No other place to ask this one

[inquiry]

Dealer: South Vul: EW Scoring: IMP ♠ T92 ♥ T987 ♦ Q97432 ♣

 

Ok, imps, long match. You deal and pick up this hand. If at this vulnerabiity you would only consider pass, please skip the thread. This is for the wild and wooly player. Let's say you despite two other places you might play this hand (either major), and despite your horrible suit, the urge to preempt is just too darn strong so you decide you are going to bid 3♦ with this hand. .

 

First question is do you alert your bid? If so what do you alert? Do you alert all your preempts (if you alert this one, I guess you have to alert all)? What if your partner knows that your first seat not-vul versus vul preempts can be very wide ranging, from this weak to close to normal? Would you alert then.

 

I did not alert. My opponents were angry that I did not alert (not sure what I alert... should I say, 3♦ = weak hand with ♦, maybe weaker than most people expect? Anyway, auction at out table was....

 

West North East South

 -     -     -     3♦

 Pass  Pass  Dbl   Pass

 3♠    Pass  Pass  Pass

 

 

The full hand and auction at the second table was....

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sqj4haj6542dcqj92&w=sk763h3dj8cak8753&e=sa85hkqdakt65ct64&s=st92ht987dq97432c]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     Pass

 1♣    1♥    2♥    4♥

 4♠    5♥    Dbl   Pass

 Pass  Pass  

 

As you can see 3 or 4♠ are both very unsuccessful. At our table, partner lead a ♣Q and we cross ruffed ♦ and club for 3♠ down two. At the other table our partners bid 4♠ and if that was doubled, we would be in a world of hurt, but NS came to our rescue by bidding 5♥. This should be down three but the defense was not up to par, so only down two.

 

My opponents, particularily EAST who held all those nice ♦ and doubled 3♦ kept questioning what 3♦ was AFTER the auction was over (and could actually see my hand btw). Then insisted that I need to alert. Maybe so, the hand before I had opened 3♦ as well, but there I was in second seat, not first. The hand was...

 

Dealer: East Vul: None Scoring: IMP ♠ 7 ♥ 62 ♦ KQJ9854 ♣ K98

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  3♦

 3♠    3NT   Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

Zar would be disappointed I preempted with that hand. In first or third seat I would open 1♦. But my second seat preempts are "textbook" sound. The difference between the top hand and this hand was, 1) the vulnerability, and 2) the position of the bid (first versus second seat). How should I express this to the opponents... if I alert, second seat alert as "sound", first seat not-vul versus vul, alert as "can be very weak".

 

Comments.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

I'm pretty frisky with respect to preempts:

 

With this said and done, I'd pass the first hand in a minute:

The hand has three major flaws

 

(a) Poor suit quality

(B) A void

© A side 4 card major

 

I think that a preempt with this hand is sufficiently removed from standard that a pre-alert would be useful.

 

Hand 2 simply compounds the problem. As you note, this is a one level opening.

 

The "fact" that second and fourth hand preempts tend to be more sound than third seat actions certainly qualified as general bridge knowledge. With this said and done, the range that you are using is so extreme that sme kind of warning seems appropriate.

[Free]

If you open this hand with 3♦ you're mad (in a good way)! I however wouldn't open it, except when playing LOGSTA: this is a 2♥-opening: 0-7HCP with 4+♥ :D Partner raises to 4♥ and it's opps turn...

 

As said by Richard, this hand has several flaws to open preemptive: bad suit quality, too much losers imo, a 4 card AND a 3 card Major, a void, and not even 1 control... But when you're in 1st seat you can go for it when the timing is right and you feel good :unsure:

 

The sound preempt below is clearly an opening hand.

 

What about this alerting? I think it's just a matter of style rather than rules. I open preemptive in 3rd hand with a 5 card, but that I will alert since opps at least expect 6. If you preempt NV vs V, it's a known fact imo that it might be VERY light, so no alert needed imo.

[inquiry]

The range that you are using is so extreme that sme kind of warning seems appropriate.

