Leaderboard

According to CNN This seems to suggest that ChatGPT currently sits somewhere above Argine and below GIB. A recent seminar from Stanford gives some insight into the development of AI. One thing it seems reasonably good at is writing and explaining code. When I asked it about a line from "Mots D'Heures: Gousses, Rames: The D'Antin Manuscript" it failed completely. Inappropriate? Bah.

My local group asked me to write up my preemption philosophy, so I wrote them this essay as a result. Curious to discuss it here: When you glance at your hand and see a long flash of colour, a few things should go through your mind before you examine your cards any further: 1. What seat am I in? 2. What has the opponent’s bidding been? 3. What's the vulnerability? 4. What's the form of scoring? ... in approximately that order. Then, when you finally ogle your almost-a-Yarborough, you can add 5. What is my offence/defence ratio (ODR)? 6. Which is my long suit? 7. What are your side holdings? Breaking each of these down: 1. In first seat, preempt more aggressively the more favourable the vulnerability. At favourable, you can be as aggressive as in third - the risk of shutting out partner is higher, but you're now shutting out two opponents rather than just one, and if you're looking at a crusty 4-count, the odds are strongly that it’s their hand. In second seat, preempt conservatively - that is, have good ODR *and* a reasonable hand. Your preempt should be a constructive bid. In third seat, preempt aggressively at any colours. NV, notice that, because P has failed to preempt aggressively in first, he’s unlikely to have either a dramatic misfit or a spectacular fit for you. However, you can and should also preempt on strong hands. Any 10-14ish hand on which game is unlikely even opposite an average 11-count probably does better by directly bidding the contract it thinks it can make (this is still more appealing when you have a reasonable second action available to you to disclose your strength later if the opps compete). There’s a whole spectrum between ‘preempting conservatively to make’ and ‘basically hoodwinking’ whose ambiguity you should take full advantage of. When you’ve passed and partner preempts, you should almost always pass - a heuristic I use is 'if one of my cards in support of partner were instead in my shortest suit, how would I bid?' Either partner has been aggressive, and you should trust him to have assumed the support you have, or he's attempted to perfectly place the contract, and your 'competitive' raise might be the thing that takes him one level too high in a contract that was about to be passed out.The value of aggressive preempting comes from the extremely limited time the opponents get to find out whether they’ve been hoodwinked or whether you’ve got a respectable hand. If you give them an extra round of bidding it’s *much* easier for good opponents to penalise you when it’s right. Conversely, passing marginal takeout doubles is harder for them if the preemptor’s partner could have undisclosed 4-card support and an 11-count. One more bonus consideration in third is 'how strict is the match?' Often if you preempt hyperaggressively in third, LHO will have a beautiful penalty pass but a very strong hand that's afraid his partner won't have enough to make a takeout double - then there's a good chance he’ll tank for a substantial period before passing. If you're willing to call the pigs on RHO for then making a marginal call, you (aptly?) have much higher equity from bidding aggressively than if you would let such things slide. 2. I'm still figuring out the best approach here, but in general, if RHO dealt and opened the bidding, you can be a *lot* more aggressive. Even second in, if RHO opened, I would treat it as first in - preempt like it's your last night on Earth at favourable, cautiously when vul. Again, you could be shutting out partner, but when you have a weak hand and RHO has 12+, the odds are strongly in your favour. The less descriptive and the stronger their bid is, the more you should be encouraged, and vice versa. A Precision club or Acol/SAYC 2C bid are begging for preemption. A Precision five-card 1M bid is substantially less appealing to interfere with. Note that you don't have to jump to preempt over a strong 2C bid. If they've bid a suit, the worst holding you can have in it (either for preempting or bidding directly) is xxx - this is uncomfortably likely to find P with Kxx opposite, losing the first two tricks and then a ruff. Any 3-card holding is pretty bad. 3. In general, vul is a huge consideration in first seat, a moderate one in third, and a small one in second. In third especially, it matters more the higher the level; you can’t just add a card to the suit and think it’s worth raising the level. 