How much do your pre-empts vary with vulnerability?

[WellSpyder]

The question is prompted by two hands that came up in a county match at the weekend (imp scoring). Both were first in hand:

 

1) Green (NV vs V) ♠53 ♥1032 ♦52 ♣KJ9853

 

2) Amber (V vs V) ♠Q104 ♥65 ♦K1098642 ♣7 (Weak 2 ♦opening not available.)

 

I was intrigued to see all 4 possible choices between bidding and passing on the two hands being chosen at different tables. What would your approach be?

[whereagles]

1. Terrible shape... I'd open a weak 2♣ if available, else pass. In 3rd seat however 3♣ is absolutely normal.

 

2. Always 2♦, even V vs NV. Maybe 3♦ in 3rd seat.

[paulg]

The first hand is a comfortable 3♣. The second I should say that I wouldn't open in a forum but probably find it hard to resist at the table.

[barmar]

2. Always 2♦, even V vs NV. Maybe 3♦ in 3rd seat.

He said you don't play weak 2♦, so that option isn't available.

[barmar]

Both are possible 3 bids in third seat, but I don't open either in first seat.

 

In #2, I play sound 3-level preempts (2 of the top 3) in 1st/2nd seat. If partner has Hx in my suit, he knows that the suit is running and can bid 3NT or look for slam if the rest of his hand is suitable.

[whereagles]

ok. pass then.

[ggwhiz]

Seat is more important than the vulnerability for me, especially 2nd but I would pass both in 1st seat as well.

[Siegmund]

Mine vary by a full trick for each vulnerability change (KQJTxx xx xxx xx is a pass at unfav, 2S at equal, and 3S at fav for me).

 

Of the posted hands, the first I always open at favorable. The second I feel is very borderline, but I could talk myself into it.

[navahak]

"How much do your pre-empts vary with vulnerability?"

 

A bit over two playing tricks between extreme ends.

[mycroft]

Open both 3 at EHAA - both of these are classics. Of course, partner knows what's coming...

 

Playing a real system, I'm not likely to open the second, likely to open the first. However, it strongly depends on the opponents and "state of the match". If I'm ahead - either when it's 0-0 or 25-8 - why rock the boat? If I'm not - why not push? If my opponents are known to "never be preempted" - why not?

 

The other issue, of course, is the 3NT problem. In many of my partnerships, I agree that a 3m preempt (only!) will not be scared to put their hand down as dummy in 3NT. Yes, that means that I can't open on these hands. It does mean that partner isn't guessing whether it's +130 vs +600 or whether it's +110 or -50 vs -150 and "partner will never guess right"(*). If you play a more freewheeling style - especially if you'd also open 3♣ with KQJTxx and a card instead of KJ8xxx and no card - then I'm sure you also have a meta-agreement with partner on the 3NT, and are comfortable consigning your bad results to the "system loss, it works out in general" bucket.

 

(*) That's actually one of the "nice" things about opening these at EHAA - 3 bids are very well defined (if very bad!) Partner won't go to 3NT without a crusher; if she does go, it'll make. The downside is that to do that, the 2 bids are insanely poorly defined, and the 3 bids "never" come up.

[chasetb]

1.) I think 3♣ is clear - we are NV, both opponents are unpassed hands, and our partner should expect a wide range (i.e. this is at the really bad end).

 

2.) At these colors, IF I had a 2♦ available, I would flip a coin. Heads I would pass, Tails I would bid 2♦. Luckily I don't, so a clear pass for me. 3♦ looks suicidal.

[Cascade]

The biggest difference for me according to vulnerability is of the range. I preempt with a much wider range of hands favourable than I do unfavourable. Essentially, I am willing to trade causing the opponents many more problems NV for a few 50s when partner misjudges but not so willing to make that trade when partner's indiscretions cost 100s.

 

It is possible that we will miss games/slams for bigger costs but by not varying so much at the upper end of the range, which are the higher frequency preempts, I expect partner when in doubt to tend to play me for a decent hand whatever the vulnerability. So I am hoping for the costs to be more likely to be 50s (or 100s) than game or slam bonuses.

 

I would pass both hands given and they are not close in my style. I may even pass the second hand if I had a weak two in diamonds available.

[Jinksy]

I generally look for purer hands vul, though I agree seat is a much bigger factor. That said, first in I think vul matters more than anywhere else, and I'd open 3♣ on the first one, unless we had a specific partnership understanding similar to the one mycroft mentions.

 

The second I'm less sure about, but I'd lean towards passing (it's impure, and we have values in the master suit, shortage in the ... what's the opposite of master suit? Slave suit?), so stand to gain less from a preempt).

[PhantomSac]

First seat w/r I think very aggressive preempting is good, with some partners I even play different systems over 1st seat w/r preempt compared to all other preempts (eg 5 card ogust instead of feature, and new suits NF instead of forcing).

 

I am actually pretty sound other than first seat w/r if my partner will play that style. As such, I would bid 3C on the first hand and pass on the 2nd hand (would open 2D if it had been avail)