I need data/analysis

[kenrexford]

I know... Precision/Neapolitan 2♣ works if you play that.

 

I was asked to write an article in our local newsletter about preempts, with the two people asking me to do this proposing a principle as clearly right, and yet I do not necessarily agree with it. The example hand was one that was given to me.

 

Comments about the proposed hand in 2nd or 3rd seat if you are willing; the poll only allows so much.

[Gerben42]

Vulnerability matters here. From the headcount you have 5 losers. Vulnerable, I would not open beyond 3NT as this could easily be a good contract.

 

Conclusion:

 

* Red vs white I'd open 3♣ (promising 2 top honors)

* Equal vulnerability partner will expect a bit less shape so I would open 1♣.

* White on red our goal is to pressurize the opponents and I open 5♣.

 

You will get a lot of different opinions on this, though.

[hrothgar]

Hard questions (probably means that you're headed towards a good articial)

 

In second seat, I'm leery about any preempt

 

1. I have a void

2. I have a 4 card major

3. I have a lot of playing strength

 

I prefer a 1♣ opening to a preempt at equal vulnerability.

White on red, I might very well open 5♣

Red versus white, 3♣ is reasonable but I lean towards pass

 

Note: I'm not sure that I would actually open 1♣. I am torn about the relative merits of pass versus 1♣.

I prefer reasonably sound openings playing 2/1 and might very well pass.

 

In third seat, we're looking at a whole different ball game

 

White on Red, 5♣ seems best, though 1NT (or even 2NT) has strong appeal as well

Equal vulnerability, I'm torn between 4♣ and 5♣

Red versus white, I'd definitely preempt 4♣

[kenberg]

I voted 1♣ in all cases and was surprised to find agreement (but on a sample size of 7 so far). What I would not do is open 3♣. I might pass but I would not open 3♣. My preference is 1♣.

[Free]

I also voted 1♣ for all cases. I agree that 2nd & 3rd seat are different, but luckily that wasn't asked.

[gwnn]

I would 1♣ almost surely, but four clubs is interesting white/red.

[mcphee]

The hand is not a pre-empt for me in the first 2 seats ever and 1C would be my choice at any colors. After all you do not require the worlds fair to produce game, even a slam might be possible. In third things are far different and my choice would depend on who what where and when.

[1eyedjack]

I used to choose between pass and 1C on these hands and play "disciplined" preempts. Eventually I was convinced by Carlisle's opinion. Preempts work too well to worry about the fact that one third of the time you are preempting partner. 2 to 1 is good odds.

[kenrexford]

So far, the responses are confirming one "MAJOR" point. The analysis is not as simple as "Don't preempt with a four-card major on the side." That was the point two people wanted me to make. That is what silently was making me laugh inside. For, the problem seems to not be the 4-card heart suit but rather the strength of the hand, tactics, seat, and the like. Glad to see that the exact hand is as discussion-worthy as I thought.

[Phil]

I would 1♣ almost surely, but four clubs is interesting white/red.

 

+1

[karlson]

For me the biggest flaw for preempting is the suitability for hearts. Obviously some preempts with a side 4-card major are ok (especially in the other major), but not when we have QJxx and a void.

[kayin801]

This is way too good a hand for what I usually preempt with at any vul :/ and I also hate passing, so it's always 1♣ for me. I admit that if the side suit was diamonds I'd think about preempting a bit more, especially 3rd seat (and even moreso if 0247 since they have the boss suit). I'm comfortable with this though cause I like opening light.

 

If they want you to emphasize that you can't preempt with a 4 card major maybe you should try to counter with some rule of 20 here ;P especially if they want to convince others that pass is right.

[Finch]

Yes it's too good a hand to pre-empt.

