if mycroft violates system, or makes an unusual judgement call, and it's wrong, it's his fault no matter what partner did after." If partner is okay with that, and okay with mycroft stepping out occasionally (because I'm right, a lot), and comfortable knowing that they won't be blamed for the disaster later, fine. If not - well, I could change; but those people are likely to want other partners in the first place.

I would also warn against 2♦ openers; there's a reason there's so many other uses for that call. It's clearly the weakest of preempts. And also most likely to trigger the "is that weak?" ask, for what that's worth. Frankly, there are I'm sure several who would consider this a 3♦ call, at least NV, because of that.

This I disagree with every step of the way though - a rare occurrence.

• I've borrowed "Preempts from A to Z" from a friend a few years ago, and was very disappointed. The style was conservative, and the book was mostly a long list of conventions that we could play over or against preempts, often explained poorly. I firmly believe that the decision whether the open or pass, and discussing this decision and your style with your partner beforehand, is doing almost all of the work of a preempt. All this constructive gadgetry for finding perfect slams over weak 2's and asking keycards cheaply over barrage 3's doesn't hold a candle to the IMPs or MPs gained or lost due to making the opponents guess.
  
• The 500's and 800's are rare, far less common than people think. I've been speeding a lot, but it is rare to get caught. Disasters do happen, but the opportunity cost from failing to apply pressure is equally real, much more frequent, and often ignored.
  
• The talk of fault seems misplaced to me. In a partnership you try to get a good score together, and in a team you do so between all four (or six) of you. The game is difficult enough as is, and some amount of poor choices is inevitable. I think the statement "I think action X is good, but instead I took action Y because I think my partner would blame me if X lost" shows a serious lack of trust in the partnership. What kind of partners do you have if you cannot come to an understanding about the relative merits of action X and Y? Surely you can't both be right - X being better but also Y being better. It's verging on cowardice.
  
• The claim that 2♦ is clearly the worst 2-level preempt is shocking to me. I think this is not just not clear, but actually that the opposite is true. 2♥ is less effective, the extra bid does not make up for the fact that opponents now have to seek potential fits in both majors.

[mycroft]

A to Z: I do agree that the collection of conventional responses is overboard for most. It's the first couple of chapters, and the "maybe you think this is conservative. Here's how to push a little harder" starts to chapters, that are worth reading. Having said that, the theory of all their response structures is consistent, and after you learn how the wheels turn, it's basically the same every time.

Yes, rare. But my team was 24 IMPs down with 2 boards to go in the GNT district qualifier one year. We set a vulnerable game on 23 that our partners made; that's skill. But on 24, they opened 2♠ on much better than the OP hand - 1100 into the buzzsaw. Our partners passed, and I think set them in their spade contract. Even if they had gone completely Cloister Club, they were getting the free trip - and they should have known they were well ahead, we certainly knew we were well behind. Not my only experience, on either side. 4% just isn't the same thing.

I think we're talking two different things with "fault". Absolutely you win as a team and lose as a team. But when a (IMHO good on balance, but I would say that, wouldn't I?) step out leads to partner this time playing 4 doubled off AKQx of trump all in one hand (and with less shortness than the auction hinted at, too), it just makes it easier to play the disaster knowing that partner won't complain about what *she* did wrong on the hand! And that leads to (at least my) partners minimizing plays that make it even worse (and as I say here frequently, -100 can be a *great* score; -200, or even -150, usually less so. If you can't get your meal, at least get the crumbs!)

I put a lot of faith (and work) in my system, and I follow it, and my partners do too. So maybe not "fault", maybe "responsibility". If I choose to do something unusual, or against system, or not what partner would normally expect, I take responsibility for the result. If it's bad. If it's good, now we're back to "win as a pair".

[jillybean]

My only partnership agreement on weak 2's has been a partners preference for disciplined as, when right, he can bid 3nt with confidence in my suit.
I find this is too narrow of a target and we are missing preemptive advantages in 1st seat.
Other partners have typically shrugged when I ask their preference for weak 2's and some play anything from any 6 card suit to a clear 1 level opening for me.

Playing disciplined style, we sensibly use feature, not ogust.

I'm not playing much bridge right now, but my in the wings partner likes Lawrence style of undisciplined 1st, disciplined second seat, and undisciplined- in 3rd seat where the suit has some integrity. I assume we can play the ask as ogust or feature depending on seat. I'm not a Lawrence follower but will read that section of his book.

[mw64ahw]

This is an alternative to Ogust or Feature which I recently came across using 2N over a Major weak 2 and helps with judging whether 3N is on.
3♣ max splinter or 6M2oM(32)
.. 3♦ which?
.... 3♥ ♣ splinter or 6M2oM(32)
...... 3♠ concern for ♣
.... 3♠ ♦ splinter
.... 3N oM splinter
3♦ max 4m
.... 3♥ which?
...... 3♠ 4♣
...... 3N 4♦
3M min
3oM max 4oM
3N max 6M3oM(22)
You can also extend to showing 6M(520) or 6M(511), but then you are at the 4-level.

[johnu]

 DavidKok, on 2024-July-16, 14:53, said:

The claim that 2♦ is clearly the worst 2-level preempt is shocking to me. I think this is not just not clear, but actually that the opposite is true. 2♥ is less effective, the extra bid does not make up for the fact that opponents now have to seek potential fits in both majors.