4. A caveat to 3 is that *at matchpoints* vul in third, you want to be relatively cautious even at low levels - drifting 2 off undoubled for -200 is likely to be a near bottom, and they might be able to penalise you for -1 with similar results. In general you should be *more* conservative with preempts at matchpoints - if you're doing it right, telephone number penalties rarely happen (unless the opps have something better on), but even NV, -150 can be a terrible MP score. As can +110 or 140 for playing in a 7-card major fit and taking the same number of tricks you would have made in NTs when partner opened. A partial exception to this is specifically at white. The importance of game is much reduced at MPs, meaning them being vulnerable is less of a flag to a bull, and the value is high of keeping them out of a part score where they might scrape +90 vs your -1, +120 or +140 vs your -2, +170 vs your -3 etc; but also of keeping them out of a part score where *they* go -1 or -2 against your 2M=, -3 against your 2M+2 etc. So your ODR should still be decent on marginal hands, but having the nominal values for a preempt is less important. I have no opinions on preemption differences at Rubber. 5. In general, preempt more aggressively with higher ODR. Some things that increase your ODR: * Long suits * Non-ace honours and intermediates in long suits * Second long suits/shortage Similarly, things that decrease it: * No long suit * Non-ace honours and intermediates in short suits * A (semi)balanced hand Aces in any suit are fairly neutral. A 5332 Yarborough has high ODR, because it has some prospect of taking a trick or two in its long suit - maybe three if partner has 4-card support - whereas there's basically no chance of it taking a single trick on defence. That means in eg third seat, opening such a hand at the 2 (or 3) level is substantially more appealing than a similar hand with 3 or 4 points in side suits. Vulnerability has no effect on this. The idea that you ever *want* cards outside your suit is largely a myth, though the occasional Qx can be a nicely nasty surprise for opps who finesse the wrong way (this is probably more of an upside when the opps are nonvul, since then they're more likely to bid against you). 6. You want to be slightly more willing to preempt the cheaper your suit. Intro texts seem to keep getting this backwards. If you open N clubs, it's less likely to prevent the opps from bidding N of their suit, which can sometimes allow them to find their game. But conversely a) they're less likely either to pass you out there when it's right. b) they're substantially less likely to leave in a marginal takeout double when there’s a chance of missing a major game. c) hands with long minor suits are unlikely to have a major-suit game, so when you do preempt partner it doesn't matter as much that he can't tell if you have 5 or 6, or have a wide point range. d) preempting 2m leaves the opponents trying to choose the best of 3 plausible games. Preempting 2M narrows them down to 2. 7. Preempting is marginally less appealing when your hand has features that give it more game potential: * A side 5-card spade suit * A side 5-card heart suit * A side 4-card spade suit * A side 4-card heart suit * A side void A side 5-card spade suit is usually a dealbreaker. A side 5-card heart suit is more of a deterrent to preempting the better your hand - if the hand might legitimately belong to you, losing a 5-4 or even 5-3 heart fit is quite bad. As your hand gets worse, whenever you're making 4H, they become more likely to have a profitable spade game or sac over it, so a side heart suit can be a reason *to* preempt, since it increases your hand's ODR. For the same reason, a 4-card spade suit is a bigger deterrent than a 4-card heart suit - but neither really matters much. There's a slight chance you lose a 4-4 game, vs a slight boost to your ODR in your primary suit. In my experience, 4-4 major games with a long moderately good side suit as the primary source of tricks don't play that well unless you've got a double fit - the opps will often be able to force you in the preemptor's hand, making you unable to draw trumps and get over there to enjoy the suit - and when you have a double-fit, it's likely the opponents have a good sac. Also, a side major gives you some protection against being penalised, since it means the opps are more likely to have major shortage and therefore will be uncomfortable making a takeout double. A void + a side major is a slight multiplier on all the above side major considerations. Some hands: Hand 1: xx xxx xxx xxxxx Hand 2: xx KQTxxx xxx xx Hand 3: AQTxxx xx xxx xx Hand 4: KQT9xx x xxx xxx Hand 5: x QJxxx xxxx xxx Hand 6: x QJxxx Jxxx Kxx Hand 7: xxx xxxx xxx xxx Hand 8: Kxx xxxx xxx xxx Hand 9: Qx KJ9xxx KQx Kx Hand 10: Jx AJ9xxx KQx Kx Hand 11: x AJ9xxx KQx Qxx Hand 12: Kxxx Jxx xx xxxx Hand 13: Qxxxxx xx Axx xx Hand 14: x xxxxx xxxxx xx Hand 15: x Kxxxx KQT7x Ax IMPs 1st in, favourable, Hand 1 is an easy 3C bid. Hand 2 I would also settle for the three level because of the slightly lower(!) ODR, and the fact that it’s a major. 