[Jinksy]

My local group asked me to write up my preemption philosophy, so I wrote them this essay as a result. Curious to discuss it here:

When you glance at your hand and see a long flash of colour, a few things should go through your mind before you examine your cards any further:

1. What seat am I in?
2. What has the opponent’s bidding been?
3. What's the vulnerability?
4. What's the form of scoring?

... in approximately that order. Then, when you finally ogle your almost-a-Yarborough, you can add

5. What is my offence/defence ratio (ODR)?
6. Which is my long suit?
7. What are your side holdings?

Breaking each of these down:

1.
In first seat, preempt more aggressively the more favourable the vulnerability. At favourable, you can be as aggressive as in third - the risk of shutting out partner is higher, but you're now shutting out two opponents rather than just one, and if you're looking at a crusty 4-count, the odds are strongly that it’s their hand.

In second seat, preempt conservatively - that is, have good ODR *and* a reasonable hand. Your preempt should be a constructive bid.

In third seat, preempt aggressively at any colours. NV, notice that, because P has failed to preempt aggressively in first, he’s unlikely to have either a dramatic misfit or a spectacular fit for you. However, you can and should also preempt on strong hands. Any 10-14ish hand on which game is unlikely even opposite an average 11-count probably does better by directly bidding the contract it thinks it can make (this is still more appealing when you have a reasonable second action available to you to disclose your strength later if the opps compete). There’s a whole spectrum between ‘preempting conservatively to make’ and ‘basically hoodwinking’ whose ambiguity you should take full advantage of.

When you’ve passed and partner preempts, you should almost always pass - a heuristic I use is 'if one of my cards in support of partner were instead in my shortest suit, how would I bid?' Either partner has been aggressive, and you should trust him to have assumed the support you have, or he's attempted to perfectly place the contract, and your 'competitive' raise might be the thing that takes him one level too high in a contract that was about to be passed out.The value of aggressive preempting comes from the extremely limited time the opponents get to find out whether they’ve been hoodwinked or whether you’ve got a respectable hand. If you give them an extra round of bidding it’s *much* easier for good opponents to penalise you when it’s right. Conversely, passing marginal takeout doubles is harder for them if the preemptor’s partner could have undisclosed 4-card support and an 11-count.

One more bonus consideration in third is 'how strict is the match?' Often if you preempt hyperaggressively in third, LHO will have a beautiful penalty pass but a very strong hand that's afraid his partner won't have enough to make a takeout double - then there's a good chance he’ll tank for a substantial period before passing. If you're willing to call the pigs on RHO for then making a marginal call, you (aptly?) have much higher equity from bidding aggressively than if you would let such things slide.

2.
I'm still figuring out the best approach here, but in general, if RHO dealt and opened the bidding, you can be a *lot* more aggressive. Even second in, if RHO opened, I would treat it as first in - preempt like it's your last night on Earth at favourable, cautiously when vul. Again, you could be shutting out partner, but when you have a weak hand and RHO has 12+, the odds are strongly in your favour.

The less descriptive and the stronger their bid is, the more you should be encouraged, and vice versa. A Precision club or Acol/SAYC 2C bid are begging for preemption. A Precision five-card 1M bid is substantially less appealing to interfere with. Note that you don't have to jump to preempt over a strong 2C bid.

If they've bid a suit, the worst holding you can have in it (either for preempting or bidding directly) is xxx - this is uncomfortably likely to find P with Kxx opposite, losing the first two tricks and then a ruff. Any 3-card holding is pretty bad.

3.
In general, vul is a huge consideration in first seat, a moderate one in third, and a small one in second. In third especially, it matters more the higher the level; you can’t just add a card to the suit and think it’s worth raising the level.

4.
A caveat to 3 is that *at matchpoints* vul in third, you want to be relatively cautious even at low levels - drifting 2 off undoubled for -200 is likely to be a near bottom, and they might be able to penalise you for -1 with similar results.

In general you should be *more* conservative with preempts at matchpoints - if you're doing it right, telephone number penalties rarely happen (unless the opps have something better on), but even NV, -150 can be a terrible MP score. As can +110 or 140 for playing in a 7-card major fit and taking the same number of tricks you would have made in NTs when partner opened.

A partial exception to this is specifically at white. The importance of game is much reduced at MPs, meaning them being vulnerable is less of a flag to a bull, and the value is high of keeping them out of a part score where they might scrape +90 vs your -1, +120 or +140 vs your -2, +170 vs your -3 etc; but also of keeping them out of a part score where *they* go -1 or -2 against your 2M=, -3 against your 2M+2 etc. So your ODR should still be decent on marginal hands, but having the nominal values for a preempt is less important.

I have no opinions on preemption differences at Rubber.


5.
In general, preempt more aggressively with higher ODR. Some things that increase your ODR:
* Long suits
* Non-ace honours and intermediates in long suits
* Second long suits/shortage

Similarly, things that decrease it:
* No long suit
* Non-ace honours and intermediates in short suits
* A (semi)balanced hand

Aces in any suit are fairly neutral.

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. That means in eg third seat, opening such a hand at the 2 (or 3) level is substantially more appealing than a similar hand with 3 or 4 points in side suits. Vulnerability has no effect on this. The idea that you ever *want* cards outside your suit is largely a myth, though the occasional Qx can be a nicely nasty surprise for opps who finesse the wrong way (this is probably more of an upside when the opps are nonvul, since then they're more likely to bid against you).

6.
You want to be slightly more willing to preempt the cheaper your suit. Intro texts seem to keep getting this backwards. If you open N clubs, it's less likely to prevent the opps from bidding N of their suit, which can sometimes allow them to find their game. But conversely
a) they're less likely either to pass you out there when it's right.
b) they're substantially less likely to leave in a marginal takeout double when there’s a chance of missing a major game.
c) hands with long minor suits are unlikely to have a major-suit game, so when you do preempt partner it doesn't matter as much that he can't tell if you have 5 or 6, or have a wide point range.
d) preempting 2m leaves the opponents trying to choose the best of 3 plausible games. Preempting 2M narrows them down to 2.

