Bidding again after preempting?!?

[daveharty]

I made a boo-boo. In a N/B thread, I raised the specter of opening with a preemptive bid and then freely rebidding a new suit if the opportunity presented itself. I shouldn't have done that! The actual hand in question was something like --/KQxxxx/Axxxx/xx, and I said I thought there was a good case for opening 2H and then freely rebidding diamonds. This is an area of bidding that I haven't really thought much about in the past. So, a few questions:

 

1. Do you ever do this?

2. If yes, what sorts of hands do you consider appropriate? (Do you think it's reasonable with the given hand, or was I way off base?)

3. If yes, have you ever given your partner a subconjunctival hemorrage?

[Gerardo]

I am on the "preempt once, don't bid again unless asked to" camp.

 

I also overcalled 4♥ then freely bid 5♣ with a (good 7)-5, don't remember vul but surely not unfav.

 

Would pass with yours, then ry to bid a 2-suiter bid.

[S2000magic]

1. About once every ten years or so.

 

2. Something really bizarre: 7-5-1-0, 7-6-0-0, that sort of thing.

 

3. Nope. At least, not for bidding after preempting. ;)

[nigel_k]

Preempting and bidding again is perfectly ok.

 

If you have something like x QJTxx KJTxx xx non vulnerable you might open 2♥ and rebid 3♦ after 2♠-P-P. There is a risk that partner will initially play you for a different hand type, but if you judge that getting your suit(s) in early is more important then a good partner will understand that even if it doesn't work on a particular hand. Opening a weak two and then doubling with a maximum and takeout shape is also quite common, especially after two passes.

 

On the hand from the other thread, there was a bit too much disparity between the suits so, if it was a bit weaker and not good enough to open 1, I would probably treat it as a single suited heart preempt and open 3♥.

[JLOGIC]

I do this fairly often

 

edit: If my partner has raised. Not as often if partner hasn't raised (very rarely in fact).

[cherdano]

Sorry to get off-topic, but there is no way I would pass with your example hand. I would rather roll the dice and accept any number of hearts between 1 and 4.

 

After opening 2♥, I don't mind reraising partner's raise, nor do I mind balancing over 2♠.

[aguahombre]

Sorry to get off-topic, but there is no way I would pass with your example hand. I would rather roll the dice and accept any number of hearts between 1 and 4.

 

After opening 2♥, I don't mind reraising partner's raise, nor do I mind balancing over 2♠.

IMO, your post is not off-topic. OP did give that hand.

 

Many of us will go off the reservation with certain odd holdings. The adage that an opening 2-bid makes partner the Captain is a valid one; but it is not an absolute. It is probably a good idea to stick to it when your weak two really looks like one (wasn't just tactical) and partner has not invited you to further participate.

 

The OP hand looks like a 1H opening to me. If I sat in for someone who chose to open 2H before keeling over, I might consider acting again also.

[daveharty]

Sorry to get off-topic, but there is no way I would pass with your example hand.

 

Just to be clear: neither would I.

[jdeegan]

:P I can think of at least three situations.

 

First is something like a nine bagger to the KQJ or an 8-4 hand, esp. in a major. No point in opening more than a four bid, but if opponents outbid me, I have at least two more playing tricks than advertised, so I advocate taking the push. This does not come up often.

 

Second is a two suiter (6-5 or even 6-6) with lots of extra playing strength where I don't want to pass, so I open with a weak two bid. If partner passes and the opponents compete, I may need to trot out the second suit. Partner may be broke with support for the first suit (a save possibility) or fit my second suit. Again, this doesn't come up often.

 

Third is when I (very rarely) open a nice seven bagger with a weak two. Something like:

A109xxxx

x

A109

xx

If partner raises to 3♠, I have to bid four based on the law of total tricks, if nothing else.

 

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

[aguahombre]

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

And it is the foundation of partnership trust, fast becoming a HUM.

[Finch]

Standard wisdom, which I agree with, is that if you open or overcall with a 2-level or 3-level pre-empt, you don't bid again because you have already described your hand. You would only bid again if partner invited you to (e.g. by bidding a new suit where you have a fit, or if you have some agreed way of suggesting a save). The basic principle is that if you have a hand worth the 3-level, open it at the 3-level; if you have a hand worth the 4-level, open it at the 4-level.

 

So auctions such as 2H (2S) P P 3H are definitely stupid or 2H P 3H (pre-emptive) P 4H.

 

Solely from what I've seen on Vugraph/read in the BW, US players don't seem to have a problem opening a weak 2 with, say, a 6-5 and bidding the second suit next round. British players (and I think some other places) think that's crazy and would never open something like your sample hand 2H (most would probably open 1H).

 

Game-level pre-empts are slightly different because they have a much wider range. If I open 4H with 9 of them and it continues 4H 4S P P then I would often want to bid 5H. The other hand that freely opens at the 4-level then bids a new suit is a double void.