Which is why I posed teh question, and I think you are right richard. However. EW problem was due to EAST's double of 3♦. I think his hand is clear pass, or balance 3NT. But in fact, I do use 5431 preempts with very sound second seat preempts. Note if 3♦X goes back to north, he will correct to 3♥, which is a make, clearly makiing pass the winning call for EAST.

 

My first seat, not vul versus vul preempts just have a wider range than most people's, in that I will preempt on five card suits from time to time, and I don't have to have any points. Nor is four card side major a problem for me (obviously) if I am very weak. I take my shot and leave it at that. However, they can also be more or less normal.

 

Having said that, some of my partners (and people who read here in BBF) have a chance to know this about my preempts. So since my partner knows my tendency, I am also beginning to think that alerts are necessary (not sure how that would have helped EAST on the first hand). So what do I alert... since the preempt can be standard to slightly substandard, to wildly not-standard (like in this case). How do you alert that. Alerting it as weak or preemptive is not right, and to alert it as extremely weak would not always be right (and not fair to alert only the extremely weak ones).

 

How about an alert that says "may be ridiculously weak". A pre-alert for a team match would be just about right.

[luis]

I wouldn't have opened 3d because I have a strong rule about not having a four card major. I don't care if the suit is JTxxx but I do care about a 4 card major because when pd makes a trap pass he must be sure you are not missing a major suit game.

 

Having said that I'd have opened 3d with T9x, xxx, Qxxxxx,x at those colors and with my pd we use to alert ONLY our NV vrs VUL preempts and say that "it may be really weaker compared to normal preempts"

 

Luis

[flytoox]

i think if pd doesnt know this, then you dont need to say too much about 3d. his dbl is of coz wrong, he should either pass or bid 3N with long d.

[mr1303]

Personally, if I was so minded (and there are occasions that I am, I'm afraid to say). I wouldn't bother alerting it, as its just a bad bid (by any stretch of the imagination) rather than a specific agreement. Your partner hasn't altered his bidding given your wild pre-empt, he should still pass opposite KQJxxxx and out, which is what we'd call a standard pre-empt. The fact that opps made a bad bid is not a reason to start alerting. If he'd passed with

 

[hv=s=sakxhkxxdkxxcakxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

then opps might have more of a case

[Antoine Fourrière]

I think the four-card major is only a minor flaw, especially when the four-card major is hearts, hence I would open 3♦ with either ♠T92 ♥T987 ♦AKJ743 ♣ or ♠Q65 ♥7 ♦KT8652 ♣AJ8 but not ♠AT9 ♥K987 ♦Q97432 ♣.

 

However, I wouldn't open 3♦ with a "textbook" preempt in first or second position such as ♠4 ♥842 ♦KJT975 ♣732 because partner must know my point range, and since I have more often 7-10 HCP than 0-4 HCP, I prefer to cater to the 7-10 HCP hands. Besides, a preempt is useful only when it sends the opponents into an abnormal contract, otherwise it backfires, and when I have a very weak hand, either the opponents will go for game and play it with too much information or partner will overreact.

[BrianEDuran]

Hi all

 

In ACBL land I wouldn't bother with a pre-alert, which is the type of alert you should try if you feel you have to. I would just write ATV&S - attention to vul and seat, on your card. Most people will ask after I make a preempt and see it. My partner can tell them what type of crack I tend to be own. I feel that if you pre-alert you are guarentteed to get someone upset when you have a nomal preempt.

 

I have heard several times that one can not have a weak two range of more then 6 HCP, so 3-9, 4-10 and such. I couldn't find this documented, nor do I know if this applies to 3lvl preempts. But maybe this is what your opponents were complaing about.

 

Brian

[inquiry]

Hi all

 

In ACBL land I wouldn't bother with a pre-alert, which is the type of alert you should try if you feel you have to. I would just write ATV&S - attention to vul and seat, on your card. Most people will ask after I make a preempt and see it. My partner can tell them what type of crack I tend to be own. I feel that if you pre-alert you are guarentteed to get someone upset when you have a nomal preempt.