1st in unfavourable, Hand 3 is around the 'minimum' for 2S (but Hand 4 would be at least as good a preempt because of the higher ODR) 2nd in, more or less as 1st in unfavourable. NV I might venture it on an AJTxxx suit 3rd in favourable, Hand 7 is a reasonable 2D or 2H preempt; though Hand 8 is a clear pass; Hand 1 is still a 3C bid; Hand 2 now looks like a reasonable 4H bid. Hand 9 is also a clear 2H bid: try giving partner an 11-count that makes game good and that wouldn't raise even given the above raising heuristic (though it has the downside that after a 2S overcall and two passes back to you, you’ll be uncomfortable about whether you should compete the part score).* Hand 10 is right on the 1H/2H boundary. Partner could have xxxx Qxx Ax Axxx, but every time he doesn’t have that, you stand to do pretty well by starting the auction high - although again if the opps bid 2S you’ll be uncomfortable.* Hand 11 is a lovely 2H opener - you could open 3H, but the 2-level might be the limit for everyone, and if the opps bid spades, you then have a perfect double back in. * I would err towards passing after P P 2H 2S / P P, since RHO would usually raise with any hint of support, but you have enough defence that P might not find a penalty pass. If it goes P P 2H X / P 2S or better yet P P 2H P / P X P 2S / P P, I would be more tempted to double, since now they’ve probably found a fit. 3rd in unfavourable, Hand 5 is unlikely to end the auction and unlikely to get doubled; Hand 6 is much worse. Stronger hands don't care about vulnerability as much since they’re bidding to make: so you should still bid 2H on Hands 9 and 11. You would probably open 1H on hand 10 though, given the the high cost when partner *does* have the perfect hand. After RHO opened 4th in after a third seat opening is much the same as a third seat opening, though you might not have space to jump to the 2 level. So Hand 1 is still 3C etc. 2nd in favourable after a Precision 1C opening is much the same again. Uniquely here you have a 1S ‘preempt’ available, which Hand 12 looks plenty for (arguably Hands 7 and/or 8 would arguably also be adequate). 2nd in favourable after an unbalanced 1D opening, Hand 13 looks on the margin but is maybe a little too awkward for a 2S bid. Swap Ds and Cs and it looks biddable. 3rd in white after RHO opened a better minor 1C, Hand 14 is worth a 3D preempt. There's no upside to bidding Hs. Hand 15 is worth a 2D preempt. Your heart partial looks unlikely to be as good as your diamond partial and game-in-Hs-without-them-having-a-good-4S-bid seems unlikely even on the second. There's little point in bidding unusual 2N on either hand without game interest - keep the heart suit as a fun surprise for the opps if they win the auction. Some other implications of all this After an auction like P P 2H X / P 3C P or P P 2H P / P X P 2S, responder with a hand such as AQxx Kxxx Jxx xx can actually slow raise partner, since now you know he probably has a decent hand. One-level overcalls are quite sound, esp NV - with a 5-card suit and less than a 9-count, you'd usually have bid 2. I haven't thought much about the implications of this, but it seems like something you could use to further advantage, eg by slightly lightening UCBs. Even if you play new suits forcing over preempts, you should probably play them non-forcing over 1st-in NV bids. I think this is all +EV assuming your cardplay abilities are comparable to the room. If you're substantially better than them, the increased variance will work against you, so you should be a little more cautious. When a passed hand *does* raise their partner, it should be on a shapely hand. So for when you're doing it constructively, I would suggest having the agreement that bidding a new suit shows your shortage (and a max). When deciding on a lead, consider the context in which partner preempted. If it was a context that suggested an aggressive preempt, then you should feel no obligation to lead his suit. When partner preempts NV in 1st, or 2nd after an opening bid by opps, and you have a good hand, accept that you’re in a tough spot. Feel free to bid if game looks plausible, but don’t drag partner to game if he shuts you down just because ‘he should have something’. He is not bound by your quaint Earth customs.

