A manifesto for mostly aggressive preempting

[Jinksy]

2. Do you have a partner? If I have say xxx Kxxx Jxxxx x I need to save over just about anything they bid if partner has the 1H opening bid that he chose to open 2H. But if he has the 3=4=3=3, we might be down 9 at the 4 level

 

Out of respect for your desire not to get into specifics, I won't say anything more than that frequency of gain is key. Obviously you can believe the odds are not in your favour. Having experimented with this style for years, I can say that I've had the impression of better overall results, and at least not specifically worth. I started doing it experimentally - over time I've been encouraged to keep it. This applies both in high and low-level competition. The weaker the players, the more easily bamboozled they are, but the less efficient use they were going to make of the bidding space I took from them.

 

1. How detailed are your pre-alerts (if any, and if not, why not?)

 

It depends very much on practicality. If I'm playing in a multi-board-a-table tournament, I'll give them as thorough a description of our description before we look at our cards. If it's 3-4 boards against opposition who seem like they might be interested, we might say something like '<base system>, highly variable preempts', with a little more colour if there's time and they seem engaged. If it's 2 boards a table with people who seem like they haven't even heard of weak 2s, I probably wouldn't say anything unless they introduced their system to us (and I would also tend to tone down the aggression, since I doubt I want the variance).

[jillybean]

Variable system and disclosure on perceived "practicality" , interest/competence of opponents? Director please!

[Jinksy]

Variable system and disclosure on perceived "practicality" , interest/competence of opponents? Director please!

 

Get off your high horse. You do not have the time on every set of boards with every set of opponents to fully describe all the relevant aspects of any bidding system, nor do many opponents want you to. In the real world, you have to make judgement calls based on trying to make it a smooth experience for everyone else in the room, opponents included.

 

I suppose you're going to claim you always leave the stop card on the table for a full 10 seconds, always pause for the full 10 seconds if your opponents don't, never fail to produce a pass card to end an auction, and always explain your exact requirements for all 2-level openings, 1m openings and the exact circumstances under which you'd open 1N on a (5422) hand in all four seats before anyone touches a card?

 

Oh, but you don't have to, because your bids are totally compliant with the spirit of the law...

[akwoo]

Get off your high horse. You do not have the time on every set of boards with every set of opponents to fully describe all the relevant aspects of any bidding system, nor do many opponents want you to. In the real world, you have to make judgement calls based on trying to make it a smooth experience for everyone else in the room, opponents included.

 

 

My belief is that a system that cannot be adequately disclosed to most opponents in the available time should not be allowed. I acknowledge there is the problem of how to move the needle on what systems players are prepared to handle.

 

There are some ACBL system regulations that depend on the number of boards played in a round.

 

There are limits on how wide ranging pre-empts are allowed to be on the Basic and Basic+ charts but not on the Open and Open+ charts.

[mycroft]

1. I will note that I tend to agree with almost everybody in this thread. The OP's description I think needs work for general use (I would not assume that any audience I have about "aggressive preempting" would know what ODR was, never mind assume they can work out qualitatively what their hand is on that scale), but for those of us that do have all the terms, fine.

 

2. One thing I definitely agree with is Mike's "there's not enough disclosure about preempt style". Unfortunately, at least where we play, the PTB have decided that this is something that is the opponents' job to find out (hopefully through the CC), not something the players should be alerting their opponents to. Part of it is "Natural bidding shouldn't need alerts except in very uncommon situations; yeah, a few more common ones that do need it might slip through the cracks", but I know that part of it is "where do you draw the line?" (with a side line of "Bracket 1 know what to expect from their opponents, so extra talking is a waste of their time; they also think that is normal, so why should we have to explain 'normal bidding' to non-Bracket 1 players?" - with a huge implied chunk of "why should we get punished for 'technical violations' of Alerting that 'everybody [who can play] already knows' in the Stratified side game with my client?" and I'm quite sure some "frankly, if the opponents don't expect it, that's an advantage I will take. They should know how to 'play bridge'.")

 

It boils down to "the stuff I play is 'just good bridge', and shouldn't have to be explained at the table (or not be legal). The stuff they play is 'there simply isn’t time for even quite experienced players to decide upon a strategy' [if pre-Alerted, which, to be clear, is explicitly not required]. Whether it's "third seat white, our 3♥ call is likely QTxxxx" or "in third seat, our 1M openers could be KQxxx and out" vs "third seat white, our 2♥ call could easily be JTxx" or "in third seat, our 1M openers could be a JTxx 2 count" - both would get the same gasps from my club players [note that both sets of agremeents there are both explicitly legal (open chart, ACBL) and neither Alertable nor pre-Alertable (okay, the 4+card weak 2 is Alertable (Quasi-Natural, not Announced)). But the experts went all "how dare you say we have to warn the opponents we're playing the former" (or worse, until last year, "how dare you say we can't open this hand, it's an obvious 1♠ call!") - and a bunch of the same would hit the ballroom roof if the opponents played the latter - "we need hours/days to come up with a strategy over this clearly destructive call!"

 

And yes, I know whereof I speak, from years of playing 1NT for takeout, EHAA 2 bids - even with the Pre-Alert and Alert, back in the day when that was required - or even a Precision 1♥, whether or not it was "NV, 9s that look like 10s-15" or a more common agreement.

 

"We don't have enough time to prepare against X" is the expert's "we want to play our 'useful system', we just don't want to have to play against their 'crazy bids'." Sorry, you should have agreements against ultra-aggressive preempts, just the same way you have agreements against 8+ 1M openers in a Precision context, or Flannery, or 10-13 2M bids. Frankly, it will be a lot more common (okay, except for Flannery).

 

Should the disclosure requirements be clearer, and probably more detailed, around preempts? 100% yes. But not just "preempts we don't think are good".

Ask a C pair what their preempt style is, and they look at you as if you're speaking Greek. Maybe you'll get a "well, it will be 2/top 3 or 3/top 5 of course, and 6 cards, [but why ask that?]"

Ask a "real A", but not expert, and you'll get "normal". WTH does that mean? And is that any more fair than one pair of my acquaintance's "First two seats, basically disciplined. In third seat, 'she has some hearts and some points" (I wouldn't expect Jxxx, but I would expect both AKJxxx and a card and JTxxx and a card). Or is it just that the experts know what those quotes mean?

 

3. There's a reason I don't play EHAA in a team game - unless the other pair both know we play that and want us to (or if they're also playing EHAA!) There's a limit to the variance I want to bring in preempts at IMPs, or when there are 5, not just 3 opponents (LHO, RHO, CHO, and OTOs?) But at matchpoints, "if you've never gone for 800, you shouldn't be playing DONT" applies.

 

4. Having said that, my most common partnership's preempt style is "very wide-ranging (but normal length), sounder vul and/or 2nd." First seat favourable, Jxxxxx is close to a minimum [Edit: for a weak 2]. Third seat, could be very weak, could be a garbage opener, could be anything in between - and yes, that costs when partner has to figure out what to do against 4♠ later. Does that come under the heading of "experts need to have half an hour to work out agreements against"? Is "not Alerting anything (except the third seat preempts that "could contain 12 HCP"), not pre-Alerting, explaining our style when asked (or when declaring, or when explaining Ogust rebids)" sufficient disclosure? Should it be? Because we're not the only ones. The problem is that I'm not said Bracket 1 pro, so I don't know - all I can do is "follow the explicit rules in the charts".

 

Mike, I come down more than a little hard on you here, and you don't deserve it. I'm sorry. As I said, I agree with you in general, but explicitly the people that created the Alert Procedure say we're wrong. They're very clear on it in fact. Plus, while I'm sure your disclosure is impeccable (no sarcasm), you're catching a bit of the people who (think they) are at your level, who play Blue Club and whose pre-Alert at the time was "some of our bids are canapé", but who made it very clear that good players would need "more time than at the table to come up with a defence to 1NT as a takeout double", with a big side order of "you are very aware of that, and you play it just to take advantage". Or maybe the "we've played bridge together for 1500 masterpoints, but we have 'no agreement' about many auctions" pair (because they deliberately did not have an explicit discussion about it). As I said, I'm sorry.

[nullve]

A 5332 Yarborough has high ODR, because it has some prospect of taking a trick or two in its long suit - maybe three if partner has 4-card support - whereas there's basically no chance of it taking a single trick on defence.

Do you think of ODR as an honest ratio?

 

If so, is it always defined? / What ODR, if any, does e.g.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s65432h432d432c32]133|100[/hv]

have?

[Jinksy]

Do you think of ODR as an honest ratio?

 

If so, is it always defined? / What ODR, if any, does e.g.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s65432h432d432c32]133|100[/hv]

have?

 

I think there's two ways of looking at it. One is a strict ratio, which would still be technically defined on the hand you give since there's some fractional chance of you picking up a trick in the opponent's S contract (or possibly red suit contract if they have to delay drawing trumps. The other is as David said more like the trick difference. The latter is probably a better way to think about it, and I probably overemphasised literal ODR in the first post, though I think both of them tell part of the story.

[Jinksy]

My belief is that a system that cannot be adequately disclosed to most opponents in the available time should not be allowed. I acknowledge there is the problem of how to move the needle on what systems players are prepared to handle.

 

Most people play systems that can't be adequately disclosed. If I go to a low-level UK club, I can virtually guarantee that the partnerships will have some kind of intuitive understanding about when to open 1M with (4432)s, and that none of them will be able to usefully share their intuitions with me if asked. At a stronger club, I'll encounter pairs who seem to be opening 1N on more and more hands, each regular partnership with their own developed intuition on the subject. Many players purport to play 5cMs, but will happily open 1S in third on, say AQxx of spades and pretty much any other collection of nine cards that's unsuitable for a 1 or 2N bid. Against a pro team I once got screwed over because they opened 1D and rebid 2C on a 3145 hand and I had never heard of that being a possibility. If you change the parameters of the opening post to match some other experienced pair's, you're still going to get a complex network of assumptions unique to that pair.

 

IMO the best approach is to just be a decent human about it when it comes up, and give your opponents as much information as it seems like they can profit from given basic time constraints, most importantly including suggesting a defence against your style if they seem uncertain.

[nullve]

I think there's two ways of looking at it. One is a strict ratio, which would still be technically defined on the hand you give since there's some fractional chance of you picking up a trick in the opponent's S contract (or possibly red suit contract if they have to delay drawing trumps. The other is as David said more like the trick difference. The latter is probably a better way to think about it, and I probably overemphasised literal ODR in the first post, though I think both of them tell part of the story.

Ok, I missed this:

 

'ODR' isn't so much of a ratio as it is a difference (which also solves all tricky 'divide by zero' issues)