 

I have heard several times that one can not have a weak two range of more then 6 HCP, so 3-9, 4-10 and such. I couldn't find this documented, nor do I know if this applies to 3lvl preempts. But maybe this is what your opponents were complaing about.

 

Brian

The weak two thing you are refering to was the 5-5 rule. That to open a weak two in ACBL land, you had to have at least five high card points, and at least five cards in the bid suit. This was refered to in the Bridge World at the time it came into effect as the "Bergen Rule" because he (and I think katz or cohen) were very fond of very light preempts. The bridge world didn't like the five-and-five rule, neither do I. But no such rule has ever existed for higher preempts. Heck, most people love it when I preempt like this because they can collect huge penatlties sometimes... I do like the suggestion of ATV&S because I do pay (perhaps too much) attention to that. I find myself not preempting in second seat with hands that everyone else in the room does. Sometime I win, but often they do. But at least I am consistent.

 

Ben

[mikestar]

The illegal 5 and 5 rule has been replaced by a legal [not defending it as a good thing] rule outlawing conventional responses and rebids to a weak two bid that might have less than five cards in the suit or a range of greater than 7 HCP (inclusive--say 4-10). You can still legally open 2S on Axxx but your side is allowed no conventions in the subsequent bidding.

 

No such restrictions apply to three level preempts, nor ever have. In the ACBL, a ultra light prempt is not alerted, but may require a prealert. The standard for three level prempts according to ACBL's site is suits worse than Qxxxxx.

 

So even in the overly restictive ACBL, this hand doesn't calkl for an alert, and no prealert is needed if you wouldn't have opened it with Jxxxxx or QJxxx.

[the hog]

This is a very amusing post.

 

I am sure that Ben knows it was a "bad" bid. However if at this vulnerability you don't pre empt with this sort of hand occasionally , you are not putting enough pressure on the opponents. The posession of a side 4 card major is irrelevent imho, in fact it improves the pre empt as it is unexpected and gives the opps a further chance to go wrong. Any good player who believes in pressure bidding will make this sort of pre empt once in a while.

 

I would certainly NOT alert this myself on bbo and I would not expect my pd to alert it ftf.

 

Again we have a classic situation where one player makes a bad bid and then tries to get redress by geting stuck into the opponent. A X of 3D is for takeout; what did East expect would happen, his partner read the situation and pass? X is a shocker; he has a clear cut 3N bid. there are far too many people around who take the attitude that when they have a good hand they have the right to a nice, quiet uninterrupted auction and they get upset when the opps do something to hinder that. That is what happened here, and the X was simply a result of frustration and annoyance.

[inquiry]

This is a very amusing post.

 

I am sure that Ben knows it was a "bad" bid.

Yes. I know it is not a good bid. And yes, even I don't open this hand with 3♦ everytime i hold it. Like I said the urge to preempthit me and i couldn't resist it... May have somehting to do with previous hands, may have something to do with what I had to drink earlier. Who knows, I do this more than occassionaly when not vul versus vul, but not always.

 

Ben

[pbleighton]

I would open this 3D NV in the 1st seat (but not the 2nd) like a shot with my regular pd, but not with anyone else. I would open this in the 3rd seat with anyone.

 

In ACBL land, we both pre-alert and alert our NV weak 2s and preempts.

 

Online, we don't - the variability of bidding online is such that I don't feel natural bids need to be alerted.

 

Peter

[keylime]

Frankly I have no quarrels with a playing who is attempting to play bridge by floating out a 3D preempt to create action. Also, preemption just isn't what it used to be - weak two's are too easily defensed (that's why they got dropped from KLP), and three bids really cause headaches with pairings. So, feel free to bid 3D on T9xxxx and get on with it. :)

 

RHO fussing over the fact that you should "alert" a natural bid should have called a TD in real life for possible UI - so what if the diamond suit they hold is good? They shouldn't be raising cain over the fact they lost three levels of room. I'd give that hand to 50 pro pairs, and I'm sure some would love to open 3D just to drive the opps nuts. :) :)

[EricK]

Suppose you were playing against a two pairs, one of whom played "traditional" pre-empts, and the other played your style of pre-empts. If there are any hands which you bid differently against these two pairs then I think you should alert your pre-empts.