7.
Preempting is marginally less appealing when your hand has features that give it more game potential:
* A side 5-card spade suit
* A side 5-card heart suit
* A side 4-card spade suit
* A side 4-card heart suit
* A side void

A side 5-card spade suit is usually a dealbreaker. A side 5-card heart suit is more of a deterrent to preempting the better your hand - if the hand might legitimately belong to you, losing a 5-4 or even 5-3 heart fit is quite bad. As your hand gets worse, whenever you're making 4H, they become more likely to have a profitable spade game or sac over it, so a side heart suit can be a reason *to* preempt, since it increases your hand's ODR.

For the same reason, a 4-card spade suit is a bigger deterrent than a 4-card heart suit - but neither really matters much. There's a slight chance you lose a 4-4 game, vs a slight boost to your ODR in your primary suit. In my experience, 4-4 major games with a long moderately good side suit as the primary source of tricks don't play that well unless you've got a double fit - the opps will often be able to force you in the preemptor's hand, making you unable to draw trumps and get over there to enjoy the suit - and when you have a double-fit, it's likely the opponents have a good sac.

Also, a side major gives you some protection against being penalised, since it means the opps are more likely to have major shortage and therefore will be uncomfortable making a takeout double.

A void + a side major is a slight multiplier on all the above side major considerations.

Some hands:

Hand 1: xx xxx xxx xxxxx
Hand 2: xx KQTxxx xxx xx
Hand 3: AQTxxx xx xxx xx
Hand 4: KQT9xx x xxx xxx
Hand 5: x QJxxx xxxx xxx
Hand 6: x QJxxx Jxxx Kxx
Hand 7: xxx xxxx xxx xxx
Hand 8: Kxx xxxx xxx xxx
Hand 9: Qx KJ9xxx KQx Kx
Hand 10: Jx AJ9xxx KQx Kx
Hand 11: x AJ9xxx KQx Qxx
Hand 12: Kxxx Jxx xx xxxx
Hand 13: Qxxxxx xx Axx xx
Hand 14: x xxxxx xxxxx xx
Hand 15: x Kxxxx KQT7x Ax


IMPs
1st in, favourable, Hand 1 is an easy 3C bid. Hand 2 I would also settle for the three level because of the slightly lower(!) ODR, and the fact that it’s a major.

1st in unfavourable, Hand 3 is around the 'minimum' for 2S (but Hand 4 would be at least as good a preempt because of the higher ODR)

2nd in, more or less as 1st in unfavourable. NV I might venture it on an AJTxxx suit

3rd in favourable, Hand 7 is a reasonable 2D or 2H preempt; though Hand 8 is a clear pass; Hand 1 is still a 3C bid; Hand 2 now looks like a reasonable 4H bid. Hand 9 is also a clear 2H bid: try giving partner an 11-count that makes game good and that wouldn't raise even given the above raising heuristic (though it has the downside that after a 2S overcall and two passes back to you, you’ll be uncomfortable about whether you should compete the part score).* Hand 10 is right on the 1H/2H boundary. Partner could have xxxx Qxx Ax Axxx, but every time he doesn’t have that, you stand to do pretty well by starting the auction high - although again if the opps bid 2S you’ll be uncomfortable.* Hand 11 is a lovely 2H opener - you could open 3H, but the 2-level might be the limit for everyone, and if the opps bid spades, you then have a perfect double back in.

* I would err towards passing after P P 2H 2S / P P, since RHO would usually raise with any hint of support, but you have enough defence that P might not find a penalty pass. If it goes P P 2H X / P 2S or better yet P P 2H P / P X P 2S / P P, I would be more tempted to double, since now they’ve probably found a fit.

3rd in unfavourable, Hand 5 is unlikely to end the auction and unlikely to get doubled; Hand 6 is much worse. Stronger hands don't care about vulnerability as much since they’re bidding to make: so you should still bid 2H on Hands 9 and 11. You would probably open 1H on hand 10 though, given the the high cost when partner *does* have the perfect hand.

After RHO opened
4th in after a third seat opening is much the same as a third seat opening, though you might not have space to jump to the 2 level. So Hand 1 is still 3C etc.

2nd in favourable after a Precision 1C opening is much the same again. Uniquely here you have a 1S ‘preempt’ available, which Hand 12 looks plenty for (arguably Hands 7 and/or 8 would arguably also be adequate).

2nd in favourable after an unbalanced 1D opening, Hand 13 looks on the margin but is maybe a little too awkward for a 2S bid. Swap Ds and Cs and it looks biddable.

3rd in white after RHO opened a better minor 1C, Hand 14 is worth a 3D preempt. There's no upside to bidding Hs. Hand 15 is worth a 2D preempt. Your heart partial looks unlikely to be as good as your diamond partial and game-in-Hs-without-them-having-a-good-4S-bid seems unlikely even on the second. There's little point in bidding unusual 2N on either hand without game interest - keep the heart suit as a fun surprise for the opps if they win the auction.


Some other implications of all this
After an auction like P P 2H X / P 3C P or P P 2H P / P X P 2S, responder with a hand such as AQxx Kxxx Jxx xx can actually slow raise partner, since now you know he probably has a decent hand.

One-level overcalls are quite sound, esp NV - with a 5-card suit and less than a 9-count, you'd usually have bid 2. I haven't thought much about the implications of this, but it seems like something you could use to further advantage, eg by slightly lightening UCBs.

Even if you play new suits forcing over preempts, you should probably play them non-forcing over 1st-in NV bids.

I think this is all +EV assuming your cardplay abilities are comparable to the room. If you're substantially better than them, the increased variance will work against you, so you should be a little more cautious.

When a passed hand *does* raise their partner, it should be on a shapely hand. So for when you're doing it constructively, I would suggest having the agreement that bidding a new suit shows your shortage (and a max).

