Designing a preempt structure

[Echognome]

I introduced in another post my nebulous 1♣ opening. I will say that if I looked on the opening alone, I would rather play natural. We gain because (1) we limit our 1M opening and (2) we have the whole 2-level available for preempts. I personally find that preempts are good not only for getting in opponents way, but also for giving vital information for defense. So, given that you have the whole 2-level available, what would your choice of preempts be and why? The system we currently play has:

 

2♣ = 44 or better in the majors

2♦ = Multi (weak major or various strong hands)

2♥ = hearts + a minor

2♠ = spades + a minor

2NT = minors

 

For the why part of our structure, we have found that any bid showing the majors is effective as it's difficult for the opponents to find their 44 major fit that makes even when trumps break 4-1. (We also found that 2♣ lost fewer imps when opponents tried to penalise, but I'll leave that debate aside.) The multi although being a loss when you have a major suit preempt is a space-saving bid and also relieves some of the pressure on our strong openings. I'm fairly neutral about the dutch openings. They seem to create some problems in the bidding for both sides, although since we play them we can usually judge better than our opps. I'm not a fan of the 2NT bid as it is currently, but our options are limited. We will probably switch to bad preempt in a minor. Our options are fairly limited on that. I am applying that the EBU allow transfer preempts at Level 4 (say roughly our midchart), for the main reason of taking some bids out of our strong opening.

 

I also want to bring up the question of strength. I have heard said that "there should not be a gap between your preempts and your opening bids." We do not follow this doctrine. Our preempting strength (with rough hcp guidelines) is:

 

NV

1st: 0-5

2nd: 3-7

3rd: 5-13 (wide ranging)

4th: 10-14

 

V

1st: 5-9

2nd: 5-9

3rd: 5-13 (wide ranging)

4th: 10-14

 

Note that we will pass some hands in 1st and 2nd that others will open with a preempt. However, we will also preempt many hands that others will not. It seems to work well, but lots of things work well against the masses. I'd be curious to see what others think about this.

[pbleighton]

Seems good to me.

 

However, have you considered the "simple option" - 5 card weak twos in all suits, suit quality no an issue not vulnerable, cowardice permitted when vulnerable? It has the huge advantage of frequency.

 

Some people discount natural 2m openings, but I have found them to be very effective. Opps have three possible games to investigate, which can tie them in knots. They also have a proclivity for marginal 2M overcalls, which can be very profitable.

 

In response, I play a new suit at the 2 level as to play.

 

I like the idea of combining undisciplined shape with a fairly narrow strength range, allowing 2NT to be a GF "show your shape, partner" relay.

 

I realize that this is probably not what you're looking for ;)

 

Peter

[kfgauss]

2♣ = 44 or better in the majors

2♦ = Multi (weak major or various strong hands)

2♥ = hearts + a minor

2♠ = spades + a minor

2NT = minors

Do you play multi-landy (= woolsey except for the double) vs NT? I'm amused that your entire two-bid structure is a 1NT defense (let me know if you start opening 1N for penalties or as a 5+-card minor plus a 4-card major anytime soon) ;).

 

Actually, this brings up something: do you use 2♦ in response to the Ekrens 2♣ to ask for opener's better major (i.e. where opener can only respond 2♥ or 2♠)? This is how I (and most other people) play Landy, and it seems a really good idea here. You'll have plenty of room to find out more about partner's exact shape and strength with a 2NT follow-up, so no need to ever bid above 2♠... and that way you gain the extra safety of opener choosing the suit when responder is 2-2 or 3-3.

 

A slightly related suggestion: I'm suspicious of the 4-4 Ekrens and would prefer it to be 5-4 (one way or the other). If this is the case, you'll actually feel ok bidding this 2♦ ask when 2-2 as you'll end up in a 5-2, whereas if partner can be 4-4, I'll be tempted to pass 2♣ or some such depending on my holdings in the minors. I've never really played Ekrens, though, and perhaps the point is to just play those 4-2 fits when that's your fate and hope the rest of the times make up for it.

 

Andy

[joker_gib]

I played that 2♣ with both majors quite a long time but I tend to abandon it now !

