Pre-empting with two Aces, etc.

[ahydra]

Today my partner opened a weak 2 on ♠A8xxxx ♥- ♦Axxx ♣xxx or something similar (2nd seat love all). Then later he WJO's 2S on ♠KQ10xxx ♥Jxx ♦x ♣xxx (nonvul vs vul). In the past he's had as little as KJxxxx and out, and I've been known to WJO on ♠K10xxx ♥- ♦Qxxx ♣xxxx or similar - but also on a full nine-count with a decent suit. Whilst there's "nothing wrong" with pre-empting like this if both players are aware of the possible hands, I get the impression that it is unworkable to pre-empt on a wide range of hands, since partner will misjudge high-level competitive auctions (particularly in the case of two aces) and also under/overbid when our side has the points.

 

What are people's thoughts on playable ranges of pre-empts (not HCP, but on a scale of destructive to constructive)? What about offense vs defense - would you open a weak 2 or weak 3 with two aces, or A + a side KQ, etc, or do you prefer a purer hand?

 

Should I just play partner for an "average" pre-empt (say 1 defensive trick) and not worry that he might have something much bigger or much smaller?

 

Thanks,

 

ahydra

[sfi]

The advantage of the wide range is that the opponents may misjudge the hand. The trade-off is that partner may well get it wrong as well, but often it's the opponents' hand so the percentages are in the preemptor's favour. When I play this sort of a style I really want partner to play me for an average hand and any variation is something I have to adjust for. Otherwise, partner will simply tie themselves in knots trying to work out what to do.

[benlessard]

2 aces a void and a side 4 card is too much the hand could be great for 5D and terrible for 2Sx

 

But IMO you shouldnt worry too much about ODR for preempts the same way you open KQJx,KQJx,xx,xxx and Axxx,Axxx,Ax,Axx the same way.

 

What IMO is important is the VUL and the spots of the preempt suit. JT986x,QJT97x, KT987x scream preempt while AJxxxx suggest that another trumps suit may easily be a lot better.

[Lord Molyb]

2 aces a void and a side 4 card is too much the hand could be great for 5D and terrible for 2Sx

 

But IMO you shouldnt worry too much about ODR for preempts the same way you open KQJx,KQJx,xx,xxx and Axxx,Axxx,Ax,Axx the same way.

 

What IMO is important is the VUL and the spots of the preempt suit. JT986x,QJT97x, KT987x scream preempt while AJxxxx suggest that another trumps suit may easily be a lot better.

You open a 12 point balanced hand the same way as a 16 point balanced hand? What on earth is your NT range? :blink:

 

I agree with sfi. I would personally play partner to have more when nonvulnerable and less when vulnerable.

[sfi]

There's a hand in the match writeup in the latest Bridge World where both sides in the final opened 2H on something like xxx A9xxxx Axx x. Not necessarily saying it's for everyone, but preempts are definitely trending towards the less pure variety.

 

What constitutes an acceptable preempt depends heavily on a number of factors: IMPs vs MPs, Vulnerability, seat, bidding so far, opposition tendencies, partnership philosophy, partnership agreements, opposition agreements, how good our partnership defence is, and state of the match/event. And these are even before you look at your hand. There you have to consider suit honours, suit texture, shape, major suit length, outside honours, defence, lead direction (and who's likely to be on lead), suits not yet bid, and holdings in suits already bid.

 

Given this list, it's pretty hard to come up with good guidelines for all situations. The best thing to do in a serious partnership is to sit down and discuss all of these things to arrive at some sort of a consensus in general approach.

 

For example, A8xxxx - Axxx xxx would be a mandatory opening at this vulnerability in some partnerships but unthinkable in others. I'd be less inclined to open it at IMPs, vulnerable, or second seat, but more likely to overcall with a preempt, especially if partner's a passed hand. Your second hand - KQ10xxx Jxx x xxx - looks to me like a 3S overcall at favourable (but not against all opponents, in all situations, or with all partners), but at unfavourable I may choose 1S.

 

Et cetera...

 

In short, discuss with partner and then play partner for a middle of the road preempt in your style. If partner then does something weird after preempting, they have something unusual and you can try and work it out at that point.

