Preempts with Good Hands

[awm]

I've noticed that some people like to preempt in certain situations holding pretty good hands (say 13 or more high card points). The arguments given for this usually involve keeping the opponents guessing about whether it's their hand and where our side's values lie, as well as making it tough for them to find the right strain. The arguments against involve possibly missing a game or slam for our side (or overbidding to a failing game when opponents are too weak to make anything), and forcing our own side to guess if the opponents choose to bid on over the preempt. I'm curious what people's views on this are.

 

I'm also curious what sort of results people get for preemptive openings with good hands -- this is probably a good candidate for bridgebrowser since it doesn't seem to have all that much to do with methods (especially if we rule out two-level preempts where some people play intermediate twos).

[pbleighton]

I'll only preempt at the game level with a good hand.

 

Peter

[glen]

The poll is missing 4th seat - in that seat preempts often are opening values of some sort - should replies to this question ignore the 4th seat?

[mike777]

I would never preempt with a "good opening hand" I do not consider opening 2 of a major in 4th seat as preempting but a constructive bid.

[Guest Jlall]

I'll sometimes preempt to the game level with a good hand as well, generally as an overcall or 3rd seat. Seems to work ok.

[pclayton]

I guess it depends on your definition of opening bid.

 

Is: xx, AKxxxxx, Kxxx, v (edited; argh) an opening bid? I'd preempt it in 1/2 or 3rd chair depending on vulnerability.

 

Funny; a 4 or 5 level opening is more apt to be an opening hand than a 3 bid. Never thought of that before.

[Guest Jlall]

I guess it depends on your definition of opening bid.

 

Is: xx, AKxxxxx, Kxxx, xx an opening bid? I'd preempt it in 1/2 or 3rd chair depending on vulnerability.

15 cards is a money hand

[mike777]

IF I open "a good opening hand" at the game level I would not consider it a preemptive bid. I hope to make the game. :)

[Free]

For me it's a combination. I'll never do it when we have reasonable chance of a slam (with unpassed partner for example). So I'll never do it in 1st or 2nd seat. Otherwise, vulnerability is also a factor: V I'll bid solid, NV I bid trash hands as well as good hands.

 

I'm not that worried about missing a tight game. Usually people will interfere or partner will respond, and I can make a forcing bid...

[hrothgar]

Complicated topic:

 

First and foremost, things vary dramatically based on seat:

 

4th seat preempts are a lot stronger than preempts in other seats

 

3rd seat preempts are a lot more random than preempts in other seats and i'll often bid at the three level or even 4 level in fairly good hands. (I helps a lot that 1st seat passes playing MOSCITO are pretty tightly defined)

 

In general, I prefer fairly disciplined actions in first and second seat. (My bidding systems may be pretty weird, but I'm usually pretty disciplined within the context of those systems)

 

For me, the most obvious cases where I'll make a preempt with a strong hand is when I have a 7-4 of some such. I typically don't bother with any attempt at science on these hands. Check out the Marston's Law discussion for an obvious example.

[the hog]

As R says, this is not so easy to answer. Whether to pre empt depends on the seat, the vul, who the opps are, partner's predilections and which suit we are talkong about. As an example, I'd be far less likely to pre empt in S than H or a minor.

Totally agree with R regarding 7-4 shapes as well.

[MFA]

So, does anybody bid 4♥ with

 

♠A5

♥AQ109542

♦J972

♣-

 

?

 

First seat, all vul.

[awm]

I guess maybe I should give a few examples. Perhaps something like these:

 

AKQxxxx

xx

KQx

x

 

x

KQJTxx

AKxx

xx

 

x

AQJx

KQJxxxx

x

 

KQJTxx

x

AKxxx

x

 

x

AQJTxxxx

AQ

xx

 

All these hands have the property that they're pretty solid one-level opening bids (13-14 high, good suits). Each one is fairly unlikely to produce a slam opposite a passed hand. In general a game bid is "reasonably likely" to make but not guaranteed.

 

In general I would ignore fourth seat, since most people have different agreements about fourth seat opening bids. What I'm really referring to is making a bid that nominally shows a "weak distributional hand" with a fairly strong distributional hand, the idea being to make things difficult for the opposition. To some degree this was started by the comments about Burgess' rule, but also there have been a number of poll hands where some people wanted to make a "preemptive" bid holding fairly good values and others argued vehemently against it. I'm curious both how popular these bids are, and how effective they are against various levels of opposition.

[Guest Jlall]

In 3rd seat I would...

 

Bid 4S with hand 1

 

Bid 1H with hand 2 unless white/red (then I'd try 4)

 

Bid 1D with hand 3

 

Bid 4S with hand 4

 

Bid 4H with hand 5

 

I would overcall the same way opposite an unpassed hand.

