Disciplined preempts in the minors

[xx1943]

Hi

 

I like to play very disciplined preempts in the minors in 1. and esp. second seat.

I adopted these rules from Anderson/zenkels book about preempts.

 

That means if I open 3♣ or 3♦ these are the requirements:

1) exactly 7-card-suit

2) exactly 2 of 3 honours (AKQ)

3) no void

4) no 4-card-major

5) No outside A or K

 

I open 3NT with:

1) exactly AKQxxxx in one minor

2) no void

3) no 4-card major

4) no outside A or K

 

Imo it is very good for the partnership, if the responder exactly knows, how high to bid or sacrifice. He is alo in the position to bid some psychic or fool opponents otherwise, because he has the full information and partner has to pass after his preempt all the time, except choice of suit or jump-asking bids.

 

What is your opinion? What experience do you have with this rigid philosophy.

 

 

Looking forward to your replies.

 

Regards

Al

[the hog]

Playing Bridge this way is akin to playing a round of golf with only a putter and a driver. If you rigidly adhere to the above precepts how are you going to have a nasty surprise in hand for your opponents? If you never pre empt with an outside 4 card Major, how will your opponents ever play in that Major; you are making life for them far too easy.

 

Having seen the way Auken and Zenkel play Bridge, I suspect that most of the above stems from Ron Anderson, a rather conservative player.

 

If you wish to distinguish between good and bad pre empts play what Auken and Zenkel play now, viz 2N a bad minor pre empt and 3m a constructive m pre empt.

 

Ron

[jtfanclub]

I open 3NT with:

1) exactly AKQxxxx in one minor

2) no void

3) no 4-card major

4) no outside A or K

I don't know...that just seems wrong to me. For one thing, it's entirely possible that 3NT makes...if your partner declares it. Your partner is presumably sitting there with lots of tenaces, you have none. This looks like exactly the sort of hand you don't want to wrong-side, especially when you're telling the opponents too much.

 

I play 3NT as similar, but I am required to have one tenace (KTx x AKQxxxx xx is perfect). Not only does it protect the suit in question, but it makes it much harder to defend. There's also a decent chance that you've right-sided the contract. And if they end up declaring, well, you haven't revealed the info they needed to make it.

 

He is alo in the position to bid some psychic or fool opponents otherwise, because he has the full information and partner has to pass after his preempt all the time, except choice of suit or jump-asking bids.

 

That's really what psyches have come down to at this point, haven't they?

[Free]

I would rather use these requirements for a 3NT opener, and open 1m with the hands you would've bid 3NT in the past. So 3m openings don't hurt that much, but they're still a pain in the (_*_) when you have some slam ambition...

 

Btw, how many times do you open a 3NT gambling and do you actually play 3NT?

[helene_t]

The main risk related to slugish preempts in minor suits is that partner does not know when to bid 3NT. Thus, the quality of your suit and absence of outside honors are important. This is different from preempts in major suits, which are based on the offensive values of the hand.

 

Since I can open a weak two in diamonds, 3♦ is more accurate than 3♣. But even at IMPs, 2nd seat, vuln against nonvuln, I find the Anderson/Zenkel criteria too strict for 3♦.

[Gerben47]

I don't have the book here but doesn't disciplined mean something completely different in this context?

 

All top experts play disciplined preempts, when disciplined means this: A preempt is in a certain agreed range. This means when Marty Bergen preempts his suit is bad and his partner does not have to fear missing a game with 18 opposite. Hamman's partner would bid game with the same 18-count, because Hamman will have a stronger hand for the same preempt.

 

Discipline is that Bergen won't make the bid on Hamman's hand and vice versa.

 

To The_Hog: Auken and Zenkel do not play bridge together as Zenkel is Sabine Auken's maiden name. But I agree that Auken - von Arnim don't follow these criteria. As an added note, they will play in the Champion's Cup in Barcelona in the next 4 days which will be broadcasted on BBO.

[inquiry]

I play fairly disciplined preempts in Second Seat and vul versus non-vul only. All others are wild and wooly.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

I'm a big believer in disciplined 3 level preempts in the minors.

My standards are somewhat looser than those set out in Zenkel-Anderson, however, the core of the treatment (long minor, 2 of the top three honors, no outside A-K remain the same)

 

As A+Z recommend, I use a 2NT opening to show a "bad" 3 level preempt in either minor.

 

I use a 3NT opening to show a 4 level preempt in either minor, coupled with NAMYATS 4♣/4♦ openings. Hands like

 

4

T65

962

AKQ753

 

can safely be opened 2♣ playing MOSCITO

[the hog]

"To The_Hog: Auken and Zenkel do not play bridge"

 

Thanks Gerben, meant Auken & von Arnim. Zenkel of course married Jens Auken.