 

It works well vs weak opps but when they become stronger this bid pushes them into unbiddable 3NT's where they know all the distribution. ;)

 

Alain

[Echognome]

Peter - I had thought about the 4 natural weak 2's idea and threw them out because of frequency. However, at that time I was considering only 6 card suits. When you mention 5 card preempts you are going to have the following issue: are they exactly 5 carders or 5+? If exactly 5, you are going to be opening on 5332s, or else they will have a side suit. If 5+, do you allow a side suit? Either way, any constructive auction will need to find this out and with too many hand types this would be quite difficult. Also, I don't mind NF responses, but would think that the relay should be next step as in EHAA (rather than 2NT).

 

Andy - I'm sure it will come as no great surprise that our defense to 1NT is our opening 2-bids. This leads to quite a lot of comfort when defending NT as we know all of our follow-up bids as well without any memory strain. We do use 2♦ after 2♣ as bid your longer major, although 2♥ = 44 or 45, whereas 2♠ = 54. We accept on the 22 hands in the majors you will occasionally play in a 4-2, but it hasn't happened yet. It is mainly after 2♣ - (X) that you have to worry and here all suits are in play (Pass = ♣, XX = bid your longer major, 2♦ = ♦, else preference). 4-4 absolutely increases the frequency and we will even choose to open some (weak) NT type hands in 3rd as a wide-ranging preempt rather than as balanced as they tend to destroy the opponents methods and we don't mind playing in 4-3 fits, especially when we are playing MPs.

 

Alain - It's interesting that you found good opponents handled 2♣ well. I found 2♥ Ekren didn't work well against good opponents who played penalty doubles against them. However, after changing to 2♣, they seemed to have worked well. However, I understand your point as any preempt where you end up defending should be giving more information to declarer (but of course also to your partner).

[whereagles]

Natural 5-cards weak 2s in all suits is a good structure. Use it with 5-6 cards NV and 6 cards V, throw-in a relay after 2m to find about side majors (next step) and you're all set.

 

The 2m preempt is far more effective than people credit it for. The reason is after

 

2m-(dbl)-pass/3m-(??)

 

the 4th player is constantly in the dark as to whether doubler really has 4 cards in the major 4th player has. The double can be on 44, 54, 43, or even 33 majors, so the pressure on 4th player is huge. And the responsive double, while being helpful, won't always come to the rescue.

[pbleighton]

"Peter - I had thought about the 4 natural weak 2's idea and threw them out because of frequency. However, at that time I was considering only 6 card suits. When you mention 5 card preempts you are going to have the following issue: are they exactly 5 carders or 5+? If exactly 5, you are going to be opening on 5332s, or else they will have a side suit. If 5+, do you allow a side suit? Either way, any constructive auction will need to find this out and with too many hand types this would be quite difficult. Also, I don't mind NF responses, but would think that the relay should be next step as in EHAA (rather than 2NT)."

 

EHAA uses NF responses, and doesn't have a relay - 2NT is invitational with less than 3 trumps.

 

If you use 2H as a relay over 2D, you lose 2H NF.

 

The 2NT relay works quite well, except for 5-5s. If you are 6-4, rebid the lower ranking suit, and pd can check back. 2x-3x is invitational and 2+ trumps when opps are silent (preemptive when they double or bid, or if you are a passed hand). I do open 5332s - rebid 3NT after the 2NT relay.

 

If you are GF and have a 5 card major or 6 card minor, bid your suit at the 3 level.

 

Peter

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Natural 5-cards weak 2s in all suits is a good structure. Use it with 5-6 cards NV and 6 cards V, throw-in a relay after 2m to find about side majors (next step) and you're all set.

 

The 2m preempt is far more effective than people credit it for. The reason is after

 

2m-(dbl)-pass/3m-(??)

 

the 4th player is constantly in the dark as to whether doubler really has 4 cards in the major 4th player has. The double can be on 44, 54, 43, or even 33 majors, so the pressure on 4th player is huge. And the responsive double, while being helpful, won't always come to the rescue.

I think that undisciplined preempts on 5 card suits are badly flawed.