When deciding on a lead, consider the context in which partner preempted. If it was a context that suggested an aggressive preempt, then you should feel no obligation to lead his suit.

When partner preempts NV in 1st, or 2nd after an opening bid by opps, and you have a good hand, accept that you’re in a tough spot. Feel free to bid if game looks plausible, but don’t drag partner to game if he shuts you down just because ‘he should have something’. He is not bound by your quaint Earth customs.

[DavidKok]

A great essay and very interesting read! Your conclusions resemble those of Andrew Gumperz, Kit Woolsey (in 'Matchpoints') and my own. If you're interested I would recommend giving them a read, the arguments are very similar.

There are a few points where I think you might have missed the mark, or at least where I'd be interested to gain more insight into your arguments. I like most of what you suggest though, so all things considered I think our approach to preempts is very similar. Sorted from (I think) most important to least important:

• If RHO has opened in a suit (natural) that is a reason to be more conservative with our preempts, not more aggressive. It is more likely that the opponents own the hand, but they have already communicated more information and will be able to make the right decision more often. You are taking more risk (since they might coordinate a penalty double more easily, having already shown some strength and shape) with a lower upside (the ranges of all their bids are not as wide). Against artificial openings that don't limit shape or strength very well it makes sense to stick your neck out, but generally it's a red flag when RHO opens.
  
• Kit Woolsey mentions there are three risks when preempting (all pass, double-all pass and pass-pass-double-all pass). I think there are some more: partner raising us too high and getting doubled, the opponents bidding a failing contract and partner taking a phantom sacrifice and (less frequently) blowing the lead on defence. I think you dismiss these too easily, claiming that after a can-be-wild preempt partner should almost never raise. Personally I think that [I have 0 HCP but an interesting preempt, partner holding a fitting 12 should know to pass] is less frequent than [partner has just preempted and I have a fitting 9 and opposite a normal preempt it is correct to raise, so I would like to not be barred by our partnership agreement]. Raising a preempt is one of the biggest winners in competitive auctions, applying maximum pressure while being possible on a wide range of hands. The (very) weak preempts, i.e. let's say a king at most, are so uncommon that I think it is losing bridge to build your partnership agreements around them. I would personally recommend allowing partner to raise with 3-card support most of the time (especially with some ODR), and either taking your lumps on the 0-count 5-card preempts or passing those out instead. Keep in mind partner is also more likely to be strong with support if you open without strength or shape, so you are cutting into exactly the hand types where a raise would be welcome most of the time.
  
• I think 4-card preempts fall in the same category. You can systemically include (some of) them in your preempts, but keep in mind that it will significantly hurt partner's ability to get future competitive decisions right, both on this board and on all the boards where you had a more normal 5-card or even 6-card preempt. ODR notwithstanding I think at some point you are just losing on creating more problems for partner than for the opponents. Of course if you use an artificial 4-card preempt that is a different matter entirely, but if I understand correctly you want to include these in natural weak two's (hand 7 at third seat favourable).
  
• Hand 2 has a higher ODR than hand 1. You rate to take at least two more tricks in hearts with hand 2 than you rate to take in clubs with hand 1, while you are likely only getting 1 trick on defense with hand 2. 'ODR' isn't so much of a ratio as it is a difference (which also solves all tricky 'divide by zero' issues) - the goal is to estimate how much better we will do when choosing the trump suit compared to defending, and hand 2 improves by a trick more than hand 1.
  
• I don't love some of your decisions with hands 10 and 11. If(/when) the opponents bid to 4♠, or even 3♠, partner will likely make the wrong decision - i.e. taking a phantom sacrifice in 5♥ with 4-card support, defending when we might belong in a minor suit or pass it out when we can set them multiple tricks doubled. The ODR of the hand is reasonable, but in my opinion the total defence of the hand is just too high for a preemptive bid (more on this in my thread linked at the top). It is probably +EV to preempt these hands in a vacuum, but barring partner from making fitting raises or taking future competitive decisions is so costly that I think it is -EV all things considered. A preempt should hand partner captaincy, not block them.

My calls on these hands at 1st/2nd/3rd favourable or unfavourable, and 2nd after RHO opens in first seat (I just assumed nobody vul) would be:

Spoiler

1st seat fav: 1) 3♣ 2) 3♥ 3) 3♠ 4) 3♠ 5) 2♥ 6) 2♥ 7) P 8) P 9) 1♥ 10) 1♥ 11) 1♥ 12) P 13) P 14) P 15) 1♥
2nd seat fav: 1) P 2) 2♥ 3) 3♠ 4) 3♠ 5) 2♥ 6) P 7) P 8) P 9) 1♥ 10) 1♥ 11) 1♥ 12) P 13) P 14) P 15) 1♥
3rd seat fav: 1) 3♣ 2) 3♥ 3) 3♠ 4) 3♠ 5) 2♥ 6) 2♥ 7) P 8) P 9) 2♥ 10) 1♥ 11) 3♥ 12) P 13) 2♠ 14) P(/2♦) 15) 1♥
1st seat unfav: 1) P 2) 2♥ 3) 2♠ 4) 2♠ 5) P 6) P 7) P 8) P 9) 1♥ 10) 1♥ 11) 1♥ 12) P 13) P 14) P 15) 1♥
2nd seat unfav: 1) P 2) 2♥ 3) 2♠ 4) 2♠ 5) P 6) P 7) P 8) P 9) 1♥ 10) 1♥ 11) 1♥ 12) P 13) P 14) P 15) 1♥
3rd seat unfav: 1) P 2) 2♥ 3) 2♠ 4) 2♠ 5) 2♥ 6) P 7) P 8) P 9) 1♥ 10) 1♥ 11) 1♥ 12) P 13) P 14) P 15) 1♥
2nd seat nobody vul overcall (the open a natural 1♣/1♦): 1) P 2) 2♥ 3) 2♠ 4) 2♠ 5) P 6) P 7) P 8) P 9) 1♥ 10) 1♥ 11) 1♥ 12) P 13) P 14) P 15) 1♥
Note: the last four are nearly identical, which I think is a slight coincidence. Vulnerable or when the opponents opened I think it pays to be a bit more conservative, although there are still differences based on seat (they just haven't come up in your 15 example hands).

