Jinksy

Most people play systems that can't be adequately disclosed. If I go to a low-level UK club, I can virtually guarantee that the partnerships will have some kind of intuitive understanding about when to open 1M with (4432)s, and that none of them will be able to usefully share their intuitions with me if asked. At a stronger club, I'll encounter pairs who seem to be opening 1N on more and more hands, each regular partnership with their own developed intuition on the subject. Many players purport to play 5cMs, but will happily open 1S in third on, say AQxx of spades and pretty much any other collection of nine cards that's unsuitable for a 1 or 2N bid. Against a pro team I once got screwed over because they opened 1D and rebid 2C on a 3145 hand and I had never heard of that being a possibility. If you change the parameters of the opening post to match some other experienced pair's, you're still going to get a complex network of assumptions unique to that pair. IMO the best approach is to just be a decent human about it when it comes up, and give your opponents as much information as it seems like they can profit from given basic time constraints, most importantly including suggesting a defence against your style if they seem uncertain.

I think there's two ways of looking at it. One is a strict ratio, which would still be technically defined on the hand you give since there's some fractional chance of you picking up a trick in the opponent's S contract (or possibly red suit contract if they have to delay drawing trumps. The other is as David said more like the trick difference. The latter is probably a better way to think about it, and I probably overemphasised literal ODR in the first post, though I think both of them tell part of the story.

Get off your high horse. You do not have the time on every set of boards with every set of opponents to fully describe all the relevant aspects of any bidding system, nor do many opponents want you to. In the real world, you have to make judgement calls based on trying to make it a smooth experience for everyone else in the room, opponents included. I suppose you're going to claim you always leave the stop card on the table for a full 10 seconds, always pause for the full 10 seconds if your opponents don't, never fail to produce a pass card to end an auction, and always explain your exact requirements for all 2-level openings, 1m openings and the exact circumstances under which you'd open 1N on a (5422) hand in all four seats before anyone touches a card? Oh, but you don't have to, because your bids are totally compliant with the spirit of the law...

Out of respect for your desire not to get into specifics, I won't say anything more than that frequency of gain is key. Obviously you can believe the odds are not in your favour. Having experimented with this style for years, I can say that I've had the impression of better overall results, and at least not specifically worth. I started doing it experimentally - over time I've been encouraged to keep it. This applies both in high and low-level competition. The weaker the players, the more easily bamboozled they are, but the less efficient use they were going to make of the bidding space I took from them. It depends very much on practicality. If I'm playing in a multi-board-a-table tournament, I'll give them as thorough a description of our description before we look at our cards. If it's 3-4 boards against opposition who seem like they might be interested, we might say something like '<base system>, highly variable preempts', with a little more colour if there's time and they seem engaged. If it's 2 boards a table with people who seem like they haven't even heard of weak 2s, I probably wouldn't say anything unless they introduced their system to us (and I would also tend to tone down the aggression, since I doubt I want the variance).

Fwiw, looks like a clear 3♠ to me. There's plenty of room to get a good score if they bid 3N and we defend well. If 4♠ gets doubled, we've probably secured a bottom before the play even starts.