 

Otherwise, how are your opponents supposed to know what to do on those hands?

 

Eric

[EarlPurple]

- If your agreement is that you can pre-empt in 1st seat green with hands like that, you must alert ALL your pre-empts 1st in hand green.

 

- If your agreements is that you would not normally pre-empt on a hand like that but you chose to do so anyway, you should NOT alert.

 

You alert to tell the opps that your bid has an unusual systemic meaning, not to tell them what you actually hold.

[Shrike]

Why are so many posters addressing the wrong question? He didn't ask whether you would have bid as he did.

 

I would not alert; I believe this preempting style is not sufficiently unusual that opponents need to be warned. Note also that, as has already been observed, if partner doesn't know you bid like this, an alert is not only not required, it would be inappropriate.

 

In ACBL land, it has been noted that there is no rule against bidding this way. Particularly aggressive preempts (with "highly unusual or unexpected" shape or strength) do need to be alerted; I don't think this qualifies, and if I were the one called to your table you'd be fine. But I know some TDs who might well rule otherwise.

[EricK]

Why are so many posters addressing the wrong question? He didn't ask whether you would have bid as he did.

 

I would not alert; I believe this preempting style is not sufficiently unusual that opponents need to be warned. Note also that, as has already been observed, if partner doesn't know you bid like this, an alert is not only not required, it would be inappropriate.

 

In ACBL land, it has been noted that there is no rule against bidding this way. Particularly aggressive preempts (with "highly unusual or unexpected" shape or strength) do need to be alerted; I don't think this qualifies, and if I were the one called to your table you'd be fine. But I know some TDs who might well rule otherwise.

Would you want to do well because your opponents didn't expect this kind of hand?

 

Since they might not, it can't be wrong to alert but it might be wrong not to.

 

Eric

[Cascade]

Dealer: South Vul: EW Scoring: IMP ♠ T92 ♥ T987 ♦ Q97432 ♣ [space]  

 

First question is do you alert your bid? If so what do you alert? Do you alert all your preempts (if you alert this one, I guess you have to alert all)?  What if your partner knows that your first seat not-vul versus vul preempts can be very wide ranging, from this weak to close to normal? Would you alert then.

 

Here are some excerpts from the ACBL alert regulations:

 

"This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage."

 

"PART I: NATURAL CALLS

Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted. "

 

"PART VII: HIGH-LEVEL OPENING BIDS

3♣,3♦,3♥,3♠:

Natural and preemptive (weak) opening suit bids at the three level are not Alertable. If you commonly preempt at this level with very weak suits (worse than Qxxxxx) or suits of fewer than six cards you must pre-Alert your methods. Intermediate, strong or conventional usage must be Alerted.

...

Natural opening bids at the three level or higher which convey an unusual message regarding HCP range or any other information which might be unexpected to the opponents must be Alerted."

 

While ACBL regulations do not necessary apply I think the principles behind those regulations are universal or should be.

 

If light pre-empts are outside what would be expected by your opponents then you need to alert.

 

However if this particular bid is outside your partnership agreement then you do not need to alert.

 

There is an additional obligation to disclose partnership experience even if not part of your partnership agreement.

 

The laws of bridge state that :

 

"When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience"

 

(I think you have a double responsibility when your name is inquiry.)

 

There is a problem with this law for online play:

 

The alert procedure and self-explanation have the effect of reducing the number of questions that the opponents ask. This might unintentionally hide information from the opponents that they are entitled to have.

 

Possibly if you are explaining you should include this information:

 

Alert and explain 5-9 with a weak suit ...

 

and add occasionally we have opened even lighter hands.

[inquiry]

"When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience"

 

(I think you have a double responsibility when your name is inquiry.)

 

There is a

LOL...

 

Alert and explain 5-9 with a weak suit ...

 

and add occasionally we have opened even lighter hands.

 

I like the vary with vulnerabilty and position thingee....

[keylime]

All I can say is: "Poor Ben with having a "double responsibility"". :rolleyes: