Walddk Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 How do you like this agreement? In 3rd seat non vulnerable against vulnerable a pre-empt (usually at the 3-level) can be most anything. Natural perhaps, but also very unusual. I have the agreement with my favourite partners that we are NOT allowed to join the auction unless we have 7-card support for the "suit". So 3♦ in this position could be xxxxxQJ10xxxxx as well as AxQxAxxxxxxKx or xxxxxxJxxxxQx Needless to say, partner always alerts the pre-empt and explains properly: "Either a standard pre-empt, perhaps wide ranging, or any weak hand, usually 5-cards in the suit. I am not allowed to bid". Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 How do I like this? Not much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 How do I like this? Not much. Maybe you are the one in 4th seat with the powerhouse. Then I can understand :unsure: Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I've been playing like that for 5 years now.. lol. One thing I can say about it: it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytoox Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I think this is in Robson's book on partnership bidding. It works very well. I remembered once I held sth like xxx,Axx,xx,QJT98 and I opened 3C in third seat. On the other hand, I think it is more effective against weak opps. Against good opps I dont think 3m preempt will be very effective. 3M preempt is different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 On the other hand, I think it is more effective against weak opps. Against good opps I dont think 3m preempt will be very effective. 3M preempt is different. It applies to any suit opened. Maybe I wasn't specific in my first post. My apologies. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgr Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Too much for me:I would bid:xxxxxQJ10xxxxx => 3♦ as well as AxQxAxxxxxxKx => 1♦ : Still good chance for 3NT or xxxxxxJxxxxQx => 2♣ with my regular partner. Either weak 6card ♦ or a strong hand. After having passed already he has to bid 2♦ now. 3♦ opening in 3rd hand NV vs V: partner alerts: "Normal preempt, but can be 'gambling' in this position: can be shorter, stronger and weaker".Partner can raise like over a normal preempt, but more cautious. (he does not have to pass). eg: after p-(p)-3♦-(X)He will bid 4♦ with a 4-card ♦, certainly if most points in ♦ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 7-card support is a too strong requirement. If you have the partnership understanding that a preempt could be based on less than four trumps, it is a BSC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 7-card support is a too strong requirement. If you have the partnership understanding that a preempt could be based on less than four trumps, it is a BSC. My irony didn't catch apparently. By the way, it is still possible for opener to have up to 6 card in the suit even if you have 7-card support! The bottom line, however, is that responder can never bid. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I am obviously fully aware of the fact that this approach is very destructive, and some may not like it just because of that. In this context it might be interesting to know that my Danish colleague (bridge manager) and world class player, Lars Blakset, invented Blakset's 2♠ non vulnerable, in 1st, 2nd and 3rd alike, as showing: 0-5 hcp, any shape. An ace not allowed! This is surely even more destructive since there is no known suit, if any. Responder will always pass if his RHO passes, unless he has around 20+ hcp of course. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben47 Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I like it. Always agressive preempting :unsure: It might not be allowed because it is a controlled psych. You might open 3♥ on KJxxxx x xxx xxx and partner is not allowed to bid. After you get doubled you bid 3♠ and partner is still not allowed to bid... And if they don't double they will surely not play hearts... I already play that a preempt in 3rd NV is 0-13, longest suit is the one bid. Do not raise unless you have one more card in support than you would have for the same situation in a different seat. Blakset's 2♠ looks a bit like the Lorenzo 2 bids as now in OltMaas (newer version of OltBrink): NV 1st 2nd seat: Pass: Not an opening bid but at least 8 HCP2♣: 0 - 7 no 4-card major (forced)2♦: multi 2M: 0-7 at least 4 cards (forced) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 It might not be allowed because it is a controlled psych. Blakset's 2♠ looks a bit like the Lorenzo 2 bids as now in OltMaas (newer version of OltBrink) In pairs events surely not, but in longer team matches yes, and definitely in major international championships where you must send your convention card months in advance in order to give your opponents time to prepare a defence. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I should say that, in my experience, the good results don't actually come from opponents missing a slam after an outrageous 0-5 points opening, but rather from opponents bidding to a hopeless game after a preempt in the 12-15 range with fair defensive power. Pard is allowed to bid, but only when he has a decent fit. All his bids are lead-directors or save-suggesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytoox Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 On the other hand, I think it is more effective against weak opps. Against good opps I dont think 3m preempt will be very effective. 3M preempt is different. It applies to any suit opened. Maybe I wasn't specific in my first post. My apologies. Roland I understand you mean any three level preempts. I am just saying 3c/3d would not be as effective as 3H/S. After 3M preempts, opps are often forced to choose between 3N and 4 or 5 level. But after 3m preempt, they can look for major suits fit first, if failed, they can still try 3N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ochinko Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 7-card support is a too strong requirement. If you have the partnership understanding that a preempt could be based on less than four trumps, it is a BSC. My irony didn't catch apparently. By the way, it is still possible for opener to have up to 6 card in the suit even if you have 7-card support! The bottom line, however, is that responder can never bid. RolandIn favourable vulns I have opened succesfully an the 3rd level with as little as QT9xx (yes, 5 cards only, although 6 is better :unsure:). My partner knows I couldn't have an outside Ace, a King is highly unlikely too. Preferably, I won't even have a point outside the suit. It may seem silly but with good distribution we open lightly, so if partner had a 6 card major, she would've opened multi, with a 5 card major and a 4+ card minor - Muiderberg, so it is very likely that opps have more than 30 hcp and at least a small slam when I'm in the third position after two passes. There were times when opps stopped at a game with 3 possible grand slams. Petko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ochinko Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 On the other hand, I think it is more effective against weak opps. Against good opps I dont think 3m preempt will be very effective. 