A great essay and very interesting read! Your conclusions resemble those of Andrew Gumperz, Kit Woolsey (in 'Matchpoints') and my own. If you're interested I would recommend giving them a read, the arguments are very similar. There are a few points where I think you might have missed the mark, or at least where I'd be interested to gain more insight into your arguments. I like most of what you suggest though, so all things considered I think our approach to preempts is very similar. Sorted from (I think) most important to least important: If RHO has opened in a suit (natural) that is a reason to be more conservative with our preempts, not more aggressive. It is more likely that the opponents own the hand, but they have already communicated more information and will be able to make the right decision more often. You are taking more risk (since they might coordinate a penalty double more easily, having already shown some strength and shape) with a lower upside (the ranges of all their bids are not as wide). Against artificial openings that don't limit shape or strength very well it makes sense to stick your neck out, but generally it's a red flag when RHO opens. Kit Woolsey mentions there are three risks when preempting (all pass, double-all pass and pass-pass-double-all pass). I think there are some more: partner raising us too high and getting doubled, the opponents bidding a failing contract and partner taking a phantom sacrifice and (less frequently) blowing the lead on defence. I think you dismiss these too easily, claiming that after a can-be-wild preempt partner should almost never raise. Personally I think that [i have 0 HCP but an interesting preempt, partner holding a fitting 12 should know to pass] is less frequent than [partner has just preempted and I have a fitting 9 and opposite a normal preempt it is correct to raise, so I would like to not be barred by our partnership agreement]. Raising a preempt is one of the biggest winners in competitive auctions, applying maximum pressure while being possible on a wide range of hands. The (very) weak preempts, i.e. let's say a king at most, are so uncommon that I think it is losing bridge to build your partnership agreements around them. I would personally recommend allowing partner to raise with 3-card support most of the time (especially with some ODR), and either taking your lumps on the 0-count 5-card preempts or passing those out instead. Keep in mind partner is also more likely to be strong with support if you open without strength or shape, so you are cutting into exactly the hand types where a raise would be welcome most of the time. I think 4-card preempts fall in the same category. You can systemically include (some of) them in your preempts, but keep in mind that it will significantly hurt partner's ability to get future competitive decisions right, both on this board and on all the boards where you had a more normal 5-card or even 6-card preempt. ODR notwithstanding I think at some point you are just losing on creating more problems for partner than for the opponents. Of course if you use an artificial 4-card preempt that is a different matter entirely, but if I understand correctly you want to include these in natural weak two's (hand 7 at third seat favourable). Hand 2 has a higher ODR than hand 1. You rate to take at least two more tricks in hearts with hand 2 than you rate to take in clubs with hand 1, while you are likely only getting 1 trick on defense with hand 2. 