Lastly I think hand 3 1st unfavourable is not a minimum for 2♠, though it's not too far off. Most of your example hands. hands 5 and 6 especially, suffer from the fact that preempting will not obstruct the opponents in finding their spade fit very well (in general heart preempts are just not great). I would still bid with them but in general it doesn't pay to take risks with heart preempts. You construct some minimal hand partner might have opposite we have a game on hand 10, but I think that is not the most important criterion. I am much more concerned with partner's options when the opponents interfere at game or partscore level, i.e. when holding a mildly fitting 10-count or somesuch. Not the perfect hand, just an average hand. I think partner will be in an impossible position on those hands, and they will occur much more frequently than the perfect game-going minima. On hand 11: are you doubling if they get to 3♠? 4♠? 3♣? Hand 13, favourable, clubs and diamonds swapped, is not even close to 2♠ over an unbalanced diamond opening in my opinion. If opener has short spades you're likely facing a penalty pass on your left, while if opener has length in spades LHO is probably short, or is in a good position to judge when 3NT is making. The primary way to win on that auction is when the opponents belong in 4♥ and you've made it difficult for them to find it. Unfortunately almost everybody has heart-finding tools on that auction, and partner is unlikely to raise you in your style even with (say) KTx in support. I would pass and hold out for a better suit - I just don't think you're blocking them from their 3NT or 4♥, while the risk of going -1400 or worse is very present on the auction.


The suggested agreement to use shortage-showing bids as constructive raises seems iffy. We are not looking for a miracle game, blast or pass will do reasonably well on shapely hands with support and some values (arguably the good old college game try is one of the highest +EV game tries anyway). It is precisely the choice of game decisions, notably 3NT vs 4M (versus, perhaps, 3M opposite this style) where you gain by going slow, so I think game tries should be reserved mostly for non-fit hands, especially with Hx or xxx support. That being said, opposite this style that usually requires a really big hand (18+ or so) - I play this the same way, and ask all my partners to please smoothly pass out their balanced 16-counts with doubleton support when I preempt.

[LBengtsson]

An interesting read! But would some of the preempts be allowed would be my first question? Having a partnership understanding of bidding garbage in 1st (or 2nd or 3rd) seat might not go down with the ABCL or other bridge organisations. To me, bridge is a far superior game to poker, and whilst there is a gambling element throughout bridge also, reducing it to risk-taking by changing the parameter of 'normal' pre-empts could be bad for the game generally. Just my opinion.

I come from the land of Ekren, Scandi preempting. Ekren is an aggressive pre-empt but is a well-defined convention. I guess that the English Multi is a similar bridge convention. Within a convention I think it is acceptable, but outside it it raises ethical problems maybe? I am interested what other players think.

[DavidKok]

I can't speak for Jinksy but my personal style is aggressive but disciplined - at least, in my own opinion. I prefer to base my preempts on ODR rather than strength, on vulnerability and seat before length. So, as an extreme example, ♠Txxxx, ♥AJ, ♦ATxxx, ♣x would not be suitable for a 5-card weak two (or for a Muiderberg, for that matter) in my partnership style regardless of seat and vulnerability, and we have to choose between pass or 1♠. The preempts are, arguably, equally well-defined. Just not along the axes of HCP, strength in the long suit and length, but along the axes of ODR and defensive tricks and how those vary with seat and vulnerability.

It is important to be clear about your agreements. I think weak two and three bids (may be a 4-card suit) are legal even if you sometimes bid them on 0HCP - at the very least they are not brown sticker as long as you don't start preempting on 3-card suits. But it is important to be clear about your agreements, both with your partner and to your opponents. I alert our preemptive bids just to be clear, which is honestly not ideal as it slows down the bidding and may annoy people. Personally I think it is the lesser of evils, though. In the past I had a few misunderstandings where we announced "weak two, can be five" before the match and the opponents interpreted that as "when favourable we go a little crazy and might have a 5431-shape" instead of our "we will preempt you with a suitable 5332 even at unfavourable".

We do have one more unusual agreement, which so far seems to be a big winner. At favourable first or third seat only we play that weak two's and weak three openings show the same hand types (both may be a 5 card suit), but the 3-level bids have (almost) all their strength in the long suit with 0-0.5 tricks outside, while the 2-level bids promise approximately a trick in an outside suit. Most 'classical' 3-level openings open at the 4-level instead. Opening 3♠ on a weak 5-card suit turns out to be a big winner and the constructive tools we have over 2-level preempts let us sort out the side values most of the time, without putting partner to a guess when it comes to bidding one more.

[Jinksy]

Hi David, thanks for the in-depth reply Out of curiosity, where in the Netherlands do you live? My profile is out of date, and I now live in a small town between Amsterdam and Utrecht.

I'll check out the essays you linked later (also the specific bids, in case there's anything in there that surprises me based on what you've said). For now, going through your points in order:
1. I think there's probably a lot of nuance in this area, and it's broadly the part I feel like I've explored least, but it's also the part I think everyone else has explored least - presumably because there's so many possibilities of what and in which seat the opps have opened.

I definitely think that second in when opps have opened you should be substantially more aggressive than second in when they haven't (assuming you agree that you should be conservative when they haven't) - though there's a lot of space to argue by how much, and with how much dependence on what they've bid. Obviously in 4th the concept of classical preemption doesn't even make sense unless they've opened. In third there's IMO the strongest case for it making less of a difference (or even pushing you towards conservatism). There are a few things to consider separately:

• 'The opps are more likely own the hand when they've passed' pushes towards preempting aggressively
  
• 'The opps have already communicated more information and will be able to make the right decision more often' pushes towards conservatism if true, but I don't think it obviously is. The range of hands that will pass (especially if they also play aggressive preempts) doesn't seem that much higher than the range of hands that would open something generic like a short club.
  
• 'You are taking more risk' again pushes towards conservatism if true, but again I'm not sure how much I believe it. A passed hand can reopen with a takeout double very aggressively, since their partner won't get carried away. But if you've opened some generic hand like QTx Qx KQxx KJxx or QTxx Qxx KQx AJx first in unfavourable and LHO's 2H comes back to you, how keen are you to double? There's so many ways it could go wrong, and only really one way it can end well. And knowing this, the person to the left of opener, sitting on something like Axxx KJ8x Ax Qxx is under heavy pressure not to risk a passout. Ie when their partner has opened, there's a smaller range of hands that can make a trap pass. One seldom-discussed upside of aggressive preempting is that it increases the chance that the partner of the trap passer also has length in your suit, and therefore can't actually make a takeout double.

2, 3, and 5. Most of what you're saying here seems to be based on a first seat opening, and I'm not against furthering the preempt on those - albeit somewhat conservatively due to partner's probable aggression. The times when I don't want partner to raise is when he's a passed hand. In such cases raising a preempt high risk for low reward even if you play classic preempts, since the opps have uncontroversially communicated more (because they've had more calls) - and opposite a hyperaggressive style, it's just penalising partner for having already assumed your fit and raised to the hoped-for level (Mike Lawrence discusses this in The Complete Guide to Passed Hand Bidding - his summary of the chapter on what to bid opposite a preemptive raise when you've passed is something like 'this one is easy. Don't.')

Opposite strong 3rd seat openings, phantom sacs over 4S should be virtually nonexistent. Partner would need something like 1552 or better to justify it, but on such a hand, with this preempting philosophy, he would have had an opening 2-or-3 D-or-H bid if NV. Vulnerable you'll miss the occasional profitable sacrifice, but that seems incredibly rare.

'A preempt should hand partner captaincy, not block them.' - strong disagree in third. Partner's pass handed you captaincy. He doesn't get to take it back just because you've moved the auction up a level.

4. Yeah, ODR is an imperfect concept. I think there is something ratio-like about it in that, although in the play there are only 14 possible outcomes, in the bidding you're trying to figure out expectation, which is effectively a real number. Fwiw, I'm much more confident about what one should do with Hand 1 than Hand 2. Obviously the former is rarer, but a) less 'pure' versions of it are common enough, and b) partner isn't supposed to place you with Hand 1 for a 3C bid. He's supposed to recognise that you have a wide range, bid on when it makes sense, and occasionally be disappointed (but even then you tend to get silly inconsequential results like 3N-4 for 2 IMPs away when the opps were making 3S at the other table). And the number of times I've seen competent opponents end up somewhere ridiculous after a bid like this is incredible.

Re you subsequent discussion points:

Quote

I think hand 3 1st unfavourable is not a minimum for 2♠, though it's not too far off

I don't feel strongly about this, though would caveat that I don't mean 'minimum' to refer to points, but to refer to an abstract all-things considered suitability. Give it a 6331 shape or better, and I would do it with at least a point less. Though I suppose I would do it on the same hand with a queen in one of the side suits, so it's not exactly minimum suitability either (or, perhaps I'm underrating overall strength of hand in this position, when we're basically making a constructive bid).

Quote

Most of your example hands. hands 5 and 6 especially, suffer from the fact that preempting will not obstruct the opponents in finding their spade fit very well (in general heart preempts are just not great). I would still bid with them but in general it doesn't pay to take risks with heart preempts.

This cuts both ways. The opps are more likely to bid spades over you, correctly or otherwise, so both the risks and rewards are lower, and you have to decide which decrease is more significant. IMO the lower risk matters more - I would be much more hesitant to open 2S on Hand 5 with the hearts and spades reversed. When they do bid spades over me, I'm delighted - they would have done anyway, but now they still have to find the right level and confirm that spades is the correct strain (maybe 3N would be better) with about a 16th of the theoretical bidding space. In practice if you reversed the majors I would probably still bid 2S on that pure a hand, but whereas I *might* hold my nose and open 2H on Hand 6, reverse the majors and I would certainly pass.

Quote

On hand 11: are you doubling if they get to 3♠? 4♠? 3♣?

Respectively: probably not, but it depends on vul, scoring and how they got there; no; no

Quote

Hand 13, favourable, clubs and diamonds swapped, is not even close to 2♠ over an unbalanced diamond opening in my opinion

I could certainly be persuaded on this. My instinct is that what you're saying is at least partially informed by fear as well as odds - there's no a priori reason to suspect E will have spade shortage, and if he has distributions like 1255, 1264 and so on, he might not want to risk the X. But I rarely get to play against unbalanced diamonds, so don't have a well-developed intuition.

Quote

The primary way to win on that auction is when the opponents belong in 4♥ and you've made it difficult for them to find it.

That doesn't sound right. I would say comparably high EV outcomes are: opps miss a good competitive part score; P competes to 4S (he knows I've at least got spade length here, so is perfectly entitled to compete); opps end at the wrong level; opps miss 3N.

Quote

The suggested agreement to use shortage-showing bids as constructive raises seems iffy. We are not looking for a miracle game, blast or pass will do reasonably well on shapely hands with support and some values (arguably the good old college game try is one of the highest +EV game tries anyway). It is precisely the choice of game decisions, notably 3NT vs 4M (versus, perhaps, 3M opposite this style) where you gain by going slow, so I think game tries should be reserved mostly for non-fit hands, especially with Hx or xxx support. That being said, opposite this style that usually requires a really big hand (18+ or so) - I play this the same way, and ask all my partners to please smoothly pass out their balanced 16-counts with doubleton support when I preempt.