3M preempt is different. It applies to any suit opened. Maybe I wasn't specific in my first post. My apologies. Roland I understand you mean any three level preempts. I am just saying 3c/3d would not be as effective as 3H/S. After 3M preempts, opps are often forced to choose between 3N and 4 or 5 level. But after 3m preempt, they can look for major suits fit first, if failed, they can still try 3N.3m opening could be very effective too when opps have 2 major fits but are able to discover only on of them because of the stolen bidding space. Then they stop in game when there's a slam in their other major suit. Petko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcLight Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 >I am obviously fully aware of the fact that this approach is very destructive, and some may not like it just because of that. Effective or not, I think it makes the game less interesting and enjoyable, all around. I play bridge because I enjoy deductive reasoning, not because I enjoy bluffing games. I would rather play a game I enjoy, such as a deductive reasoning game, than win at a game I don't enjoy, a bluffing game. I read an article by Mike Lawrence where he said it appeared to him that in Europe there was far more emphasis on destructive bidding. Some criticize teh ACBL for not allowing certain conventions, but I enjoy ACBL Bridge more than Destructive Bridge. I am not saying that European or Destructive Bridge is less skillful, or ACBL bridge is superior. I am saying I enjoy ACBL style bridge far more. And I think its easier to get new players involved in bridge with a simplified system, using few conventions, and no destructive bidding, other than ACBL approved pre-empts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Let's put things into perspective. How often do you think this happens? Right, once in a blue moon. It has to be non vul against vul in 3rd seat with a weak hand after 2 passes. I can't see how that will make bridge less enjoyable. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 randomizing results is definitely not my style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 It's not randomizing: it's putting opps to a guess. That is a completely different thing. Of course it doesn't mean open 2S on ANY 0-5 points and 5 carder. You have to look at the hand first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ochinko Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Roland's idea is interesting, and I certainly don't mind disruptive bidding, but actually any preempt carries the meaning of "do Not bid, partner". Standard preempts have the benefit that if partner violates the rule and bids something, I know it's my turn Not to bid further. In Roland's variant all players are in the dark, and partner isn't allowed to bid even to show a lead preference. Sometimes partner may even bid a void, and escape back to my suit after the double. Petko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I like it a lot, of course I think your rules for not bidding are exaggerated, I thgink that the proper way to say it is "pd won't bid with many hands that would over a normal preempt" but of course with an exceptional hand pd will act, specially with support for the suit or when 3NT seems to be a reasonable gamble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben47 Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Why do you see European style as emphasis on destructive bidding? It's just that in Europe there is more variation in the 2-level opening bids. These are no more or less agressive than weak two bids. Besides, weak two bids can be extremele agressive. Ask Marty Bergen for details. These kinds of ideas are btw rarely played. The only thing that I have seen from more than one pair are the Lorenzo two-bids that force you to bid on the 2-level 1st 2nd seat NV with any 0-7 HCP hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted March 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Some criticize teh ACBL for not allowing certain conventions, but I enjoy ACBL Bridge more than Destructive Bridge. I am not saying that European or Destructive Bridge is less skillful, or ACBL bridge is superior. I am saying I enjoy ACBL style bridge far more. Here is another example of an unfounded claim. Maybe one should not generalise just because there are methods where the destructive intent is obvious. Let me focus on the Multi 2♦ for a while. Invented by Terence Reese and Jeremy Flint from England back in the late 70's. The intent was to create a constructive weak 2. That has changed considerably in certain circles over the years, and that is a shame in my opinion. Weak 2's can and should indeed be constructive. Let me use this as an example: 2♦: Very weak with 5+ in an unspecified major, but ......2♥/♠: Constructive with a 6-card suit in the suit bid. If you don't want to play both, I suggest that you use 2♦ as a constructive weak 2 in either major (along with 1 or 2 strong options). I think it's a good thing to have both weapons in your arsenal, and I will never understand why the ACBL gets paralysed every time they hear the word Multi. This convention gave lots of advantages for many years when we people didn't know how to defend against it, but this is actually quite easy in the year 2005 (and has been for many years). I will be happy to give you a simple defence in case some of you are interested. Today, 25+ years later many Americans still don't have a defence. I don't know why that is, but I understand that it's much easier to disallow the convention altogether. Then you won't have to bother about getting a defence. Don't put me in prison. Allow me to play bridge with the convention I like, with certain limitations of course. I have always been against too many restrictions. In most instances my opponents can bid anything they like. I will come up with a playable defence every time as long as I have time to prepare one. It will take you about 1 minute to agree on a good defence against the Multi 2♦. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joker_gib Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 I totally agree with you Roland and I'd like to add : If you kill conventions then you kill the evolution of the game ! By the way, I'm interested in your simple defence on the multi :rolleyes: Alain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.