[whereagles]

Every hand is a case-study of its own, but there are some guidelines. Usually, preempts with moderately strong hands work out well in these circumstances:

 

1. In any case were pard is a passed hand. Since he has squat, he'll be passing most of the time.

 

2. When opps started the bidding with a constructive opening. In this case pard might still unlimited, but odds are he's weak and thus has a hand similar to situation 1.

 

3. When opening 4M. Practice has shown that slams are too rare anyway to compensate for the pressure exterted on opponents. This is the riskiest situation in terms of missing out on a slam.

 

Having preempt with a strongish hand, one may eventually double opps later on to show one has a good hand after all. Note that to preempt with good hands below game you must be bloody sure you're not be missing out on a game.

[helene_t]

At IMPs, I often open 4M in first seat at favorable.

[Codo]

I guess maybe I should give a few examples. Perhaps something like these:

 

AKQxxxx

xx

KQx

x

 

x

KQJTxx

AKxx

xx

 

x

AQJx

KQJxxxx

x

 

KQJTxx

x

AKxxx

x

 

x

AQJTxxxx

AQ

xx

 

All these hands have the property that they're pretty solid one-level opening bids (13-14 high, good suits). Each one is fairly unlikely to produce a slam opposite a passed hand. In general a game bid is "reasonably likely" to make but not guaranteed.

 

In general I would ignore fourth seat, since most people have different agreements about fourth seat opening bids. What I'm really referring to is making a bid that nominally shows a "weak distributional hand" with a fairly strong distributional hand, the idea being to make things difficult for the opposition. To some degree this was started by the comments about Burgess' rule, but also there have been a number of poll hands where some people wanted to make a "preemptive" bid holding fairly good values and others argued vehemently against it. I'm curious both how popular these bids are, and how effective they are against various levels of opposition.

In first and second seat, I would open all these hands with one in my suit.

In 3. seat, I would open

1. 4 Spade

2. 4 Heart

3. 1 Diamond

4. 1 Spade

5. 4 Heart

[hrothgar]

I guess maybe I should give a few examples. Perhaps something like these:

 

AKQxxxx

xx

KQx

x

 

x

KQJTxx

AKxx

xx

 

x

AQJx

KQJxxxx

x

 

KQJTxx

x

AKxxx

x

 

x

AQJTxxxx

AQ

xx

 

All these hands have the property that they're pretty solid one-level opening bids (13-14 high, good suits). Each one is fairly unlikely to produce a slam opposite a passed hand. In general a game bid is "reasonably likely" to make but not guaranteed.

Still a very complicated question (and I'm going to ignore the entire mixed strategy arguements an list my favorite bid) There's also the entire issue of who I'm playing against which can really have a major impact on choice of bids

 

1. 4♠ in third seat.

Otherwise, 1♠ or 3N/4♦ depending on partnership

 

2. 1♥ in any seat

 

3. 5♦ in any seat

 

4. 1♠

 

5. 3N/4♣ in 1st/2nd

4♥ in 3rd/4th

[pbleighton]

I would open at the game level with 1, 3, and 5, and at the one level with 2 and 4.

 

Peter

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1) first and second seat 1S, third and fourth seat 4S

2) 1S, I want to show my 2nd suit

3) 1D, I want to show my 2nd suit

4) 1S, I want to show my 2nd suit

5) first and second seat 1H, third and fourth seat 4H

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[EricK]

I wouldn't mind a game bid on 1 and 5, but wouldn't necessarily always make one. I would tend to avoid a game bid on the others, but sometimes might make one anyway if the fancy took me!

[mikestar]

So, does anybody bid 4♥ with

 

♠A5

♥AQ109542

♦J972

♣-

 

?

 

First seat, all vul.

Al Roth, probably. Nobody else I can think of.

[mikestar]

I generally open a preempt with a strong hand only in third seat at game level. I will overcall with a game level preempt on a strong hand whenever slam is unlikely (partner is passed or their opener is sound enough--I would not bid a strong 4M over a Moscito limited opening with an unpassed partner.)

 

 

AKQxxxx

xx

KQx

x

 

x

KQJTxx

AKxx

xx

 

x

AQJx

KQJxxxx

x

 

KQJTxx

x

AKxxx

x

 

x

AQJTxxxx

AQ

xx

 

 

In third seat:

 

1. 4♠ I'm certain spades it the right suit, if partner has a good pass it has good prospects, if partner is weak 4th hand will have an interesting time.

 

2. 4♥ About a playing trick less than the above. The trumps are solid enough that most hands that play well in diamonds also play well in hearts. Put me down for 1♥ if the hearts were less solid.

 

3. 1♦ Yes, I'd be content to ignore the 4CM with a hand about 6 points lighter, but here ♥Kxxx might be enough for 4♥ with 5♦ down off the top. 5♦ here feels like preempting my own side.

 

4. 4♠ The same as #2, but less certain--the 6-5 shape means there might be hands where 6 is a make, though that's still against the odds. Definitely 1♠ if playing a sound opening style.

 

5. 4♥ WTP?

[the saint]

I will do it when my Spidey-sense tingles.