Run a few simulations can compare this preempt style to one based on assumed fit principles. You'll quickly discover that the assumed fit style is both more frequent and better at finding 7+ and 8+ card fits at the 2 level

[pbleighton]

"You'll quickly discover that the assumed fit style is both more frequent and better at finding 7+ and 8+ card fits at the 2 level"

 

Richard:

 

Without regard to suit quality, 5 card weak 2s in all suits have a 65% frequency in a given point range. What 2 bid structure do you use which has a higher frequency?

 

Peter

[Free]

It's always great to have a preemptive structure, but I wonder what your design-goal is.

- Is it to open as frequently as possible?

- Is it to open solid and find decent games?

- Do you just want to be a pain in the ass for opponents?

- Do you want to find the best possible contract with each hand?

- Open just like the rest of the field?

- ...

 

For instance, if you really want to spice things up and open as frequently as possible, just play Lorenzo-two's when NV (one of my favorites) :huh: Then you even have to alert your pass as 8-11HCP any, which is a great help later on in the bidding.

[Guest Jlall]

Then you even have to alert your pass as 8-11HCP any, which is a great help later on in the bidding.

Yes greater help to the opps when they declare :huh:

[hrothgar]

"You'll quickly discover that the assumed fit style is both more frequent and better at finding 7+ and 8+ card fits at the 2 level"

 

Richard:

 

Without regard to suit quality, 5 card weak 2s in all suits have a 65% frequency in a given point range. What 2 bid structure do you use which has a higher frequency?

 

Peter

Lets consider the following simple case:

 

A 2♦ preempt showing a single suited hand (5332, 6322, 6331)

 

versus

 

a Frelling 2♦ opening showing 4+ Diamonds and 4+ cards in a major (4432, 5431, 5521, 6421)

 

You can certainly increase the frequency of the 2♦ preempt by permitting 2♦ openings on 5-4 patterns and the like, however, this dramatically increases the chance of missing a fit in a side suit

 

(I should clarify an earlier point: Single suited preempts showing a 6+ card suit are VERY good at finding 8 card fit. However, single suited hands based on 5332 patterns are quite bad at identifying 8+ card fits...)

[pbleighton]

"You can certainly increase the frequency of the 2D preempt by permitting 2D openings on 5-4 patterns and the like, however, this dramatically increases the chance of missing a fit in a side suit."

 

True, which is why I play them with a 2NT relay response. It doesn't help on the part scores, but the game/slam bidding is decent, as long as you keep a relatively tight point range (I use 9(8)-12).

 

I agree that playing 5 card weak 2s with the only 5 card suit hands being 5332 doesn't make sense.

 

I also agree with your implied point that this style requires a very high tolerance for bad results. It can ruin an otherwise respectable game. It can also turn an OK game into a win. It depends on your attitude towards high variance systems. I know that Justin hates them - if I could play like him I might hate them too (though I doubt it). I know you don't have much of a problem with them. I have no problem whatsoever. To each his own.

 

Peter

[whereagles]

You can run all the simulations you want, but let me tell you one thing: I've been playing undisciplined 5-card preempts on all suits for 5 years now and I am quite pleased with the results. Obviously when vulnerable you don't open 2x on 5 cards, though an exception can be made in 3rd seat and with a really, really good suit (KQJ98 or similar).

 

I should add that most of the points won with this style of openings are when opps overbid to a game that doesn't make.

 

So.. yeah, I think this style, while arguably a bit reckless, actually works well in practice.

[glen]

You can run all the simulations you want, but let me tell you one thing: I've been playing undisciplined 5-card preempts on all suits for 5 years now and I am quite pleased with the results. Obviously when vulnerable you don't open 2x on 5 cards, though an exception can be made in 3rd seat and with a really, really good suit (KQJ98 or similar).

 

I should add that most of the points won with this style of openings are when opps overbid to a game that doesn't make.

 

So.. yeah, I think this style, while arguably a bit reckless, actually works well in practice.

Not vulnerable 5 card weak twos declared by a component player are quite effective except against very good+ players that like to defend doubled contracts a lot. Against these you should tighten up when they come to the table. Also tighten up when already winning the KO or Swiss match etc.

