Preempted

[kgr]

Opps preempt you; eg:

(4H)

1C-(4H)

1C-(3H)

...

What Vulnerability you will bid/DBL most likely?

Is this the same at MP's then at IMP's?

Will you rather bid at MP's then at IMP's?

 

 

These question comes from another post where it was said that if opps are Vulnerable then they have more distribution and we should rather Bid/DBL (...not even sure this is correct).

Should our Vulnerability also make a difference?

[kgr]

To trigger some feedback, I'm trying to make my question more specific below.

 

(4H)

HHxx

x

HHxx

HHxx

=> Is there a hand that will DBL at one Vulnerability/scoring, but act at another?

Maybe:

Axxx

x

Axxx

Kxxx

=> DBL at MP's but Pass at IMP's??

(Probably vulnerability is not important for this one)??

 

(4H)

HHxxxx

x

HHx

HHx

=> Is there a hand that will bid 4S at one Vulnerability/scoring, but act at another?

AQxxxx

x

AJx

Qxx

=> IMP's:Bid 4S when opps are vulnerable, but pass otherwise??

=> MP's: Always bid 4S??

[gwnn]

the fundamental things apply

 

as time goes by:

 

I bid/act more often if I am NV and if opps are V. our "saves" are more profitable and they can catch us less effective. Also when they are V their concentration is normally higher so it is more likely that both sides can make something.

[gwnn]

I think the distinction between imps and mps in these 4♠ vs 4♥ decisions (as in countless competitive sequences) is overrated. "Oh of course I overcall 2♣ at Pairs! but of course at IMP's it's completely different!" = "oh look at me I'm an expert! I'm so smart!". This is not directed against anyone on the forums, it's based on my offline bridge discussions.

[kgr]

.....I bid/act more often if I am NV and if opps are V. our "saves" are more profitable and they can catch us less effective......

Thanks for the answer.

I have a question about our vulnerability:

The above is true if it appears to be a "save", but it is more profitable if we make when V. And do we "save" over their preempt?

[dake50]

Counter accepted theory, in IMPs their vulnerability is more important than ours.

And the put-them-guessing is most valuable at they NON-vulnerable.

 

They vulnerable means 10-6 IMP to bid game. How much does our interference push them to miss 37.5% (10/(10+6) game decision? In contrast to nv vs. Vul thinking this is the "best" vul case to obstruct --attempt to obstruct a mere 37.5% decision??

Vul vs. Vul, now we have 500 to offer (X Vul -2) in our risk assessment. But they only need 37.5% to try game.

 

At We-Vul vs. nv, they must approach a 50% game decision. Unfortunately we can only risk a 200 (X vul down 1) to confound that decision.

At WE-nv vs. nv, their game decision is near 50% and we have 2+tricks to confound them. Pandora released!

 

To forstall wild objections, none of what I say is preempts favorable don't work. They do have the highest payback for success and most trick leeway. Effective for exactly that --not because they confound a game decision. That decision is at only 37.5%.

[gwnn]

The above is true if it appears to be a "save", but it is more profitable if we make when V. And do we "save" over their preempt?

yes often, like if you have 6 ish spades and 10 ish points and they open 2H then it's better to bid when you're NV than V, because it can lead to a save.

 

of course MP does matter since at MP it's rarely right to defend 2M undoubled at white for example and it is more often right to bid 5 over 5, but in general my feeling is that people overemphasise the difference between MP and IMP.