<apologies for the angle brackets quoting - BBO told me I'd exceeded my quote quota!> Tell me where I should play! Atm I only have access to one bridge club, but I'd like to explore more soon :) > I think the majority of preemptive bids are not taken in third seat. There's also the ones where RHO opened, and fourth seat when third seat opened. I don't think we disagree on much of substance re the 1st and second seat ones, so I just don't think there's much to discuss there. > As you pointed out preempting in a major suit has the twin effects of reducing bidding space but also virtually eliminating some possible final contracts for the opponents. The point wasn't that preempting a major actually helps them conditional on you having such a hand - the chance that they were about to play in your major is very low - but that preempting a minor does more damage conditional on you having that a minor-suited hand. Taking up their auction space is always going to be +EV on the assumption that they then bid over us. > I think modern gadgets after interference of our opening (to name a few: Lebensohl/Rubensohl/Tranfer Lebensohl, Good/Bad NT, Transfer responses, Scrambling NT, even humble negative and takeout doubles) will very frequently get both the partscore and game decisions right. These help, but they don't change the fundamental maths that your opponents now have a tiny fraction of the bandwidth that they had. Often they'll land in awkward Moyesians, 3N missing a stop in a side-suit, stop a level too low, stop a level too high, lose their minor suit, etc. I assume you basically agree with this, from your preempts in the first comment. > Ironically people struggle more with 1♦-(2♣) than 1♦-(2♥), in my experience. I agree, I think there's a case for treating that as more of a preempt than a constructive bid - especially third in. > The hand example you give (QTx Qx KQxx KJxx or QTxx Qxx KQx AJx opposite Axxx KJ8x Ax Qxx) we would just blast 1♣-(2♥)-3NT. If you stay out of the auction we would likely get to the same contract. I am not sure what is gained by preempting in this case? I'm not too worried about going for a number over a balanced club, but all other openings bring significant risk. In the auction (1D) 2S (3N) P / P P, I would say the preemptor has approx broken even. You've told the opps a bit about your hand (less so the more frequently you preempt), and they've told you not to bother leading your long suit. But those hands were hypotheticals of what each could have from the other's perspective - just treating them as a couplet isn't very enlightening. Just the possibility of such opener hands makes it hard for responder to trap pass - and if responder would bid 3N on such hands, that makes it still less appealing for opener to make marginal reopening doubles. I think we can agree that a) most of the time, opps will land somewhere sensible after an aggressive preempt and b) a significant amount of the time, something else will happen. So we don't care about all of the hands where they do the former for discussions like this. > The opening bids (almost) all convey significant shape information, which is far more important for competitive decisions than that extra jack or queen partner may or may not have That's why I specified a short club, though a non-unbalanced diamond is also pretty generic. 1M is much less so, so you can preempt more conservatively on the aforementioned death holding (xxx in their suit), and perhaps more aggressively on shortage and/or long weak holdings. In general, the more generic a bid, the more often it will come up, so while I suspect you're directionally correct that on average opening will have helped them convey information, a) I think there's too much difference in the possible bids to generalise about them collectively and b) over 1m openings, I think the effect of the info, if it even is net more informative than a pass, is relatively light compared to the extremely large upside their bid making it much more likely that you're disrupting the correct partnership. > Your claim that partner needs a 5521-shape opposite your preempt is a great example of my point - opposite a somewhat sound preempter it would take far less shape to find a winning raise, and you are giving up on this (in my experience, far more common) scenario. That was specifically referring to the sort of hand that would be needed to bid to the five level over a third-hand preempt. > You're fooling yourself if you think you know the limits of your combined strength as soon as partner passes. If you wait to find out P's precise hand, you'll lose your advantage. Preempting on a wide range of hands (and not inviting P back to the table) in this position is an extension of the general approach in competitive bidding of giving the opponents the last decision. Sure, sometimes they'll get it right, and some of those times you could have got a theoretical par by bidding over them - but in general it will make their life much harder than not. > What made you think I was talking about points?! I'm saying you can turn it into AJ8xxx xx xxx xx and it's still wise to open 2♠ first unfavourable. I'll even take AQTxx xx xxx xxx! That's an interesting difference between us. To me, even if I were going to open a 5-card suit in that position, the A would be a killer, since it reduces the ODR as much as the flatness. I would be curious to experiment with some hands, though. > The risk is that partner will make wrong competitive decisions, push to thin games or stay out of good ones, make a phantom sacrifice (preemptive or otherwise) or fail to find a good sacrifice had you taken a slower route I maintain that none of these are concerns after a third hand preempt... > or even that the PAR is 1NT making your way while you silently go three off in a 5-1 fit. ... this is much more so, and is why I'd be torn over Hand 6 but extremely implausible on a hand as pure as Hand 5. > It's mostly inspired by all the +1100's I'm picking up over my 1♦ ;). For what it's worth, I also play an unbalanced diamond, and have very rarely managed to punish interference over it. > But more to the point, conditional on me having an unbalanced diamond and my LHO having a weak hand with spade length (say, 6(+)) I will have a 1=4=5=3 or 1=3=5=4 a large fraction of the time, so partner can frequently make a good guess. Yeah, fair enough. > so the 3-level is nearly always safe with some tolerance for diamonds so the pressure on partner is greatly reduced compared to, say, 1♣-(2♠). I'm not sure why any of what you've said would reduce pressure on responder. If he has a trap pass, it doesn't help him know whether he can safely pass if he's got a pseudo-fit on the side. > 1=2=5=5 and 1=2=6=4 are perfect hands to double with when it comes back to opener, partner knows you will often not have 4 hearts for this and will choose diamonds with tolerance or 2NT with hearts + a minor. Interesting tool. Does it have a name? Also with the various 'Sohls, it can't solve everything, though - what does partner do when he has (eg) 2533? > Shape-based game tries after a third hand preempt really don't sound great to me. We are almost always outgunned, bidding on shape rather than strength. Never mind game, get partner ready for the possible competitive decision at the 4-level. Make a fitbid or a weak raise or an artificial strong raise to tell partner of our shape and defensive strength. Whether or not we can take 10 tricks is of secondary concern. It matters a lot whether and what (dealer's) RHO has bid. I'm mainly talking about when he's passed, in which case you don't care about competitive decisions, and you're worried P has a strong hand. If he's bid a suit, you can bid yours directly or perhaps fit non jump. If he's doubled, there's a case for either. But by driving up even one level you're announcing an excellent fit, so the preemptor is still the one who can make the final decision about whether to sac

I don't know about US regulations - they seem stricter than almost any other country, and I don't live there, so I've never paid much attention. Respectfully disagree on your sense of what it does to the game. I'm not really sure why gambling via preempts would make the game worse than gambling via risky plays, pushy game bids, psyches, or any of the other elements that make the game so rich. For me, aggressive preempting is a calculated strategy like any other. For what it's worth, while I enjoy both playing and playing against the multi, I think it has much worse ethical problems than anything I've written. IMO the best defence to preempting the way I've described is 'takeout doubles and good judgement', so it doesn't disadvantage anyone except inasmuch as 'some people having better judgement' disadvantages people. Whereas pairs playing the multi tend to get a huge and arguably unfair advantage from the fact that so few people have any defence to it, both because of its artificiality and because defences have to deal with so many unique edge cases (which can vary substantially depending on which version of the multi your opps actually play - weak-only vs a fully forcing 2D, for example).

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.

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.

The majority of people play it this way, but there's a sizeable minority including some very strong players who like to play it for penalties in some or all circumstances even over a strong NT. Meanwhile, there are usually some pairs playing a weak NT in most parts of the world, in a strong club or other nonstandard system, and the latter two other circumstances I listed are very common. So it doesn't make much sense that people wouldn't play something like this for lack of relevance.

Suppose you have an all natural auction like [hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1n(12-14)dpp2d]133|100[/hv] Let's assume you've agreed your pass is forcing. Most people seem to play takeout doubles here, but my partner and I have 'invented' a system, though I'm sure we can't be the first to play it, where rather than the 2-way partition between takeout and penalties, we play a three-way partition. Thus pass either shows a hand that's hoping to penalty pass a takeout double from P, or a pure hand that has no intention of sitting for one. Meanwhile, double shows a middling sort of hand, canonically with three trumps to two honours, such that if the opps are in a 5-2 fit with trumps splitting 3-3, you may still want to penalise them. Some examples: [hv=pc=n&n=sakq6hkj73d6cqj75&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1ndpp2d]133|200[/hv] You pass 2D, and pull his double (possibly to 3D, to ensure you find your right fit, since P will often have to double on off-shape hands to give you the chance to pass) [hv=pc=n&n=saj82hk6dkjt2ckq4&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1ndpp2d]133|200[/hv] You pass and hope to pass his double. [hv=pc=n&n=sa85hkj5dkj5ckq64&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1ndpp2d]133|200[/hv] You double, and hope that partner can pass on a layout such as: [hv=pc=n&s=skt6hqt74dq96c943&w=sqj5ha5dat832cj76&n=sa72hkj8dkj5ckqt5&e=s9843h9632d74ca82&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1ndpp2d]399|300[/hv] People often refer to these as something like 'optional doubles', 'action doubles', or similar, but whenever I look up the meaning of such things it's always much vaguer - all of which seem to be vague variations on 'competitive' or 'values'. These - which, for want of better terminology and because it sounds cooler we call hunting doubles - are quite specific: You have to be in a forcing pass situation below a preagreed level You must have a realistic chance of catching them in a 7-card fit (eg opps can't have competitively bid and raised the suit - unless it could still be on a 7-card fit) You have to be acting directly after RHO has bid a suit as an offer of a place to play, in a situation where he rates to have most of his side's values in the suit Double wouldn't be pure penalties (eg you haven't bid and raised your own suit) Broadly it changes 'pass-then-pull' from a statement about strength to a statement about shape/ODR. You obviously need to have a clear agreement about when pass is forcing, and how high you play this (we play below 3N, but it rarely comes up above 2N). You also need to have a specific agreement about an auction like this: [hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1n(15-17)d(Pen)2d(Exit%20transfer)d(values)2hd(%3F)]133|100[/hv] Here responder has the suit but opener is disproportionately likely to have the honours, even if he only has a doubleton. I suspect one of the reasons we've never encountered anyone else explicitly playing this this is it comes up most often when we double their weak NT, which doesn't happen much outside the UK. But there are various other situations where it can be nice: We double their strong NT for penalties They double our NT for penalties and we redouble naturally After 1a X XX (points and no fit), where the opps start scrambling When the opps directly overcall responder's 2/1 bid Is anyone else familiar with it in this more specific form? Does it have a real name? Is there a good reason no-one else plays it? For what it's worth, we've had good results. Beyond just finding penalties more often, it allows you to play more low-level passes as forcing, since you're less likely to accidentally double them into game or bid to a no-play part score.