Again, it sounds like you're talking about first-seat preempts, which I didn't mean this to apply to. P obviously can't have a 16 or 18 count as a passed hand! When you have passed, the sorts of hands that want to invite game are those with a couple of bullets, 3- or preferably 4-card support and a singleton. Obviously that's nowhere near enough to make opposite many of the hands I've given, but should be enough opposite the strong hands, holding which P will almost always accept. The sad moments are when P has relative junk and you go (an extra trick) down, but usually then the opps were making at least a decent part score, and are very unlikely to be able to double you.

[Jinksy]

LBengtsson, on 2023-February-13, 07:06, said:

An interesting read! But would some of the preempts be allowed would be my first question? Having a partnership understanding of bidding garbage in 1st (or 2nd or 3rd) seat might not go down with the ABCL or other bridge organisations. To me, bridge is a far superior game to poker, and whilst there is a gambling element throughout bridge also, reducing it to risk-taking by changing the parameter of 'normal' pre-empts could be bad for the game generally. Just my opinion.

I don't know about US regulations - they seem stricter than almost any other country, and I don't live there, so I've never paid much attention.

Respectfully disagree on your sense of what it does to the game. I'm not really sure why gambling via preempts would make the game worse than gambling via risky plays, pushy game bids, psyches, or any of the other elements that make the game so rich. For me, aggressive preempting is a calculated strategy like any other.

Quote

I guess that the English Multi is a similar bridge convention. Within a convention I think it is acceptable, but outside it it raises ethical problems maybe? I am interested what other players think.

For what it's worth, while I enjoy both playing and playing against the multi, I think it has much worse ethical problems than anything I've written. IMO the best defence to preempting the way I've described is 'takeout doubles and good judgement', so it doesn't disadvantage anyone except inasmuch as 'some people having better judgement' disadvantages people. Whereas pairs playing the multi tend to get a huge and arguably unfair advantage from the fact that so few people have any defence to it, both because of its artificiality and because defences have to deal with so many unique edge cases (which can vary substantially depending on which version of the multi your opps actually play - weak-only vs a fully forcing 2D, for example).

[DavidKok]

Jinksy, on 2023-February-13, 08:52, said:

Hi David, thanks for the in-depth reply Out of curiosity, where in the Netherlands do you live? My profile is out of date, and I now live in a small town between Amsterdam and Utrecht.

I live in Leiden, so we're practically neighbours

Several responses share the theme of partner being a passed hand. My comments were directed to preempts in general. If we take a naive view only a third of all preempts will be third hand (first, second or third respectively) but the real number is much lower - first hand will open approximately 45-60% (depending on aggression) of hands these days, and conditional on a pass second hand will open approximately 50-65% (the average number of points in the second hand is higher when we condition on a first hand pass). Go wild in third seat, but getting P-(P)-? to you will happen only 20-30% of the time, before splitting it into the hand types you might have. The wider range will let one push up the numbers, but I think the majority of preemptive bids are not taken in third seat. I was trying to focus on all of them but will split my comments into third hand (i.e. partner has passed) and other (partner is unlimited).

Jinksy, on 2023-February-13, 08:52, said:

1. I think there's probably a lot of nuance in this area, and it's broadly the part I feel like I've explored least, but it's also the part I think everyone else has explored least - presumably because there's so many possibilities of what and in which seat the opps have opened.

I definitely think that second in when opps have opened you should be substantially more aggressive than second in when they haven't (assuming you agree that you should be conservative when they haven't) - though there's a lot of space to argue by how much, and with how much dependence on what they've bid. Obviously in 4th the concept of classical preemption doesn't even make sense unless they've opened. In third there's IMO the strongest case for it making less of a difference (or even pushing you towards conservatism). There are a few things to consider separately:

• 'The opps are more likely own the hand when they've passed' pushes towards preempting aggressively
  
• 'The opps have already communicated more information and will be able to make the right decision more often' pushes towards conservatism if true, but I don't think it obviously is. The range of hands that will pass (especially if they also play aggressive preempts) doesn't seem that much higher than the range of hands that would open something generic like a short club.
  
• 'You are taking more risk' again pushes towards conservatism if true, but again I'm not sure how much I believe it. A passed hand can reopen with a takeout double very aggressively, since their partner won't get carried away. But if you've opened some generic hand like QTx Qx KQxx KJxx or QTxx Qxx KQx AJx first in unfavourable and LHO's 2H comes back to you, how keen are you to double? There's so many ways it could go wrong, and only really one way it can end well. And knowing this, the person to the left of opener, sitting on something like Axxx KJ8x Ax Qxx is under heavy pressure not to risk a passout. Ie when their partner has opened, there's a smaller range of hands that can make a trap pass. One seldom-discussed upside of aggressive preempting is that it increases the chance that the partner of the would-be penalty passer also has length in your suit, and therefore can't actually make a takeout double.

I'm a fan of being aggressive against a Dutch/Balanced club (i.e. contains most or all of the 12-14 balanced hands, as well as long clubs hands, as well as most or all of the 18-19 balanced hands or so) and similarly aggressive over a Precision 1♦. It is nearly impossible for the opponents to cater to all of strong, unbalanced with clubs and weak-notrump-with-a-doubleton-in-our-suit while maintaining the option to trap pass/penalise, so this is almost completely safe. But be well aware that it's still a gamble of sorts - you need to not go past the PAR (or get rescued from it by the opponents) and your partner needs to be in on the joke.
Over any other opening, notably the unbalanced diamond, 1M openings, Precision 2♣ and others, the information advantage outweighs the preemptive effect in my experience. As you pointed out preempting in a major suit has the twin effects of reducing bidding space but also virtually eliminating some possible final contracts for the opponents. I think modern gadgets after interference of our opening (to name a few: Lebensohl/Rubensohl/Tranfer Lebensohl, Good/Bad NT, Transfer responses, Scrambling NT, even humble negative and takeout doubles) will very frequently get both the partscore and game decisions right. Ironically people struggle more with 1♦-(2♣) than 1♦-(2♥), in my experience.
The hand example you give (QTx Qx KQxx KJxx or QTxx Qxx KQx AJx opposite Axxx KJ8x Ax Qxx) we would just blast 1♣-(2♥)-3NT. If you stay out of the auction we would likely get to the same contract. I am not sure what is gained by preempting in this case? I'm not too worried about going for a number over a balanced club, but all other openings bring significant risk.

