The 1-level pre-empt

[thepossum]

Once I discovered a method of approaching pre-empts (234) with some flexibility/consideration over when exactly to be light or sound (following Larry Cohen a bit), I realised that you could use the same approach for a 1 level bid with a long suit. I had only ever done it once myself and wondered how acceptable it was. The other day this hand came up, which looks like a weak 2 but in my reckoning isn't at this seat and vulnerability.

So I passed, and bid later, which worked out ok

 

I was pleasantly surprised to see that the top score on this hand was another who occasionally uses a 1-level pre-empt, and didn't feel so alone, knowing that others brains sometimes work like mine :)

Passing and coming in later scored well too :)

 

EDIT Just realised. I am the dealer and we were red versus white. Something went wrong with my diagram

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakt743h93d75ct72]133|100[/hv]

[the hog]

This is a normal weak 2. Passing and bidding later is a poor strategy as the opps have had time to exchange information about their hands.

[thepossum]

This is a normal weak 2. Passing and bidding later is a poor strategy as the opps have had time to exchange information about their hands.

 

...but it doesn't have enough tricks if you have a disciplined approach - I ty to be anyway - especially at unfavourable vulnerability :)

I must admit much of the time I would have opened with a weak 2 but remarkably in this hand that was the worst option. You win some and lose some

By my (and other's) reckoning it had enough tricks for a weak one bid

[P_Marlowe]

...but it doesn't have enough tricks if you have a disciplined approach - I ty to be anyway - especially at unfavourable vulnerability :)

I must admit much of the time I would have opened with a weak 2 but remarkably in this hand that was the worst option. You win some and lose some

By my (and other's) reckoning it had enough tricks for a weak one bid

And at those colors, preempts are the least effective.

 

If you play a natural opening system, the weakness of the system is the spread of the strength of a 1 level

opening, it goes from 11/12 ... 21/..., and this poses already a lot of trouble in an uncontested auction.

If you make the spread wider, it is not going to get easier.

 

Opening the hand in 3rd as 1S is common, I dont do it (*), but I know why it will work, assuming you have some tools

like Drury to help you, if you happen to have a real opening.

Opening 1S in 1st or 2nd position is not going to work, at least assuming in a legal way.

 

(*) I will open at the 2/3/4 level, taking away space.

I also dont understand, why peoble are willing to sac. their constructive bids, only to be able to make disciplined preempts,

but that is just me.

[AL78]

...but it doesn't have enough tricks if you have a disciplined approach - I ty to be anyway - especially at unfavourable vulnerability :)

 

I would say it does have enough tricks. A weak two will typically make five tricks if weak, six tricks if good. There are seven spades distributed across the other three hands. Give a small doubleton to partner and this hand will generate five spade tricks on a 3-2 break, a standard lower end weak two. If you are not going to open a weak two on a hand like this, you may as well take them off your card.

[Cyberyeti]

When I saw the title, I thought of the weak no trump which is known as the lowest preempt in the book. This is a weak 2 in everybody's book, and I absolutely agree with AL78's comment " If you are not going to open a weak two on a hand like this, you may as well take them off your card"

[nullve]

You could switch the meanings of

 

1♠-1N; 2♠ (rebid)

 

and

 

2♠ (opening),

 

except that the 1♠ opening has to promise 8+ hcp in order for the system to not be a Highly Unusual Method as defined by the WBF.

[DavidKok]

The hand is a bit too strong for a weak two at unfavourable first seat, but I'll bid it anyway.

 

First level 'preempts' exist in third seat, though you have to be a bit careful with them. In first, second and fourth seat it is very risky. Partner will play you for a better hand and will often push to 2NT or the 3-level with some values, even without support. I think it is a losing strategy to take 2-level preempts, remove a trick and claim it makes for a 1-level preempt (although something like this works well when considering overcalling a strong club, for example).

 

That being said I think your ideas of a weak two opening are so high compared to what I think is standard that it is entirely possible that there exists a hand that you think is a preempt, while some players will consider it a 1-level opening if you take away a king. The rule of 432 is a very old guideline and not one I'd endorse. Recently there has been some great discussion on preempting in a different thread which I think is much more reflective of modern thinking on preemptive bidding.

[DavidKok]

You could switch the meanings of

 

1♠-1N; 2♠ (rebid)

 

and

 

2♠ (opening),

 

except that the 1♠ opening has to promise 8+ hcp in order for the system to not be a Highly Unusual Method as defined by the WBF.

Partner isn't always going to bid 1NT, this sounds like a really bad idea even if it were perfectly legal.

[helene_t]

You could switch the meanings of

 

1♠-1N; 2♠ (rebid)

 

and

 

2♠ (opening),

 

except that the 1♠ opening has to promise 8+ hcp in order for the system to not be a Highly Unusual Method as defined by the WBF.

What would be the rationale for that? If it goes

1♠-(3♥)-3NT, partner is counting for you to have opening strength.

 

It is somewhat popular here in NW England to play intermediate 2M openings, in combination with junk multi. But this implies that 1♠...2♠ is stronger, say 14-16 points.

 

Ken Rexford argued that in 4th seat, 1♠...2♠ should be weaker than a 2M opening. But again, this is a bit different.

[P_Marlowe]

I would say it does have enough tricks. A weak two will typically make five tricks if weak, six tricks if good. There are seven spades distributed across the other three hands. Give a small doubleton to partner and this hand will generate five spade tricks on a 3-2 break, a standard lower end weak two. If you are not going to open a weak two on a hand like this, you may as well take them off your card.

Red vs. Green 5 tricks are not enough, and than there is equal vul. in 2nd position.

Those are the scenarios, that would make a passing a sensible (minority) option ... assuming your partner

is on the same wave length in this regard, i.e. you have agreed to play such a style, we do.

 

With an unknown partner, I would make the w2.

In my reg. partnership I would pass in above mentioned situations, prepared to accept to pay the price sometimes,

knowing, that we also do collect from this agreement.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pescetom]

I think some of this is related to how heavy your 1M openings are or need to be: I'm comfortable opening that hand (worth 11.2 according to K&R) as 2♠ in 2/1 but I can see that it could look a bit too much for that in a Strong Club system or whatever.

The other issue (at least in WBF land) is that we cannot have an agreement to open this as 1♠ and again I can live with that, although we are at the limit in bridge terms (and over it in third seat, if the TD is a Taliban).

But having agreements to pass with 6 card majors (except perhaps weak 6-4) is not a great idea IMO.

[mw64ahw]

I can see both sides of the argument

 

For a 3-level pre-empt Red vs White I would need 7 playing tricks so following the same logic a 2-level pre-empt would need 6 playing tricks leaving this hand short.

Conversely, using a disciplined Weak2 approach I was taught that I need 2/3 top honour when vulnerable. After Ogust this would be a good hand/good honours for me with 3 controls.

 

On balance I would open with a Weak 2.