'ODR' isn't so much of a ratio as it is a difference (which also solves all tricky 'divide by zero' issues) - the goal is to estimate how much better we will do when choosing the trump suit compared to defending, and hand 2 improves by a trick more than hand 1. I don't love some of your decisions with hands 10 and 11. If(/when) the opponents bid to 4♠, or even 3♠, partner will likely make the wrong decision - i.e. taking a phantom sacrifice in 5♥ with 4-card support, defending when we might belong in a minor suit or pass it out when we can set them multiple tricks doubled. The ODR of the hand is reasonable, but in my opinion the total defence of the hand is just too high for a preemptive bid (more on this in my thread linked at the top). It is probably +EV to preempt these hands in a vacuum, but barring partner from making fitting raises or taking future competitive decisions is so costly that I think it is -EV all things considered. A preempt should hand partner captaincy, not block them. My calls on these hands at 1st/2nd/3rd favourable or unfavourable, and 2nd after RHO opens in first seat (I just assumed nobody vul) would be: Lastly I think hand 3 1st unfavourable is not a minimum for 2♠, though it's not too far off. Most of your example hands. hands 5 and 6 especially, suffer from the fact that preempting will not obstruct the opponents in finding their spade fit very well (in general heart preempts are just not great). I would still bid with them but in general it doesn't pay to take risks with heart preempts. You construct some minimal hand partner might have opposite we have a game on hand 10, but I think that is not the most important criterion. I am much more concerned with partner's options when the opponents interfere at game or partscore level, i.e. when holding a mildly fitting 10-count or somesuch. Not the perfect hand, just an average hand. I think partner will be in an impossible position on those hands, and they will occur much more frequently than the perfect game-going minima. On hand 11: are you doubling if they get to 3♠? 4♠? 3♣? Hand 13, favourable, clubs and diamonds swapped, is not even close to 2♠ over an unbalanced diamond opening in my opinion. If opener has short spades you're likely facing a penalty pass on your left, while if opener has length in spades LHO is probably short, or is in a good position to judge when 3NT is making. The primary way to win on that auction is when the opponents belong in 4♥ and you've made it difficult for them to find it. Unfortunately almost everybody has heart-finding tools on that auction, and partner is unlikely to raise you in your style even with (say) KTx in support. I would pass and hold out for a better suit - I just don't think you're blocking them from their 3NT or 4♥, while the risk of going -1400 or worse is very present on the auction. The suggested agreement to use shortage-showing bids as constructive raises seems iffy. We are not looking for a miracle game, blast or pass will do reasonably well on shapely hands with support and some values (arguably the good old college game try is one of the highest +EV game tries anyway). It is precisely the choice of game decisions, notably 3NT vs 4M (versus, perhaps, 3M opposite this style) where you gain by going slow, so I think game tries should be reserved mostly for non-fit hands, especially with Hx or xxx support. That being said, opposite this style that usually requires a really big hand (18+ or so) - I play this the same way, and ask all my partners to please smoothly pass out their balanced 16-counts with doubleton support when I preempt.

Yesterday, someone answered "How were Celts viewed by other Europeans like the Greeks and Romans?" on Quora. He already got 57 upvotes so not everyone spotted it was made by ChatGPT. Or maybe they are just happy to upvote chatGPT: This is a quite typical ChatGPT answer. It uses cliches such as "evolved over time" and "were viewed differently" even when not really appropriate. The stereotypic last paragraph ("In conclusion ..") totally gives it away. ChatGPT is probably OK for cheating with primary school homework, as long as the teacher doesn't recognize it as such. It can be used to write up texts in a desired style (it is quite good at writing poetry in my opinion, but maybe a professional poetry critic would disagree) and it can maybe be used to screen for topics about which something can be written (you may try, for example, "what is the connection between tomato intake and the risk of developing autism" or "what influence did Australian Aboriginals have on the European Renaissance", and discover that not much can be said about the topic).