"The range of hands that will pass (especially if they also play aggressive preempts) doesn't seem that much higher than the range of hands that would open something generic like a short club." - I think this is a significant mistake. If you split it by HCP ranges it seems (naively) true - pass shows approximately 0-10, opening shows 11-24. But the opening bids (almost) all convey significant shape information, which is far more important for competitive decisions than that extra jack or queen partner may or may not have. Also by frequency weaker-than-an-opening is much more common than opening strength (by my earlier figures - the 45-60% includes all weak bids). By interfering only after the opponents have opened they are in a much better position to evaluate their combined fit in the majors and their game prospects. And even though I mentioned earlier that you can go wild against a balanced club, it is still a downside to face (1♣, presumed to be 12-14 balanced any until proven otherwise)-2♥ compared to just 2♥ in first seat. Put differently, if, whenever my LHO preempted, I could roll back the board and open 1♣ first on appropriate hands, I would.

Jinksy, on 2023-February-13, 08:52, said:

2, 3, and 5. Most of what you're saying here seems to be based on a first seat opening [...]

Opposite strong 3rd seat openings, phantom sacs over 4S should be virtually nonexistent. Partner would need something like 1552 or better to justify it, but on such a hand, with this preempting philosophy, he would have had an opening 2-or-3 D-or-H bid if NV. Vulnerable you'll miss the occasional profitable sacrifice, but that seems incredibly rare.

'A preempt should hand partner captaincy, not block them.' - strong disagree in third. Partner's pass handed you captaincy. He doesn't get to take it back just because you've moved the auction up a level.

That's not at all what I'm saying. Raising a preempt is effective in both first and second seat, and profitable sacrifices or even preemptive sacrifices to up the pressure are quite common. Your claim that partner needs a 5521-shape opposite your preempt is a great example of my point - opposite a somewhat sound preempter it would take far less shape to find a winning raise, and you are giving up on this (in my experience, far more common) scenario. Taking away the opponents' cheap cue bid, 3-level asking tools to explore 3NT or even some slam gadgets is hugely valuable. I think the very weak preempts you wish to include do not offer sufficient compensation for giving up on all of this. Stay aggressive but let partner in on the problem. You've got high ODR with a single suit - if partner's hand has support and high ODR the baddies have a good contract coming their way, so jam the auction!
Third hand preempts shouldn't be raised that often so you can be more flexible here.
Passing does not hand partner captaincy. A pass is wide-ranging on both strength and shape. You're fooling yourself if you think you know the limits of your combined strength as soon as partner passes.

Jinksy, on 2023-February-13, 08:52, said:

4. Yeah, ODR is an imperfect concept. I think there is something ratio-like about it in that, while in the play, there are only 14 discrete possibilities for how many tricks you can take, in the bidding you're trying to figure out expectation, which is effectively a real number. Fwiw, I'm much more confident about what one should do with Hand 1 than Hand 2. Obviously the former is rarer, but a) less 'pure' versions of it are common enough, and b) partner isn't supposed to place you with Hand 1 for a 3C bid. He's supposed to recognise that you have a wide range, bid on when it makes sense, and occasionally be disappointed (but even then often you get silly results like 3N-4 for 2 IMPs away when the opps were making 3S at the other table). And the number of times I've seen competent opponents end up somewhere ridiculous after a bid like this is incredible.

I like the 3♣ opening in first and third seat favourable (as shown in my table of choices as well) on hand 1, but the ODR is lower than hand 2 all the same. I think the concept is very helpful.
Technically you're trying to figure out the distribution of possibilities during the auction, of which the expectation is only an imperfect point estimate. But the fact that we're using simplified tools to assist in high level discussions does not dismiss these tools. It is still worth knowing whether hand A has higher or lower ODR than hand B, to help us with choosing a bidding strategy.

Jinksy, on 2023-February-13, 08:52, said:

Re a couple of your closing points:

I don't feel strongly about this, though would caveat that I don't mean 'minimum' to refer to points, but to refer to an abstract all-things considered suitability. Give it a 6331 shape or better, and I would do it with at least a point less; though I suppose I would do it on the same hand with a queen in one of the side suits.

What made you think I was talking about points?! I'm saying you can turn it into AJ8xxx xx xxx xx and it's still wise to open 2♠ first unfavourable. I'll even take AQTxx xx xxx xxx!

Jinksy, on 2023-February-13, 08:52, said:

This cuts both ways. The opps are more likely to bid spades over you, correctly or otherwise, so both the risks and rewards are lower [..]

The risk is not getting doubled and going for a number. That was a problem 50 years ago, we got over it on account of it never happening. The risk is that partner will make wrong competitive decisions, push to thin games or stay out of good ones, make a phantom sacrifice (preemptive or otherwise) or fail to find a good sacrifice had you taken a slower route, or even that the PAR is 1NT making your way while you silently go three off in a 5-1 fit. With that in mind I think your comments here fail to address my concerns. These risks are as great in hearts as they are in spades, but now the opponents will likely get to 4♠ when it right while bidding hearts over our spades comes with higher requirements. You also can't say "partner isn't supposed to make difficult competitive decisions now" since half the time it would have been right to bid on, and you don't know which half.

Jinksy, on 2023-February-13, 08:52, said:

I could certainly be persuaded on this. My instinct is that what you're saying is at least partially informed by fear than odds - there's no a priori reason to suspect E will have spade shortage, and if he has distributions like 1255, 1264 and so on, he might not want to risk the X. But I rarely get to play against unbalanced diamonds, so don't have a well-developed intuition.