[lowerline]

I have an agreement never to preempt in 1st or 2nd hand with 2 aces.

[Zelandakh]

I am a firm believer in wide-ranging preempts in any situation where we think they will be guessing more than us. That is the vast majority of preempt situations. A reasonable approach to quantifying this was given in Robson/Segal's Partnership Bidding at Bridge, using a scale of 1 to 10. If the opponents are not guessing more than us, such as in second suit after an opening pass, then our preempts should be less wide-ranging.

 

Similarly, I hate having rules such as not to preempt with 2 first round controls or a 4 card major or a limit raise in the other major, whatever. Sure, these are guidelines that make a preempt flawed; but the bottom line is that we want partner to be in a better position than the opponents. If we have a hand where we want partenr to raise with any 3 card support, or bid 4♠ over 4♥ with 4 card support, or 3 support and a heart void, then the preempt is fine. If we think doing this would be bad, because we have too much defence for example, then the preempt was wrong even if the position and colours was good for it.

 

In other words, what we care about is that partner can make a decision and is guessing less than the opponents. You can quantify this with ODR and the 1-10 scale as in PBaB or you can just think about possible hands and likely auctions; or just go by feel. The bottom line is that strict rules for all preempts are bad. Rules for specific preempts are ok providing they are well thought out and do not become a straight-jacket.

[mikeh]

I have an agreement never to preempt in 1st or 2nd hand with 2 aces.

I assume you write this on your convention card?

[lowerline]

I assume you write this on your convention card?

 

I will add it right now ;-) Seriously, I always thought this was common bridge sense. Most players around here apply that rule AFAIK.

 

Steven

[Vampyr]

You open a 12 point balanced hand the same way as a 16 point balanced hand? What on earth is your NT range? :blink:

 

13-15?

[fromageGB]

I don't think it matters much what you preempt on, or refrain with, providing your partner is on your wavelength. Certainly I prefer undisciplined preempts, and have an agreement that the primary purpose is to disrupt. Partner knows not to lead the suit if it can damage his holding, and will not prefer my suit to a normal lead of his own, as he knows suit quality may be suspect.

 

Playing sounder preempts helps with the lead and not missing better contracts, but you disrupt less often. It is a trade-off where the partnership should draw its own borders.

[benlessard]

You open a 12 point balanced hand the same way as a 16 point balanced hand? What on earth is your NT range? :blink:

 

I agree with sfi. I would personally play partner to have more when nonvulnerable and less when vulnerable.

 

put one ace too much... :)

[mycroft]

"partner will be usually less harmed than opponents" applies when they get to game as well. The problem with preempting with significantly more defence than partner will expect is that after 2♥-2♠-p-4♠, or ...-and-then-4♠, is that partner doesn't know when to double, when to sacrifice, and when to leave it alone and "hope we've won already". There's also the problem with "partner doesn't know what will make", but everybody mentions that, so I don't pay as much attention to that detail.

 

Now I don't have a problem with impure, or offshape, preempts. I play EHAA after all. But no matter what we've agreed our preempts to be, whether they're Schenken-pure or EHAA-crazy or anything in between, I expect partner to not preempt with a hand that doesn't fit; and if she does, and I make the wrong decision in the end, to accept her part of the responsibility for the wrong decision.

[mikeh]

I will add it right now ;-) Seriously, I always thought this was common bridge sense. Most players around here apply that rule AFAIK.

 

Steven

So you pass as dealer with x AJ9xxx xx Axx, or do you open 1♥?

 

Opening 1♥ actually makes it easier for LHO to come in with spades than does passing, and opening can cause all kinds of problems in a 2/1 style, since partner will get us too high on a lot of misfits. I think passing or opening 1♥ are both losing propositions compared to opening 2♥. I do think that it is important to play decent methods over weak two openings, but surely all serious partnerships have reasonable agreements.

[lowerline]

So you pass as dealer with x AJ9xxx xx Axx, or do you open 1♥?

 

Opening 1♥ actually makes it easier for LHO to come in with spades than does passing, and opening can cause all kinds of problems in a 2/1 style, since partner will get us too high on a lot of misfits. I think passing or opening 1♥ are both losing propositions compared to opening 2♥. I do think that it is important to play decent methods over weak two openings, but surely all serious partnerships have reasonable agreements.

