Preemptive jump raises

[qwery_hi]

I have a couple of questions about preemptive jump raises in the majors. Setting is teams, not MPs. The basic system is 2/1 100% GF.

 

Are preemptive 1M - 3M raises a net gain? The books say 1M-3M should be 4 card support and usually <= 6HCP.

 

Q1. How much do you lose if you're not playing this?

 

And if it is decided to play this,

 

Q2. Based on your experience, is it better to play the preemptive 1M - 3M as 4 card support and

 

(i) 0-6 hcp OR

(ii) 3-8 hcp?

[rbforster]

Certainly 1M-3M is going to cause trouble for the opponents when it comes up. My experience is in playing a limited opening system (precision), which means that I'll be preempting partner much less often than the opponents. Playing standard you'll have a few more losses by occasionally preempting partner and then having him guess wrong if you play a wide range of hands in the 3M bid.

 

The drawback I see is mainly having to put your normal limit raise bid somewhere else to make space for the 3M preempt. Often people use one of 1M-3m as a Bergen limit raise, which means you give up whatever you used to play 1M-3m as (strong or intermediate jump shift?). Those are perhaps rare enough to justify the tradeoff and can be handled tolerably through other bids (2/1 or forcing NT), but you will lose when these alternative hands come up since you can't show them as clearly as before.

 

Playing 2/1, I would suggest 4 card support and 0-5 hcp, often with some sort of shortness/ruffing value. With 4333 I would often pass or bid differently, especially vulnerable, for example. With 6-8 hcp and support, I want partner to know about it so he can consider bidding (or inviting) game. This is a little different playing precision where you can think partner will rarely be able to make game with at most 15 opposite 6-7 hcp, so perhaps then you can widen the range to 0-7 or something.

[mtvesuvius]

I don't have statistics on this, but I strongly prefer 1M - 3M as pre-emptive. Now, for the range, 3-8 seems quite illogical since with 16 or 17, opener cannot comfortably pass... Whereas 0-6 makes it a lot less likely that opener will have a borderline game hand imo. In a strong club system it's fantastic, since you will almost never be pre-empting partner, but will occaisionally get too high on the hands where they can only make a partscore and you are down 2 or 3 vulnerable.

[kenrexford]

I have recently moved to a mixed raise in this situation, maybe 5-7, with a lot of success. You get more opportunities to hammer the opponents. Not sure which is best in the long run.

[qwery_hi]

I have recently moved to a mixed raise in this situation, maybe 5-7, with a lot of success. You get more opportunities to hammer the opponents. Not sure which is best in the long run.

Does your mixed raise have 4 trumps?

[rbforster]

Does your mixed raise have 4 trumps?

The typical definition of a mixed raise is a hand with 4 trumps that would have bid 1M-2M based on values. It may also want/require some shortness depending on your style.

[JLOL]

I also think mixed is better than weak.

[hanp]

With Arend I play it mixed, but a little stronger than Ken. It's more like 7-9 HCP if 4432.

 

Somehow I doubt that I can convince Dutch partners to play this with me. I have only tried to convince one Dutch bridge player and she just rolled her eyes at me.

[jdonn]

I have never played it as a mixed raise, but it's sure a lot more common than my idea of a preemptive raise so I would think it's a better idea.

[Phil]

3M is fine as a preemptive raise, but you have to give up something else. 3M as preemptive works with Bergen (and variants).

 

With one of my partners we play:

 

3M = mixed (but not as lite as Ken's)

3M minus 1 = 3 card limit raise (along with a SF 1N response) - with shape

3M minus 2 = 4 card limit raise

[gwnn]

I think 7-9 is a little nicer than 5-7 because then you don't have to cater to 5-7 with 4 cards, you can just bid 2 then 3 with those hands. With 7-9 the preemptive effect is nearly the same, but now you have a smooth range, 2 then 3, 3 and 2NT (limit or better).

[kenrexford]

Well, technically we don't use HCP analysis so much as cover-card analysis. A mixed raise produces about two covers. With KQ of trumps, that's almost two covers, so you probably need a doubleton somewhere also.

 

A nine-count would have to be really ugly to only be "mixed." Maybe 4333 with two Aces and a Jack?

[hanp]

For me a mixed raise is a bit weaker than a limit raise.

 

I'm wondering how many cover cards Kxx is and how many cover cards Axx is.

[kenrexford]

For me a mixed raise is a bit weaker than a limit raise.

 

I'm wondering how many cover cards Kxx is and how many cover cards Axx is.

0.875 and 1.137 respectively. :blink:

[jdonn]

Well, technically we don't use HCP analysis so much as cover-card analysis. A mixed raise produces about two covers. With KQ of trumps, that's almost two covers, so you probably need a doubleton somewhere also.

 

A nine-count would have to be really ugly to only be "mixed." Maybe 4333 with two Aces and a Jack?

Who is "we"?

[kenrexford]

Well, technically we don't use HCP analysis so much as cover-card analysis.  A mixed raise produces about two covers.  With KQ of trumps, that's almost two covers, so you probably need a doubleton somewhere also.

 

A nine-count would have to be really ugly to only be "mixed."  Maybe 4333 with two Aces and a Jack?

Who is "we"?

Well, that's a tough question.

 

It could mean "me" and "my other me," if I'm suffering from some ailments.

 

Or, it means "me" and "my regular partners who actually play real bridge." That would exclude friends who aren't "players" but atre just simple mom-and-pop types.

[Phil]

Well, technically we don't use HCP analysis so much as cover-card analysis. A mixed raise produces about two covers. With KQ of trumps, that's almost two covers, so you probably need a doubleton somewhere also.