Hi David, thanks for the in-depth reply :) Out of curiosity, where in the Netherlands do you live? My profile is out of date, and I now live in a small town between Amsterdam and Utrecht. I'll check out the essays you linked later (also the specific bids, in case there's anything in there that surprises me based on what you've said). For now, going through your points in order: 1. I think there's probably a lot of nuance in this area, and it's broadly the part I feel like I've explored least, but it's also the part I think everyone else has explored least - presumably because there's so many possibilities of what and in which seat the opps have opened. I definitely think that second in when opps have opened you should be substantially more aggressive than second in when they haven't (assuming you agree that you should be conservative when they haven't) - though there's a lot of space to argue by how much, and with how much dependence on what they've bid. Obviously in 4th the concept of classical preemption doesn't even make sense unless they've opened. In third there's IMO the strongest case for it making less of a difference (or even pushing you towards conservatism). There are a few things to consider separately: 'The opps are more likely own the hand when they've passed' pushes towards preempting aggressively 'The opps have already communicated more information and will be able to make the right decision more often' pushes towards conservatism if true, but I don't think it obviously is. The range of hands that will pass (especially if they also play aggressive preempts) doesn't seem that much higher than the range of hands that would open something generic like a short club. 'You are taking more risk' again pushes towards conservatism if true, but again I'm not sure how much I believe it. A passed hand can reopen with a takeout double very aggressively, since their partner won't get carried away. But if you've opened some generic hand like QTx Qx KQxx KJxx or QTxx Qxx KQx AJx first in unfavourable and LHO's 2H comes back to you, how keen are you to double? There's so many ways it could go wrong, and only really one way it can end well. And knowing this, the person to the left of opener, sitting on something like Axxx KJ8x Ax Qxx is under heavy pressure not to risk a passout. Ie when their partner has opened, there's a smaller range of hands that can make a trap pass. One seldom-discussed upside of aggressive preempting is that it increases the chance that the partner of the trap passer also has length in your suit, and therefore can't actually make a takeout double. 2, 3, and 5. Most of what you're saying here seems to be based on a first seat opening, and I'm not against furthering the preempt on those - albeit somewhat conservatively due to partner's probable aggression. The times when I don't want partner to raise is when he's a passed hand. In such cases raising a preempt high risk for low reward even if you play classic preempts, since the opps have uncontroversially communicated more (because they've had more calls) - and opposite a hyperaggressive style, it's just penalising partner for having already assumed your fit and raised to the hoped-for level (Mike Lawrence discusses this in The Complete Guide to Passed Hand Bidding - his summary of the chapter on what to bid opposite a preemptive raise when you've passed is something like 'this one is easy. Don't.') Opposite strong 3rd seat openings, phantom sacs over 4S should be virtually nonexistent. Partner would need something like 1552 or better to justify it, but on such a hand, with this preempting philosophy, he would have had an opening 2-or-3 D-or-H bid if NV. Vulnerable you'll miss the occasional profitable sacrifice, but that seems incredibly rare. 'A preempt should hand partner captaincy, not block them.' - strong disagree in third. Partner's pass handed you captaincy. He doesn't get to take it back just because you've moved the auction up a level. 4. Yeah, ODR is an imperfect concept. I think there is something ratio-like about it in that, although in the play there are only 14 possible outcomes, in the bidding you're trying to figure out expectation, which is effectively a real number. Fwiw, I'm much more confident about what one should do with Hand 1 than Hand 2. Obviously the former is rarer, but a) less 'pure' versions of it are common enough, and b) partner isn't supposed to place you with Hand 1 for a 3C bid. He's supposed to recognise that you have a wide range, bid on when it makes sense, and occasionally be disappointed (but even then you tend to get silly inconsequential results like 3N-4 for 2 IMPs away when the opps were making 3S at the other table). And the number of times I've seen competent opponents end up somewhere ridiculous after a bid like this is incredible. Re you subsequent discussion points: I don't feel strongly about this, though would caveat that I don't mean 'minimum' to refer to points, but to refer to an abstract all-things considered suitability. Give it a 6331 shape or better, and I would do it with at least a point less. Though I suppose I would do it on the same