[Finch]

 

Third is when I (very rarely) open a nice seven bagger with a weak two. Something like:

A109xxxx

x

A109

xx

If partner raises to 3♠, I have to bid four based on the law of total tricks, if nothing else.

 

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

 

I think that is horrible. In effect you are saying "I shouldn't have opened this a weak two" (and I agree you shouldn't). But if it's not a weak two, then don't open it one. If it's in range for your weak twos, then partner knows it's a possible hand, so there's no reason to re-raise.

[quiddity]

I think that is horrible. In effect you are saying "I shouldn't have opened this a weak two" (and I agree you shouldn't). But if it's not a weak two, then don't open it one. If it's in range for your weak twos, then partner knows it's a possible hand, so there's no reason to re-raise.

 

I don't think that's what it says at all. I think it says "this hand is worth a weak two if you can't raise but it's worth more if you can".

I'm not commenting on the actual example hand but I do think there are hands which fit this description.

[S2000magic]

Game-level pre-empts are slightly different because they have a much wider range. If I open 4H with 9 of them and it continues 4H 4S P P then I would often want to bid 5H. The other hand that freely opens at the 4-level then bids a new suit is a double void.

Another possibility would be a hand where you would have liked to have opened 5♥ as a preempt (but opened only 4♥ because a 5♥ opening isn't a preempt), but which has a reasonable amount of defense against 4♠. In that case, the auction could go:

 

4♥ - (4♠) - Pass - (Pass)

Dbl.

 

Partner can sit for the double if he's OK with defending, and can pull to 5♥ if he's not.

[ArtK78]

Another possibility would be a hand where you would have liked to have opened 5♥ as a preempt (but opened only 4♥ because a 5♥ opening isn't a preempt), but which has a reasonable amount of defense against 4♠. In that case, the auction could go:

 

4♥ - (4♠) - Pass - (Pass)

Dbl.

 

Partner can sit for the double if he's OK with defending, and can pull to 5♥ if he's not.

I disagree with the rationale for the double.

 

To me, the double means that I bid 4♥ to make (somewhat unusual in first or second seats). So, I am letting partner know that I don't have a weak hand and that we should either defend 4♠x or bid on to 5♥.

[phil_20686]

I disagree with the rationale for the double.

 

To me, the double means that I bid 4♥ to make (somewhat unusual in first or second seats). So, I am letting partner know that I don't have a weak hand and that we should either defend 4♠x or bid on to 5♥.

 

The only time I have ever seen this happen (to me) I was playing against Andrew Robson, and he had - AKxxxxx Axxx xx. (he was in third seat).

 

These are called action doubles, and they basically show extra offense, but the expectation is still that partner will pass with no fit. They are occasionally expensive, but some people like them.

[nigel_k]

I think that is horrible. In effect you are saying "I shouldn't have opened this a weak two" (and I agree you shouldn't). But if it's not a weak two, then don't open it one. If it's in range for your weak twos, then partner knows it's a possible hand, so there's no reason to re-raise.

Sometimes you have a hand where you dial it back because you have really bad trumps, but the hand improves a lot when partner raises. If you open 2♥ with x AQJxxx x Jxxxx and partner raises, then the problem occurs because you should have opened 3♥ in the first place. But if the hand is x Jxxxxx x AQJxx then I think opening 2♥ and continuing to 4♥ if partner raises is ok.

[jdeegan]

:P I think everybody agrees that three and four level openers are primarily disruptive in intent. So, the rare 9-bagger or Andrew Robson third seat AKA preempts are imo not really controversial. And, you do bid again.

 

Weak two bids are another story. The people who invented them played them very disciplined (exactly 6 cards with two of the top three or three of the top five honors and 7 to 11 HCP). They also played a lot in Al Roth's 2 cent (about 20 cents in today's money) game. When I was in NYC I sometimes played in Al's 2 cent game and was equally disciplined. Among those sharks at that form of scoring only an idiot would do otherwise. Back home playing MP's against the tournament duplicate field it was a different situation. The more hands I could open for a weak two bid, the better we scored. I don't think things have changed very much.

 

Personally, I have a bias for action at the bridge table, so the undisciplined weak two bid sings a siren's song to me. As long as my partner has some minimal grasp of the LOTT, then 6-5's and certain 7-baggers call out to me. Even against good players, you never know when a weak two opener will throw a spanner into the opponents' bidding. When pard has the big hand I just want to survive. At least I will have the right number of high cards and playing tricks.

 

Non-vul dealer with:

Axx

Ax

10987xxx

x

 

a 'pure' hand with 8 HCP and six playing tricks.

Open 2♦?

[phil_20686]

Non-vul dealer with:

Axx

Ax

10987xxx

x

 

a 'pure' hand with 8 HCP and six playing tricks.

Open 2♦?