The presence or absence of a 4-card major is only one factor

 

-

xxxx

xx

AQ9xxxx

 

is a pre-empt

 

-

KQ10x

xx

xxxxxxx

 

is obviously a pass

 

I would also pass on

 

-

QJxx

xx

Axxxxxx

 

this is the type of 4-card major hand not to pre-empt on, because it's very suitable for play in hearts, has a lot of defence, and is not particularly suitable for play in clubs (in context)

[MrAce]

I open 3 ♣, our suits are ♥+♣. Opening this hand low is being too generous to opponents in the long run. It is problem if we dont have a fit when we open it low and not get too high, it is another problem when we find a fit since we will be competing against ♠+♦ suit, a battle which is rarely won. If side suit was ♠ 1♣ could be reasonable imo.

 

I am sure we can make a whole new topic about what to rebid if pd response 1♥ when we open 1♣ (i think actually there was something close to this)

[Cascade]

Not sure how relevant this is ...

 

I did a 1000 hand single dummy simulation using GIB.

 

The 1000 hands had six spades and four hearts and 6-9 hcp.

 

I forced GIB to open each hand 2S and compared the result with forcing GIB to pass.

 

On average at every vulnerability in first seat opening 2S outscored passing at IMPs.

 

I repeated the experiment with the hearts and spades reversed. Again at every vulnerability 2H outscored pass.

[1eyedjack]

One of the factors that influenced me in favour of preempting on the OP hand was that if we had a good enough Heart fit to want to play there then there was also a reasonable risk that the opponents could outbid us in Spades. Swap the majors and I may view things differently. It is one of those questions that cries out for a large population computer simulation based on DD par result. We can all construct no shortage of specific hands on which our chosen method gains or loses.

[jdeegan]

3♣

My experience has been that a 4-4 heart fit (should it exist) as trumps is usually a trap with 7-4 hands. A 4-1 trump break is not 2 to 1, but more like 50+%. The taps become a nightmare, and the non-solid 7 bagger becomes useless. All this tells me that a preempt is the better bet, esp. since my ♥ holding is offensive, not defensive. Replace the ♥ QJ with the K, and the hand starts to look like an opening bid.

[655321]

A 4-1 trump break is not 2 to 1, but more like 50+%.

 

Wrong, the odds of a 4-1 trump break are completely unaffected by the shape of your own hand.

[jdeegan]

Wrong, the odds of a 4-1 trump break are completely unaffected by the shape of your own hand.

You are correct, sir. I was getting ahead of myself. One has to wait to see if and what the opponents bid. My 'experience' consisted of remembering contested auctions where at least one of the opponents also had a long suit, and the bidding got interesting. Suit split odds only change when vacant spaces in the opponents' hands can be factored in.

All this assumes random dealing, of course. A goulash dealing method changes everything.

[nige1]

With ♠ xx ♥ QJxx ♦ - ♣ AQxxxxx, IMO..

• Seats 1 & 2, Vul: 3♣ = 10, 1♣ = 9, _P = 5.
• Seats 1 & 2, Nonvul: 1♣ = 10, 5♣ = 8, 4♣ = 7, 3♣ = 5, P = 4.
• Seat 3: 3♣ = 10, 1♣ = 4, P = 2.
• Seat 4: 3♣ =10, P = 9.

[1eyedjack]

With ♠ xx ♥ QJxx ♦ - ♣ AQxxxxx, IMO..

• Seats 1 & 2, Vul: 3♣ = 10, 1♣ = 9, _P = 5.
• Seats 1 & 2, Nonvul: 1♣ = 10, 5♣ = 8, 4♣ = 7, 3♣ = 5, P = 4.
• Seat 3: 3♣ = 10, 1♣ = 4, P = 2.
• Seat 4: 3♣ =10, P = 9.

 

Maybe I am alone, but I draw quite a significant distinction between first and second seat.

[Cascade]

Maybe I am alone, but I draw quite a significant distinction between first and second seat.

 

I doubt you are alone.

 

There are also potential differences when favourable or unfavourable compared with the equal vulnerabilities.

[nige1]

Maybe I am alone, but I draw quite a significant distinction between first and second seat.

I doubt you are alone.There are also potential differences when favourable or unfavourable compared with the equal vulnerabilities.

Most partnerships match their bidding to scoring, vulnerability, table position, and estimate of current standing. An interesting question is how these may affect choices for the hand under discussion :)