 

With that hand I will pass. I will open x AJTxxx xx ATx with 1♥ though.

I believe there is not much of a disadvantage by passing in 2nd hand. But in 1st hand I hate to pass this.

Also, I am playing Multi. We have good agreements after that, but none that let me find out below the game level whether the weak two contains two aces...

 

Steven

[RSClyde]

I don't really get the issue with having 2 aces. Is it a lot of defense? Sure but so is an A, a K and a Q: unless you don't think that's a weak 2 either.

Standard weak 2's are wide ranging, most people write (at least where I'm from) 5-10HCP. Obviously when you're making any bid that flexible you can cause yourself issues. But I don't see any reason to pick on the 2 aces case specifically.

 

One of my partners opens weak twos with bad 5 card suits. He normally plays with his girlfriend who's pretty weak so he's just trying to generate swings. He loves them in general though. It's too much for me. I want to be able to know the extent of our trump fit to take my best shot at the LTT.

 

Another partner finds all kinds of reasons to talk himself out of opening a weak two. So he passes and the opponent's get to exchange information freely.

 

But my most regular partner and I open weak 2's on anything, but require 6 cards. If we have extra shape: like 6-5, we are willing to bid again/ double depending on the level. I love it. I just apply the LTT as best I can. Beyond that I avoid any decision that will make me look like a hero. If they make their way to a normal contract thereafter, then pass should guarantee about an average board. But I must stay alive to the fact that we may have rammed them into an abnormal contract: if so then double is often unnecessary and saving offers no hope. So our general approach is to make our best guess and then let it go afterwards unless a call seems clear.

[mycroft]

"most people write '5-10HCP'." That's why I ask about their style. Usually, it's not "any 5-10 HCP, 6 cards"; it's "5-10 HCP, most values in suit".

 

The trump A, with an outside KQ is *also* too much defence, just like A A. AKQxxx isn't. AQxxxx with an outside K is about the maximum I'd expect.

 

But some people play much more freewheeling preempts than that - some play much more conservative. But if I ask style, the opponents look at me funny...and then say "oh, she'll have 2/top 3, of course..." After you take those 5-7 out of the equation, there's not much left in 5-10.

[Zelandakh]

Does anyone under 60 still play 2 of the top 3? I guess they also deny a 4 card major on the side or a void.

[CamHenry]

I play relatively conservative preempts in second seat (one+ of the top 3, no side 4cM, no outside ace). Since I open 1X on dross, this doesn't cramp my style much :)

[mycroft]

Sure - with at least two of my partners, I play 2/top 3 or 3/top 5 at least part of the time (granted, with one partner, it's "2nd seat vulnerable"). We don't preempt ourselves out of many games :-). Another partner, OTOH, opened lowball-straight-flush in first seat last week. Hey, as long as I know what I'm getting, I'm good.

 

But my point is, which is the point of the original question, that "5-10, 6 cards" isn't the complete agreement of 99% of weak 2 bidders; and that those 5-10 are much more likely to be values in the suit, and softs outside, than hands with defensive tricks, because those hands tend to lose at 50-a-trick, as well as promoting phantoms (which include, potentially, the opening).

[jogs]

1) T98xxx, Axx, Axx, x

2) Q98xxx, QJx, QJx, x

 

I rather bid 2♠ with hand 1 and pass with hand 2.

[mycroft]

Absolutely. But I'd rather bid 2♠ with Q98xxx xxx xxx x than either of those two hands (provided it's legal in my area)...

[CSGibson]

I've stated this previously, but I was tracking my preempts for effectiveness, playing against only expert competition. What I found is that a traditional preempt (decent suit, no first round controls outside of the suit, expected suit length, no 4 card major) had very little variance with the average - to be expected, I suppose, since everyone preempted those hands. Hands with 1 flaw from the above criteria were huge winners in the long run. Hands with 2 or more flaws, however, were huge losers in the long run.

 

My conclusion was that in that partnership and against good opponents, it was good to expand preempts to be slightly more wide-ranging than traditional constructive preempts without giving up all semblance of constructiveness.