Preemptive raises: ill-defined or well-defined?

[Chamaco]

Hi all,

one more chaotic post on my unclear ideas on bidding !!! :P

 

Reading Berkowicz's "Precision today", I recognized that, discussing one of the merits of <16 limited openings, he suggests that a raise 1M:4M can be left as undetermined: either a "pure" preemptive raise = 4-5 cards support and very few HCP, or a good raise that excludes slam, say some balanced 3 cards support and 13 HCP.

 

The advantage of such approach would be to leave opps in the dark, e.g. they do not know whether to double, bid or pass, since they ignore responder's strength.

This makes sense, but it also affects the use of forcing pass and doubling issues.

An example:

IMPS, none vuln,

you deal and open 1♥ 11-15 with

 

Qxx-KQTxx-AJx-Qx

 

1♥-pass-4♥-4♠

 

Now I guess I would like to double if pard held a balanced good raise, but not if pard has raised to 4♥ with something like:

void-Jxxx-Qxxxx-xxxx

 

Similarly, I guess that holding something like

x-KQTxx-AJxx-Qxx

I'd like to make a forcing pass.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Forgive me if I brought bad examples, in that case I will encourage corrections to the type of hands I chose for forcing pass/double sequences and suggestions for better examples)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So I would like to hear opinion on the tactics of concealing the strength of a raise (preemptive vs good): on one hand you lose the forcing pass options, on the other hand you leave opps in the dark.

BBO Gurus, enlighten me !!! :rolleyes: B) (note sunglasses) :lol:

[inquiry]

There maybe more forcing pass disasters than people realize. You need to formulate good rule on what is and is not a forcing pass. One of the rules I live by is that after a direct raise (thinks like 1M-3M-4M, or your 1M-4M), forcing pass is never established. This incudes in earlier competition. I got this treatment from the Robson/Segal book, and it works well even with precision.

 

Which raises an interesting issue. I watched a pair playing precision run into a couple of forcing pass situations just yesterday in positions that many do not apply forcing pass. Let me give you two of their auctions that occurred back to back ofeach other....

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s95hkj4dt74cq6542]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]West    North   East    South

                        Pass    

1♥      4♠      5♥     ??  

 

The question is, after your partner jumps to 4♠ here would a pass by south be forcing? This south doubled as pass would be forcing.

 

Here is a similar problem for his partner that occurred on the VERY NEXT hand (hand rotated to make north hand appear as souths).

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s95hkj4dt74cq6542]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]West    North   East    South

                1♥      Pass    

4♥      4♠      5♥      Dbl     

Rdbl    Pass    Pass    ??    

 

South double of 5♥ was just like the previous hand, because over 5♥ pass would have been forcing (the way they play) inviting a 5♠ bid. South had a tuff decision when 5♥ was redoubled, but he eventually passed and as luck would have partner's ♠Ace wins a tricks, so the defense took ♠A and ♣AK. The kibitizers at the table were remarking how "aggressive" a penatly double of 5♥ soouth had, but with forcing pass, it turns out it was his only reasonable option.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: This is much more complicated than you note. For example, consider the auction 1M - 3N, which many players use to mean EITHER

 

A strong balanced hand with sufficient playing strength for 3N OR

A preemptive raise to 4M

 

The modifications to your forcing pass structure are going to apply to a hell of a lot of auctions

 

Comment 2: Pass followed by pull needs to be reserved to show a weak hand.

[irg20]

Ben,

 

In your two auctions given I cannot imagine why over North's 4S bids you would want to play pass as forcing (unless 4S has some undisclosed special meaning).

 

North has made a fairly reasonable description of his hand and South is expected to act accordingly (standard agreement is double for penalties). Of course if oppo bid to 5H then North is entitled to make some sort of action double when the bidding arrives back with him.

 

Ian

[inquiry]

Ben,

 

In your two auctions given I cannot imagine why over North's 4S bids you would want to play pass as forcing (unless 4S has some undisclosed special meaning).

 

North has made a fairly reasonable description of his hand and South is expected to act accordingly (standard agreement is double for penalties). Of course if oppo bid to 5H then North is entitled to make some sort of action double when the bidding arrives back with him.

 

Ian

I will not defend this use of pass as forcing. I don't bid this way. I just know that they do.

 

Ben

[WGF_Flame]

There is a price to everything, it doesnt mean its not right.

Playing this kind of 1h:4h ur pass should be forcing if p got the strong balance hand, when he does he should double.

[Chamaco]

Thanks all !

 

WGF, I know there is a price to everything, I'd like to hear from you folks which price you are willing to pay! :rolleyes:

The question to the experts was, more explicitly: do you prefer

 

1) to play that price to leave opps in the dark, but also leaving opener in the dark so he does not know whether to double if opps bid

 

OR

 

2) to have a clear differentiation between a "pure" preemptive raise and some other bid to show a high card raise ?

(for example after 1M opening: 4M = pure preemptive; balanced high card raise, in a Precision with 2/1 GF context = either 2NT, à la Lawrence/Gitelman 2/1, or - if using 2NT for conventional bids - 2 of new suit followed by 4M)

 

----------

 

Let me quote from Robson/Segal's online book on Partnerdship bidding

 

"

SUBSECTION TITLE: Making partner ‘boss’ of the auction

 

You may be fearful of putting your opponents in a better position to judge the hand. This is (generally) a

very misguided approach to your first bid in a competitive auction. It is a strategy associated with players

who don’t respect their partners and who always blame them when things go wrong later in the auction.

The point is, by making a very descriptive support bid you are only making your partner ‘boss’ of the auction.

He alone knows the full extent of the fit/misfit, and (if you have any faith in him) that will be an excellent

thing for your side. If LHO thinks that, .........

, he will soon discover otherwise - the hard way."

 

It seems to me that according to this argument it is more logical to differentiate preemptive raises from good one, *even if opener's hand is limited* (since we know his HCP range but not his shape).

[WGF_Flame]

Hey Chamaco

I am a fan on the "boss" aproach, but i cant say its better, its just make life simpler for me.

[Chamaco]

Ty WGF for your opinion, that's what I was looking for ! :lol:

Maybe I shd have posted this thread as a poll, which is what it may end up being ! :rolleyes:

[mishovnbg]

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Chamaco!

You can read about precision more here in forum:

 

Types. advantages/disadvantages:

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...findpost&p=4369

 

Psyches:

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...findpost&p=4441

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Misho