hand with a queen in one of the side suits, so it's not exactly minimum suitability either (or, perhaps I'm underrating overall strength of hand in this position, when we're basically making a constructive bid). This cuts both ways. The opps are more likely to bid spades over you, correctly or otherwise, so both the risks and rewards are lower, and you have to decide which decrease is more significant. IMO the lower risk matters more - I would be much more hesitant to open 2S on Hand 5 with the hearts and spades reversed. When they do bid spades over me, I'm delighted - they would have done anyway, but now they still have to find the right level and confirm that spades is the correct strain (maybe 3N would be better) with about a 16th of the theoretical bidding space. In practice if you reversed the majors I would probably still bid 2S on that pure a hand, but whereas I *might* hold my nose and open 2H on Hand 6, reverse the majors and I would certainly pass. Respectively: probably not, but it depends on vul, scoring and how they got there; no; no :) I could certainly be persuaded on this. My instinct is that what you're saying is at least partially informed by fear as well as odds - there's no a priori reason to suspect E will have spade shortage, and if he has distributions like 1255, 1264 and so on, he might not want to risk the X. But I rarely get to play against unbalanced diamonds, so don't have a well-developed intuition. That doesn't sound right. I would say comparably high EV outcomes are: opps miss a good competitive part score; P competes to 4S (he knows I've at least got spade length here, so is perfectly entitled to compete); opps end at the wrong level; opps miss 3N. Again, it sounds like you're talking about first-seat preempts, which I didn't mean this to apply to. P obviously can't have a 16 or 18 count as a passed hand! When you have passed, the sorts of hands that want to invite game are those with a couple of bullets, 3- or preferably 4-card support and a singleton. Obviously that's nowhere near enough to make opposite many of the hands I've given, but should be enough opposite the strong hands, holding which P will almost always accept. The sad moments are when P has relative junk and you go (an extra trick) down, but usually then the opps were making at least a decent part score, and are very unlikely to be able to double you.

I can't speak for Jinksy but my personal style is aggressive but disciplined - at least, in my own opinion. I prefer to base my preempts on ODR rather than strength, on vulnerability and seat before length. So, as an extreme example, ♠Txxxx, ♥AJ, ♦ATxxx, ♣x would not be suitable for a 5-card weak two (or for a Muiderberg, for that matter) in my partnership style regardless of seat and vulnerability, and we have to choose between pass or 1♠. The preempts are, arguably, equally well-defined. Just not along the axes of HCP, strength in the long suit and length, but along the axes of ODR and defensive tricks and how those vary with seat and vulnerability. It is important to be clear about your agreements. I think weak two and three bids (may be a 4-card suit) are legal even if you sometimes bid them on 0HCP - at the very least they are not brown sticker as long as you don't start preempting on 3-card suits. But it is important to be clear about your agreements, both with your partner and to your opponents. I alert our preemptive bids just to be clear, which is honestly not ideal as it slows down the bidding and may annoy people. Personally I think it is the lesser of evils, though. In the past I had a few misunderstandings where we announced "weak two, can be five" before the match and the opponents interpreted that as "when favourable we go a little crazy and might have a 5431-shape" instead of our "we will preempt you with a suitable 5332 even at unfavourable". We do have one more unusual agreement, which so far seems to be a big winner. At favourable first or third seat only we play that weak two's and weak three openings show the same hand types (both may be a 5 card suit), but the 3-level bids have (almost) all their strength in the long suit with 0-0.5 tricks outside, while the 2-level bids promise approximately a trick in an outside suit. Most 'classical' 3-level openings open at the 4-level instead. Opening 3♠ on a weak 5-card suit turns out to be a big winner and the constructive tools we have over 2-level preempts let us sort out the side values most of the time, without putting partner to a guess when it comes to bidding one more.

I take a weird pleasure in acknowledging it took me more than a little bit to get the idea here. I have had many enjoyable experiences trying to communicate in languages other than my own with amusing results. Sometimes successfully, udually not. Playing online, in a Zoom session meant for after-the-hand discussion, with a woman from Quebec, I impulsively said "Je ne regrette rien". She responded. I have no idea what she said. I did pass the French exam and the German exam in grad school..Standards were not high. Thanks. I showed this to Becky, she got a kick out of it. Not immediately.