 

If you want reckless, not vulnerable:

 

2♣: less than an opening bid, 3+♣s, no other five card suit

2♦/♥/♠: five card or longer suit, less than an opening bid

 

Over 2♣, 2♦ asks for cheapest 3 or 4 card major, and then 2NT asks again. I recommend limiting the openings to 7 to 10, and passing or opening on three level (with six or longer suit) if less than 7. Vulnerable I suggest the two bids promise a six card or longer suit, good 7 to poor 11.

 

However the proposed structure in this thread (2♣ for majors, 2♦ Multi etc.) is also quite effective. So that begs the question, what is the best?

 

I believe that the 2♣ opening is needed to make the one level openings better defined - for SAYC or 2/1 this can be the forcing opening, while for big club it can handle long ♣s, and in other less traditional systems it can handle some key hand types. I also believe Multi is useful in 1st or 2nd because responder plays the contract (transfer effect) and it frees up 2♥/♠ for other meanings.

 

However there is not a enough of a difference to say that one approach is clearly better than another.

[awm]

Looking at the bermuda bowl covention cards, it seems that this is quite popular:

 

2♥ = weak two in either major

 

Frequently 2♦ is used to show a weak 5-5 hand (some variant of Wilkosz, although often restricted two or three possible suit pairings)

 

Of course, this stuff is not legal under most juristictions.

[tysen2k]

Looking at the bermuda bowl covention cards, it seems that this is quite popular:

 

2♥ = weak two in either major

I remember back from my Bidding System Design Contest that a very effective bid was:

 

2♣ = weak 2 in any suit

 

Also not legal in most places unfortunately...

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

In Innsko I remember encountering a good convention: 2S opening is 4+ cards in any suit. It came up!

 

Later,

Dan

[EricK]

I think playing 2 level bids as 5+ but excluding 5332 hands gets the best of both worlds.

 

Eric

[han]

Going back to the original question (how to preempt with the whole 2-level free), I would like to apply the knowledge we learned in a recent thread by awm. Everybody knows the law "We have a fit, they have a fit", but perhaps even more important to preempting is this new law that was demonstrated by Tysen:

 

:D :D We have the minors, they have a game. :D :D

 

A simple consequence is: we should preempt as much as possible when holding weak hands with one or both minors.

 

You claim that your 2C gadget (both majors) keeps the opponents out of many good major suit games, but I think it is more likely to keep good opponents out of bad major suit games, or allow them to make some of those because they know how the suit splits. And obviously it violates the new preempting law.

 

I suggest the following:

 

2C: 5+ clubs, may have a 4 card major (but not diamonds).

2D: 5+ diamonds, may have a 4 card major (but not clubs).

2H: weak 2 in a major. (I have never played this but sounds like fun!)

2S: both minors, often 4-5 or 5-4, really bad hand.

2NT: both minors, at least 5-5 and good playing strength.

 

Perhaps it is better to switch the meanings of 2S and 2NT, but I like having 2NT available over 2S to ask for the longer minor. Over 2C and 2D I'd use the cheapest step as a relay. I hope that someone will adopt such a minor suit oriented preempt structure, I would love to hear whether it is succesful.

[whereagles]

Talk about reckless.. that structure is insane :D

[han]

The structure is not reckless at all, depends on how you apply it. Nowhere do I state that you have to preempt any time you have a 5-card minor. You can be very conservative and still play the above structure.

 

When vulnerable it might make more sense to play 2H and 2S as honest constructive weak 2's, since another corollary of Tysen's law says that when you have a major, you have game. I like the structure I suggest better when not vulnerable.

[pbleighton]

"I like the structure I suggest better when not vulnerable."

 

Well, let's face it, all of the stuff we've been discussing plays a LOT better NV. Your 2S bid is a bit adventurous, even by my very relaxed standards, but it would be a lot of fun :D

 

Peter

[tysen2k]

I don't think the 2♠ bid is that bad.

[pbleighton]

"I don't think the 2♠ bid is that bad."

 

I didn't say "bad", I said "adventurous" :D

 

Peter