[Chamaco]

I'm a big believer in disciplined 3 level preempts in the minors.

My standards are somewhat looser than those set out in Zenkel-Anderson, however, the core of the treatment (long minor, 2 of the top three honors, no outside A-K remain the same)

 

As A+Z recommend, I use a 2NT opening to show a "bad" 3 level preempt in either minor.

2NT as unspecified bad minor preempt is nice, but is banned from many low-midchart events.

 

For those events, any weak opening (Gambling-type are included) ranging from 2C through 3S should guarantee at least 4 cards in at least one suit.

 

Therefore, investing resources in a system based on such scheme is rewarding for topflight events, not for most "regular" tourneys.

Not tht I like this regulations, but here they are, and I (we) have to comply.... <_<

[whereagles]

CC Wei advocated solid minor suit preempts, under the pretext of "It's not how often you preempt, but how often you get a good score when you preempt". He was right... though in not in the way he intended. The point is that very often you get away with murder when you preempt with trash hands. Solid preempts don't let you get preempt as much as you'd like to.

[EricK]

Hi

 

I like to play very disciplined preempts in the minors in 1. and esp. second seat.

I adopted these rules from Anderson/zenkels book about preempts.

 

That means if I open 3♣ or 3♦ these are the requirements:

1) exactly 7-card-suit

2) exactly 2 of 3 honours (AKQ)

3) no void

4) no 4-card-major

5) No outside A or K

 

I open 3NT with:

1) exactly AKQxxxx in one minor

2) no void

3) no 4-card major

4) no outside A or K

 

Imo it is very good for the partnership, if the responder exactly knows, how high to bid or sacrifice. He is alo in the position to bid some psychic or fool opponents otherwise, because he has the full information and partner has to pass after his preempt all the time, except choice of suit or jump-asking bids.

 

What is your opinion? What experience do you have with this rigid philosophy.

 

 

Looking forward to your replies.

 

Regards

Al

If you play this sort of style, you are ahead of the field when these hands crop up and behind them when you get hands on which you can no longer pre-empt.

 

I suspect that gains do not outweigh the losses as so many nice-looking pre-emptive hands do not quite fit the mould.

 

Eric

[the hog]

One further point on this topic:

 

It is very interesting to observe the differing styles for pre empts in general, (not just m pre empts), across differing nations.

 

In regions such as Australasia, Italy etc where the 4 handed game is treated with greater priority than the 2 handed game, wild and wooly pre empts are common place. Look at some of the pre empts that the Indonesian team comes up with. Those that practice the 2 handed game will prefer the discipline espoused in the lead post. The style depends on what you and partner feel comfortable with, (and in some cases what fits in with local regulations.) French and American players in general play the 2 handed game. Incidentally this is not a criticism, it is a statement of styles that are predominant nationally.

 

There are significant exceptions, of course, such as Marty Bergen in the US, and a small number, of conservative players in the Asian region.

[ritong]

it looks clear to me that preempts , any level , have to be disciplined .

the reason is they are DESCRIPTIVE bids. the preempt is a side-effect.

if you ask around you "where , in your opinion, is the bridge " , you will often get as an answer " at the five level".

well-founded decisions at the five level create a HUGE difference.

so, better resist the envy to bother opps & restrict your preempting to mrs Auken(or is it miss Zenkel) principles :)

[the hog]

Interesting comment by Henri. I disagree strongly with this; I think the bridge is making the initial decision ,eg an overcall, and therefore players should strive to make that initial decision as difficult as possible for opponents. If you have to make a decision at the 5 level you have already lost the war.

[luke warm]

well henri is a very good player, i've witnessed that enough... but so is ron, and i tend to agree with him in this... of course it depends on what is meant by 'disciplined' i guess, but if you're guessing what to do at the 5 level you've already lost

 

the best thing about intermediate-type preempts is the defensive potential, imo, which makes it more dangerous for the ops to compete

[mikestar]

Disciplined is not the same as conservtive. Disciplined means if you would open Jxxxxx with 3C in a certain seat at a certain vulnerability, you can't also opne 3C with AKxxxxx in the same circumstances.

 

It is possible for a preempt to be both undisiplined and conservative--for example Trent twos.

 

My own preference is a fairly undisiplined and fairly wild weak two (not quite EHAA wild) but with a little defense (not too much). A defenseless hand should either prempt higher or pass. Higher preempts I prefer fairly disiplined at the three level and quite disiplined higher up. Moderte to wil at the three level, moderate to conservative higher.