 

The thought makes me vaguely ill. I seem to have three massive flaws:

 

(1) I have two first round controls, and a side suit singleton. When partner does have a fit he is never going to evaluate his hand correctly: How is he to guess that KQxx Kxx AKx xxx is completely cold for slam. Its entirely probably that he will not even make a game move seeing 5D as too far off, and 3N as risky with no club card. Another day he will have something like KJx QJxx Kx AQx and will bid 3N, and that will have absolutely no play because your hand is not at all what he was expecting.

 

(2) If partner does not have a fit in diamonds he will misevaluate badly because I have a monster to play in a major. Is he really to guess that KQxxxx Kxx x xxx will have very good chances in 4S?

 

(3) Partner will often lead a diamond against 3N when he has a perfectly respectable suit of his own. This could well cost the contract.There are also more subtle ways in which partner can be misled in the defence as he may discard the winning line as inconsistent with your bidding.

[daveharty]

Thanks for the replies. I guess I've crystalized my thoughts a bit better at this point; what I was really getting at was a two part question:

 

1. Is there a class of hands--typically high-ODR two suiters with less high card strength than your normal "minimum" one-level opener--for which it is a reasonable strategy to use a "preemptive two-step" as a constructive description?

 

2. If your answer to the above is "yes," then what are the parameters of this class of hands?

 

If you answer "yes" to the first question, there must be some upper boundary between those hands where you would use this strategy (or at least consider it), and those hands that you simply open at the one level. On the other hand, if you answer "no" to the first question, there must be some lower bound separating those hands that you are willing to open at the one level, and those hands that you are not; presumably if a given hand falls below your threshold, you will either pass and hope to come in later, or make a preemptive bid with no plan of showing the secondary feature of your hand. In both cases I'm interested in where the boundary is.

 

My own experience is strictly in the ACBL, where very few people use specialized two-level openers to show two suiters, as I understand is more common elsewhere; that probably colors my view. But my personal answer to the first question would be a tentative "yes", and the hand in my OP is pretty close to my instinctual boundary. If it's not close to yours, how much would you have to weaken it to make it uncomfortable for you to open 1H?

 

Frances apparently thinks the answer is a resounding "no" to the first question, and thinks it may be a regional difference. I think that's really interesting; do you think that might have anything to do with the ACBL's historical systemic restrictions? Or are North Americans just crazier?

[jdeegan]

Or are North Americans just crazier?

:P Depends on the North American.

You can view the weak two bid as constructive (ie. you definitely want to win when it is your hand) or obstructive (ie. your main objective is to disrupt the opponents auction). Normally, when playing money bridge or even IMPs (unless behind, late) against good opposition you want to be constructive. Playing MP's or even IMPs against the usual tournament field there is imo a very good case for being obstructive.

[aguahombre]

Without data to support this, I believe U.S. top players in general are less disciplined in their opening preempts that the rest of the World, thus cosidering the tactical advantage of first strike to be more impotant than better informing partner about what is going on.

 

I don't think that translates to "crazier", nor does it seem to apply to all North America. Sammy is no longer active.

[phil_20686]

Without data to support this, I believe U.S. top players in general are less disciplined in their opening preempts that the rest of the World, thus cosidering the tactical advantage of first strike to be more impotant than better informing partner about what is going on.

 

Watching vugraph has given me the impression that the US and Italians tend to pre-empt much heavier than a typical European in general. For example, there is a sizeable fraction of top UK players who will commonly preempt at the 3 level on a six card suit.

 

For a long time it was my style to be disciplined/constructive at the two level but very undisciplined at the three and four level. I have largely given this up, I found that there was a common class of hands where we lost imps just by having done the wrong thing in a part score battle, and a second common class where partner was unable to do the right thing at the 5 level because of the knock on effects on four level preempts.

 

Of course, you can be heavier and still more undisciplined, or maybe it makes sense to be heavier in terms of defence if you are more undisciplined, as its harder for partner to try to save.

[Vampyr]

Sometimes you have a hand where you dial it back because you have really bad trumps, but the hand improves a lot when partner raises. If you open 2♥ with x AQJxxx x Jxxxx and partner raises, then the problem occurs because you should have opened 3♥ in the first place. But if the hand is x Jxxxxx x AQJxx then I think opening 2♥ and continuing to 4♥ if partner raises is ok.

 

It seems to me that if this is a weak 2, you will have more serious problems than whether to reraise to game.

[nigel_k]

It seems to me that if this is a weak 2, you will have more serious problems than whether to reraise to game.

Quite possibly. But opponents will often have problems too, and I won't necessarily be any better off if I pass to start with.

 

Regardless of what you preempt with, there will be some variation in how good your suit is. And when your suit is barely adequate (however you define that) but you have compensation shape and stuff elsewhere, it can easily be right to bid one more if partner raises because it improves your hand so much.