Why not pre-empt with a 4 card major

[Thymallus]

Re-reading Mike Lawrences programme "Counting at Bridge" I came across a hand in which he stated "pre-empting with a 4 card major is a poor idea." Usually he is extremely good at explaining his thinking but this statement just sits there unsubstantiated.

 

Is it really a bad idea? .. after all how often holding a weak 2 minor hand does your side lose from not showing the major compared with how often your side gain from messing up the opposition?

 

For example

 

♠8

♥9653

♦AKJ753

♣J6

 

sitting in first seat non vul v vul looks like a pretty attractive pre-empt to me.

 

Thanks

 

John

[P_Marlowe]

Matter of philosophy.

 

In case you preempt with an 4 card mayor side suit:

 

The downside is, that you may miss a game in the

mayor oyu hold, or that you reach the wrong game

contract, usually a 4-4 fit plays better than a 6-2 fit.

 

The upside is, you make it harder for the opposition to

get into the auction, killing space and they may not hold

enough mayor suit cards to make a neg. dbl.

 

Its a trade off, and you have to decide for yourself,

if you value accuracy higher than frequence or the

oppossite.

I prefer frequency.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Free]

I think the hand you stated is too strong for a NV vs V preempt...

[Blofeld]

I would probably bid 3♦ with the hand you gave.

 

I think that holding a side 4-card major can be a small negative point when considering whether to preempt, and a larger negative point if the suit has values in (the loss you get is missed games), but if you decide to preempt it is then typically a point in favour of preempting higher, as the hand has extra shape.

[whereagles]

The guideline "no preempt with 4 card major" has been losing adepts over the years. Thing is, people realized that obstucting opponents more frequently was more important than finding an occasional 44 side fit.

 

Besides, weak hands of the 64 type usually play better in the 6-2 or 6-1 fit rather than the 4-4 one, especially if the main suit lacks the ace.

 

I have been preempting with side suits for over 10 years now and can only remember 2 bad results because of missing out on the side 4-4 fit. I do, however, use a gadget that allows responder to fish out a side major if he has a good hand.

[P_Marlowe]

The guideline "no preempt with 4 card major" has been losing adepts over the years. Thing is, people realized that obstucting opponents more frequently was more important than finding an occasional 44 side fit.

<snip>

I agree, but the other style works as well,

if you know how to take adv. from the ad.

information.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pbleighton]

In my Encyclopedia Of Bridge, in the weak two article, they quote Bridge World (I think) survey of experts, taken about 2000. Over 60% of them would open a weak two with a 4 card major.

 

Peter

[Finch]

The argument for not pre-empting with a side 4-card major is not just about missing 4-4 fits. Suppose you open 3D vul on something nice and classical such as

 

x

Qx

KQJ10xxx

xxx

 

and partner responds 3H (forcing).

You want to raise hearts (via a spade cue bid), because in the context of a pre-empt-without-a-4-card-major you have a pretty good hand. Partner could have something like

 

Axx

AKJxxx

Ax

xx

 

and (at matchpoints) 4H scores better; or he could have the same hand with the black suits reversed and you are making 6 of either red suit.

 

That's fine, but now what if partner has

 

Axxx

AJxxx

Ax

xx

 

What is he supposed to do over 3D?

If he doesn't bid 3H, he will play in 5D opposite

x

xxxx

KQJxxxx

x

 

and might go off with 4H cold.

 

But if he does 3H, you can't raise on Qx because you will be in a less good spot.

[Impact]

One other point to add is an agreement whether or not you so do, as partner's tendencies on sacrifices or obstructive raises together with his assumptions on the degree of a particular Major fit which the opponents "must" enjoy looking at his own hand, will vary considerably depending upon the agreement...

[kes]

When you open this hand with 2D , you will miss game if pd has (I just suppose) 15+P & 4=H . This happens in 1 of about 30 times (rough simulation) .

[barmar]

Can you also tell how often you'll miss a part-score in a major? This is important in matchpoints, since you need to make 4D to beat 2H or 3H.

 

Another issue -- if you have a 4-card major, how does that affect the probability of the opponents having a good fit in a major? In other words, the preempt is less useful if the opponents weren't going to find a good place to play.

[mycroft]

Another thing to think about - if you have a weak 4-card heart suit, even if you do have a 4-4 fit, they have a spade fit. If you pass, they'll find it. If you preempt, they might not - and even if it's a part-score hand, diamonds may score better than *spades*, and then you win - even against the heart bidders, who don't get to play hearts.

 

If you have a weak 4-card spade suit, the situation is reversed.

 

It ain't called "the boss suit" for nothing.

Michael.

[bid_em_up]

Another thing to think about - if you have a weak 4-card heart suit, even if you do have a 4-4 fit, they have a spade fit.

Says who? Partner cant be 6-4-1-2 or similar? Please tell me what spade "fit" they have now?

 

Now, of course, if partner has a fit for both of your suits.....

[bid_em_up]

Can you also tell how often you'll miss a part-score in a major? This is important in matchpoints, since you need to make 4D to beat 2H or 3H.

Ummm, last time I checked, you would have to make 5 of a minor to outscore 3 of a major. Might help your matchpoint scores to remember this!! :)

[bid_em_up]

In one particular partnership of mine, we will not even open a preemptive bid that contains THREE cards in either major (if a minor) or 3 cards in the other major (if a major), in first or second seats.

 

We also require good suit texture for our preemptive bids in these seats with very little values outside our suits. In our methods, xx AKJxxx xx xxx is a preemptive bid, but Kxx AJxxxx xx xx would not be. The same applies for xx xx AKJxxx xxx would be, but Kxx xx AJxxxx xx would not be.