Not just you, but lots of experts think that 2♦ is a very effective preempt.

What is true is that 2♦ is usually the lowest 2 level preempt since 2♣ is usually artificial and strong. That makes using 2♦ as something artificial more attractive since there is more room to sort out responses and rebids.

[P_Marlowe]

 johnu, on 2024-July-16, 21:30, said:

Not just you, but lots of experts think that 2♦ is a very effective preempt.
<snip>

The effectivity is due to the fact, that you need 44 in the majors to make a safe T/O,
you can get away with 4-3, but doing it with 4-3 carries the risk of ending up in 4-3 fits
at the 4 level.

The downside is, that 2DX is not game.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[P_Marlowe]

 mw64ahw, on 2024-July-16, 20:08, said:

This is an alternative to Ogust or Feature which I recently came across using 2N over a Major weak 2 and helps with judging whether 3N is on.
<snip>
You can also extend to showing 6M(520) or 6M(511), but then you are at the 4-level.

The methods certainly works, but forces you to have precisly 6 cards for a weak two,
I like the option to open a weak tow with 5+ cards.

But if you play 2-suited openings to show the 5 card major hands, why not.
Usually the 2-suited methods dont handle 65 hands very well.

I am not convinced that opening 65 hands as weak two works would work for me,
but I recall having read, that Zia was a fan of this (or another big shot),
so it seems it will work, and if you always have 6 for you weak two will
certainly help.

[mw64ahw]

 P_Marlowe, on 2024-July-16, 23:35, said:

The methods certainly works, but forces you to have precisly 6 cards for a weak two,
I like the option to open a weak tow with 5+ cards.

But if you play 2-suited openings to show the 5 card major hands, why not.
Usually the 2-suited methods dont handle 65 hands very well.

I am not convinced that opening 65 hands as weak two works would work for me,
but I recall having read, that Zia was a fan of this (or another big shot),
so it seems it will work, and if you always have 6 for you weak two will
certainly help.

You can use a Rainbow 2♦ if you want to include the 4+m5+M carders and then put the Weak 2♦ via 2♣

65 hands can often be opened 1M so your top hcp for a weak 2 is usually 8 leaving a higher chance for responder to force. They don't occur very often and I'm still simulating the success rate after a force.

[Cyberyeti]

We don't have a weak 2♦ available, so I would pass and open 3♦ 3rd at the right vul. If I played a weak 2♦, I would open one at any pos/vul other than 2nd red v green (or 4th obv)

[mycroft]

I find that even a weak 2♣ (playing EHAA) is more effective than 2♦. I see all the theoretical difficulties. I admit that they are, theoretically, a problem (although doubling 2♥ with the same 4243 leads to similar fits, but at the 3 level, when the spade fit isn't there).

I also know that the unofficial ACBL defence to weak 2♦ in practise works very well, and the opponents tend to land on their feet. Other places with (at least in this case) more enlightened Announcement Procedures may find it more effective.

Interestingly (more on-topic), my regular partnership plays "anything goes" preempts (and I'd open that one, but I'd be much happier if the high spot was the T or 9). Our one exception is that 3m in 1st and 2nd is "happy to put dummy down in 3NT". Yes, it means we pass a fair number of hands others are opening at the 3 level, for usually poorer results. It also means +630 into +130 a fair number of times, and -500 into -620 when partner can play the hand in the auction and bids 5. Swings and roundabouts.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2024-July-17, 10:17, said:

Our one exception is that 3m in 1st and 2nd is "happy to put dummy down in 3NT".

You once said "would be happy to take home to introduce to parents", or similar
It's about the only exception that still tempts me too, I've even given up the ghost on passing with a side 4cM and am happy overall so far.
I've played it and not played it, with mixed results, but it does take pressure off the partnership.
Maybe only in 2nd might be the way to go.

[Cascade]

First seat aggressive.

Second seat they come out of a textbook.

The standards are also modified according to the vulnerability. They range from unfavourable where on an admittedly optimistic counting of tricks I think I am around 2 tricks short of my bid to favourable where I might not have much at all (first seat) and can be quite light 2nd seat KQJxxx and out looks like 3mi to me and maybe without the jack (I often do not play a weak two in diamonds). First seat favourable that example would be a good suit and I might go as low as QTxxxx and not much else and I probably have gone lower at times.

Weak twos are wider range than weak threes especially vulnerable.

Vulnerable I would always open KQJxxxx first seat as I would not vulnerable. Second seat I might pass at least unfavourable - I would like another card. Weaker suits need more or better cards outside.

When preempting 3mi, especially with six card suits, I also take into account my length in the majors especially when near maximum when we might miss a game.

[thepossum]

jillybean, on 2024-July-16, 10:58, said:

Hi, I am reviewing my very old fashioned "2 of the top 3 honors" preempt style.

---

What is your preempt style 1st, 2nd seat, all vulnerabilities, MP and IMP

Thanks

I am likely to pass that one (EDIT most of the time) I think - I don't have much science to offer though - very basic 2,3, and occasionally 4 - using my regular 3 even that only comes to a premeptive 1 bid lol