 

A nine-count would have to be really ugly to only be "mixed." Maybe 4333 with two Aces and a Jack?

I think if you are upgrading most 9 counts to limit raises, you are overbidding, although I do agree with the general definition of 2 cover cards, but I would also hands with 2.5 covers.

 

I think any of these qualify as mixed raises:

 

Jxxx, AKxx, xx, Jxx

 

Axxx, Kxxx, xx, Qxx

 

Qxxx, KJxx, xx, Kxx

[kenrexford]

Well, technically we don't use HCP analysis so much as cover-card analysis.  A mixed raise produces about two covers.  With KQ of trumps, that's almost two covers, so you probably need a doubleton somewhere also.

 

A nine-count would have to be really ugly to only be "mixed."  Maybe 4333 with two Aces and a Jack?

I think if you are upgrading most 9 counts to limit raises, you are overbidding, although I do agree with the general definition of 2 cover cards, but I would also hands with 2.5 covers.

 

I think any of these qualify as mixed raises:

 

Jxxx, AKxx, xx, Jxx

 

Axxx, Kxxx, xx, Qxx

 

Qxxx, KJxx, xx, Kxx

Well, the "funny thing" is that I (we?) also have another step that we call a "limix" raise. That's a hand that values up to a minimum limit raise because of shape.

 

We bid one-under (3♦ for hearts, 3♥ for spades) with limix raises.

 

Jxxx, AKxx, xx, Jxx = marginal. About 10 with the doubleton.

 

Axxx, Kxxx, xx, Qxx = Much more clearly limix, IMO.

 

Qxxx, KJxx, xx, Kxx = Clearly limix if spades trumps, IMO. Maybe marginal if hearts trumps. I suppose still somewhat marginal.

 

The "marginals" would mean that either partner might at any time decide that the hand is limix or mixed, depending on his mood, and, if the result was bad, we'd foight like dogs that our position was right this time. LOL

 

Frankly, I think all of these are probably limix, but I could be persuaded that I'm wrong.

[andy_h]

I play it as a mixed raise of 7-9 too, except when favourable I play it as preemptive like 4-7.

[Trinidad]

I play it as 3-6 with my 2/1 GF partner and as 0-7 with my strong club partner. If I wouldn't have had another bid for the mixed raise, I would happily play 1M-3M as mixed with my 2/1 GF partner.

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

It is a good question. I have long believed that the greatest value in the weak double jump came if RHO acted; once RHO passes - especially because imps rewards game/slam bidding - that a weak raise is not best.

 

Of course, our LHO may be itching to get in and a weak jump could block that bid, but to me bridge should be about taking percetage plays and bids and when 1 out of 2 opponents have already passed the chances of a competitive auction have been reduced by 50%. It makes sense to me then to try to encourage our own constructive bidding now rather than worry about what 3rd seat might do.

 

I think 1M-P-3M is best used as a forcing raise if other limit raises are available.

[blackshoe]

You will not be happy then with the philosophy presented in Robson and Segal, then. (The link downloads a copy of the book, zipped, in pdf form.)

[CSGibson]

It is a good question. I have long believed that the greatest value in the weak double jump came if RHO acted; once RHO passes - especially because imps rewards game/slam bidding - that a weak raise is not best.

 

Of course, our LHO may be itching to get in and a weak jump could block that bid, but to me bridge should be about taking percetage plays and bids and when 1 out of 2 opponents have already passed the chances of a competitive auction have been reduced by 50%. It makes sense to me then to try to encourage our own constructive bidding now rather than worry about what 3rd seat might do.

 

I think 1M-P-3M is best used as a forcing raise if other limit raises are available.

are you playing advanced Culbertson in OK?

[Winstonm]

It is a good question.  I have long believed that the greatest value in the weak double jump came if RHO acted; once RHO passes - especially because imps rewards game/slam bidding - that a weak raise is not best.

 

Of course, our LHO may be itching to get in and a weak jump could block that bid, but to me bridge should be about taking percetage plays and bids and when 1 out of 2 opponents have already passed the chances of a competitive auction have been reduced by 50%.  It makes sense to me then to try to encourage our own constructive bidding now rather than worry about what 3rd seat might do.

 

I think 1M-P-3M is best used as a forcing raise if other limit raises are available.

are you playing advanced Culbertson in OK?

heh, heh, heh. No, although I did at one time play the Culbertson 4NT/5NT convention with good results. Have you never played forcing raises?

 

Opening weakish hands and responding on weakish hands is more in keeping with the Culbertson/Lenz/Jacoby style of bidding than a new revelation, btw, so I find the concept of "modern" tactics prettty funny.

 

Btw, my preference for 1M-P-3M as forcing comes in the package I termed Better Bergen Bidding and thus is a very distinct bid with precise parameters as to what minimum and maximum is held, both in HCP and numbers of control cards.

[Cascade]

We used to play 0-6 - maybe for the first 5 years of our partnership.

 

We now play 4-7 and describe them as constructive.

 

4-7 HCP is more common than 0-6 HCP so we pre-empt the opponents more often.

 

4-7 HCP and constructive helps partner bid games

 

4-7 HCP being a narrower range gives partner less of a problem.

 

It is not compulsory for us to make the pre-emptive raise with 4-7 HCP. If we do not like our shape or think our cards are too soft etc relatively to the prevailing vulnerability we are free to raise to 2M (or PASS) or if we like our hand we are free to upgrade. For us 1♥ 2♠ and 1♠ 2NT start at 8 HCP and deny a shortage and we play splinters at the three-level starting at around the same range (1♥ 2NT is a spade splinter).