We have a homegrown system over the 2♦ ask, which gives up some precision on shape esp in the minors in favour of finding out whether P's upper or lower for his range. That hurts on hands like this, helps (IMO) on those where you're mainly looking for 3N.

I'm not sure if this means you agree with the whole auction?

I (as E) was worried both about partner showing up with a hand like this, and something like this but with the red suits swapped, where 3N is the only game with play (especially if we've cuebid on the way to 5♣).

[hv=pc=n&w=sakq2ht85d3ckj654&e=sha74dj942caqt873&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=2c(nat%3A%2010-13%20points%20and%20%5B5431%5D%20or%206%2B%20clubs)p3s(3S%20was%20a%20void-showing%20splinter%20showing%204%2BCs)p3n(To%20play)ppp]266|200[/hv] E's other system option over 2♣ would have been a major-oriented 2♣ feature ask, which could get max/min range, but wouldn't establish exact shape (eg diamond length). After 3♠, W's options were 3N to play, 4♣ NF with wasted values that didn't look like a sufficient stop opposite a void, or cueing for clubs.

[hv=pc=n&s=sajh843dkt9753ca4&n=sqt874hkt5d2ckq86&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1dp1sp2dp2h(Described%20as%20'forcing%20to%203N')p3dp3nppp]266|200[/hv] I thought this was basically universally played as F1 (apart from a handful of dinosaurs who still play NF) - GF seems almost unplayable. Judging by this hand even the robot seems confused - do they really think this is a full GF rather than, say a 2N rebid? (which already seems optimistic)

Right... this just seems like an easy description to fix.

After the auction 1H P 1N P, I don't know how Gib actually thinks, but the description asserts it has no way of dealing with 4522 hands - 2m bids claim they show 3+, 2H 6+, and 2S reversing values. Surely it should have a consistent understanding of an auction as common as this?

Interesting. What is the difference between a red psych and misinformation? I'd thought of them as synonymous.

He normally plays in EBU events, so those would be the relevant regulations. As far as I know he doesn't have a formal agreement about what constitutes a 1N overcall, just a history of asserting in conversation that he would do so on some highly distributional hands like those above.

One of the regular players in my social circle recently overcalled 1N over 1D with this hand: [hv=pc=n&n=sq95htda3cakqj543]133|100[/hv] This got him a MP top when the opps (presumably not very experienced) both failed to lead Hs and subsequently misdefended. I've said that given my friend is known to make highly skewed 1N overcalls like this a lot (he gives 10xxxx/AKQx/AKJx/Void as an example of another hand on which he'd bid 1N over 1D), it's imperative that they alert his 1N overcalls, and that not doing so and scoring a top on hands like might amount to a red psych if the opps had been alert enough to call the director. He claims this is just standard behaviour on hands that have no clear alternative call. Who's right?

That all makes sense, thanks Zel

Answer for both cases :) I think you have to be willing to rebid 1N on worse than that if you're playing forcing responses. But it also raises the question of whether doing so shows more values than a simple overcall. Answer for both cases (though no :) ) So it seems like the direct answer to the titular Q is 'no'. Again, how would you feel in each case? Personally though, I like to play very aggressive jump overcalls at any vul, so that my 1-level overcalls actually tend to be quite sound (something like 9+ if I have to put a number on it) Yeah, so the case I'm maybe most interested in F1 advances with standard (8+?) overcalls - does that mean 2♦ here has a range like 8-14? Or do you reduce the ceiling of the bid in that case? You might, but over 1♣, it seems dangerous not to bid if you've got a suit like AKxxx - it might be the only way to get a winning lead against a 3N contract. You might prefer to bid 2♦ on many such hands (as I do), but many people wouldn't want to esp vul, and it seems like quite a loss for them to lose out on the lead direction for the sake of a once-in-10000-hands constructive sequence. Also there's a question of what a cue of their suit should mean here. Maybe it doesn't need to show support, which would save you from having to leap to 3y just to show a misfitting 12-count.

(edited the OP to clarify forcingness of the advance)

(1x) 1y P 1z / P 2y Does the upper end depend on the suits/vul? Or does 2y have a set range (and if so, what)? (ETA we play the advance as forcing, but interested in your response to both a forcing and NF version)