 

The logic behind this is not only do you not want to miss a 4-4 major suit fit, but you also do not wish to override a 5-3 major suit fit if one is available. Opening 2D or 3C when holding 3-3 or 3-2 in the majors makes trying to find a possible fit (on a non-fitting hand, close to impossible without special methods. Since 3M making 3 will outscore making 4 of the minor, it is more suitable (in our opinions) that it is better to find the 5-3 fit, than to open the minor preempt.

 

I will be the first to admit, I am not always happy with this agreement, but do so for the sake of partnership harmony (my partner insists that we play it this way). Sometimes its better to keep partner happy with his methods, than it is to argue about it.

 

I realize this varies from the norm, but it works for us the majority of the time.

[barmar]

Can you also tell how often you'll miss a part-score in a major?  This is important in matchpoints, since you need to make 4D to beat 2H or 3H.

Ummm, last time I checked, you would have to make 5 of a minor to outscore 3 of a major. Might help your matchpoint scores to remember this!! :P

Just trying to make sure the novices are paying attention. :(

[barmar]

I will be the first to admit, I am not always happy with this agreement, but do so for the sake of partnership harmony (my partner insists that we play it this way). Sometimes its better to keep partner happy with his methods, than it is to argue about it.

This is one of the most true statements in the thread. In many cases, the technical advantages of one method over another are pretty minor, perhaps only making 5% difference in the expected results (remember, for every agreement you add, something else has to go, so there's always tradeoffs). But maintaining a comfortable partnership can make all the difference in the world between long-term success and failure. Often you have to be willing to compromise for the sake of the partnership, and that will almost certainly make up for any potential loss in the science.

[SoTired]

In a lecture I once heard, Jeff Meckstroth said that he opens weak 2 with a 4-card major, 5-card suits, and outside aces and voids. He said you had to preempt as much as possible because opps have powerful tools to use if they get a chance to open 1-of-a-suit. Opening a weak 2 takes them out of their powerful tools and makes them guess.

 

Who am I to argue with Jeff Meckstroth? However, that is only true with high-level competition. Against weaker competition, I open more constructive weak 2's: always 6-cards, no 4-card major, no voids (if near max). I still don't worry about weak suits and outside aces.

 

But against better competition, I take Jeff's advice.

[bid_em_up]

In a lecture I once heard, Jeff Meckstroth said that he opens weak 2 with a 4-card major, 5-card suits, and outside aces and voids. He said you had to preempt as much as possible because opps have powerful tools to use if they get a chance to open 1-of-a-suit. Opening a weak 2 takes them out of their powerful tools and makes them guess.

 

Who am I to argue with Jeff Meckstroth? However, that is only true with high-level competition. Against weaker competition, I open more constructive weak 2's: always 6-cards, no 4-card major, no voids (if near max). I still don't worry about weak suits and outside aces.

 

But against better competition, I take Jeff's advice.

My problem with this....is that he is Jeff Meckstroth. He has the knowledge, and abilities to look at a hand and say to himself, ok, this is a preempt. Or to look at an opponents CC, see that they are playing complex agreements, and if I had to bet, he would know in an instant approximately how preempts will effect their bidding system.

 

But telling novices, intermediates and even some who consider themelves advanced or expert (at least by BBO standards) to open preemptive bids on these sorts of hands.....is poor advice, imo. They are not Jeff. They do not have his expertise and/or table presence. He can get into a doubled 2 or 3 level (or higher) contract and usually manage to play at least one trick better than they will. So while he may go down 300/500 against a vul game that opponents may have, they will go down 800 or 1100. Its ok for him to do it......but I do not consider it to be ok for the random player to be told that they should be doing it. They will do it, and then wonder why they are losing imps all over the place against better competition. However, to each their own.

 

If anything, I would be more likely to loosen up my preempts against weaker competition, they are less likely to establish when it is correct to double you for penalties, will be unable to do so at all, or will make the wrong decisions about the final contract. Stronger competition will have methods usually built into their partnership methods for handling preempts and will certainly know when to double for penalties (and they wont forget to do so either).

 

The only reason for not loosening your preempts against weaker competition is that since they rarely will end in the right contract, and are usually confused even without the preempt, there is no sense in helping them along while presenting them with more information regarding your hand and/or suit.

[whereagles]

Preempting isn't applying a set of rules. It is exercising judgement. The sooner beginners learn that, the faster they'll understand why and when to break classic preempt rules.

 

However, I do agree that against a weak field you don't need to push your preempts.

[SoTired]

I see the same thing and come to a different conclusion.

 

Against weak opps, I don't want to give them the chance to double us for an easy good board. Let them find their game and bid it. Then I'll try to squeeze an extra trick on defense. Preempting partner out of our par contract is more serious a problem against weak opps. I want the par contract, them or us, and hope to win the board in the play.

 

Against strong opps, I agree with Jeff. Disrupt them. Try to stop them from reaching the par contract. It might be difficult to bid and good opps will find it (or avoid a bad one). I'll gamble that I've not preempted partner rather than the opps, because we might lose the board, anyway.

 

I've heard the "Jeff can do it, but weak players can't" argument before. I think it is hogwash. If Jeff thinks that opening a weak 2 with a 4-card major is a good idea, what revelance is the bidder's skill level? It is similar to opening 1N with a 5-card major. True, Jeff has the judgement to make the decision more flexible, but to bar all BI players from opening 1N with a 5-card major makes no sense.

 

Same with opening a weak 2 with a 4-card major. Whether the opps can double them or not is not relevant. What matters is that they might be missing a better contract. They may end up in 4S on a 6-3 fit rather than 4H on a 5-4 fit that plays a trick better. Those hands are less likely to occur and even when they do, weak opps may not be able to exploit them.

 

They are not going to beat the strong opps head-to-head. But a monkey wrench thrown into their gears may do the trick.