It's mostly inspired by all the +1100's I'm picking up over my 1♦ . But more to the point, conditional on me having an unbalanced diamond and my LHO having a weak hand with spade length (say, 6(+)) I will have a 1=4=5=3 or 1=3=5=4 a large fraction of the time, so partner can frequently make a good guess. Also the 3-level is nearly always safe with some tolerance for diamonds so the pressure on partner is greatly reduced compared to, say, 1♣-(2♠). Lastly you only need some very simple gadgets to distinguish both-minors hands from hearts-hands from game-going hands and all is well. 1=2=5=5 and 1=2=6=4 are perfect hands to double with when it comes back to opener, partner knows you will often not have 4 hearts for this and will choose diamonds with tolerance or 2NT with hearts + a minor.


Shape-based game tries after a third hand preempt really don't sound great to me. We are almost always outgunned, bidding on shape rather than strength. Never mind game, get partner ready for the possible competitive decision at the 4-level. Make a fitbid or a weak raise or an artificial strong raise to tell partner of our shape and defensive strength. Whether or not we can take 10 tricks is of secondary concern.

[LBengtsson]

Jinksy, on 2023-February-13, 08:58, said:

Respectfully disagree on your sense of what it does to the game. I'm not really sure why gambling via preempts would make the game worse than gambling via risky plays, pushy game bids, psyches, or any of the other elements that make the game so rich. For me, aggressive preempting is a calculated strategy like any other.

Given that psyches are generally where a director gets involved, how do you draw the line between a psyche and a aggressive pre-empt? There is a choice when you mention "risky plays, pushy game bids, etc." but preempting with c*** is going against the spirit of the game, I feel, especially preempting in first position. There are times where it is right and acceptable to preempt with garbage. But opening 3♣ with xx xxx xxx xxxxx at white/red is no more than a psyche imo.

These tactics might be acceptable to players at expert/world class level, but it comes across imo as pure bullying if used on lesser players in a club environment or a lower grade tournament. There are defenses to Ekren and the Multi, and even I think that in some bridge environments that using such conventions like these can harm the game. Good players should win by judgement, not chancing.

Call me "old" and "primitive" for stating this, but the soul of the game is at stake here where aggression wins over skill. I love to see an expert player make a slam with a complex squeeze, but I am less impressed where a chance bid gains a profit. Is it psychology? well, if it is then bridge is being reduced to the status of poker if that happens.

[Jinksy]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-13, 09:57, said:

I live in Leiden, so we're practically neighbours

<apologies for the angle brackets quoting - BBO told me I'd exceeded my quote quota!>

Tell me where I should play! Atm I only have access to one bridge club, but I'd like to explore more soon

> I think the majority of preemptive bids are not taken in third seat.

There's also the ones where RHO opened, and fourth seat when third seat opened. I don't think we disagree on much of substance re the 1st and second seat ones, so I just don't think there's much to discuss there.

> As you pointed out preempting in a major suit has the twin effects of reducing bidding space but also virtually eliminating some possible final contracts for the opponents.

The point wasn't that preempting a major actually helps them conditional on you having such a hand - the chance that they were about to play in your major is very low - but that preempting a minor does more damage conditional on you having that a minor-suited hand. Taking up their auction space is always going to be +EV on the assumption that they then bid over us.

> I think modern gadgets after interference of our opening (to name a few: Lebensohl/Rubensohl/Tranfer Lebensohl, Good/Bad NT, Transfer responses, Scrambling NT, even humble negative and takeout doubles) will very frequently get both the partscore and game decisions right.

These help, but they don't change the fundamental maths that your opponents now have a tiny fraction of the bandwidth that they had. Often they'll land in awkward Moyesians, 3N missing a stop in a side-suit, stop a level too low, stop a level too high, lose their minor suit, etc. I assume you basically agree with this, from your preempts in the first comment.

> Ironically people struggle more with 1♦-(2♣) than 1♦-(2♥), in my experience.

I agree, I think there's a case for treating that as more of a preempt than a constructive bid - especially third in.

> The hand example you give (QTx Qx KQxx KJxx or QTxx Qxx KQx AJx opposite Axxx KJ8x Ax Qxx) we would just blast 1♣-(2♥)-3NT. If you stay out of the auction we would likely get to the same contract. I am not sure what is gained by preempting in this case? I'm not too worried about going for a number over a balanced club, but all other openings bring significant risk.

In the auction (1D) 2S (3N) P / P P, I would say the preemptor has approx broken even. You've told the opps a bit about your hand (less so the more frequently you preempt), and they've told you not to bother leading your long suit. But those hands were hypotheticals of what each could have from the other's perspective - just treating them as a couplet isn't very enlightening. Just the possibility of such opener hands makes it hard for responder to trap pass - and if responder would bid 3N on such hands, that makes it still less appealing for opener to make marginal reopening doubles. I think we can agree that a) most of the time, opps will land somewhere sensible after an aggressive preempt and b) a significant amount of the time, something else will happen. So we don't care about all of the hands where they do the former for discussions like this.

> The opening bids (almost) all convey significant shape information, which is far more important for competitive decisions than that extra jack or queen partner may or may not have

That's why I specified a short club, though a non-unbalanced diamond is also pretty generic. 1M is much less so, so you can preempt more conservatively on the aforementioned death holding (xxx in their suit), and perhaps more aggressively on shortage and/or long weak holdings.

In general, the more generic a bid, the more often it will come up, so while I suspect you're directionally correct that on average opening will have helped them convey information, a) I think there's too much difference in the possible bids to generalise about them collectively and b) over 1m openings, I think the effect of the info, if it even is net more informative than a pass, is relatively light compared to the extremely large upside their bid making it much more likely that you're disrupting the correct partnership.

> Your claim that partner needs a 5521-shape opposite your preempt is a great example of my point - opposite a somewhat sound preempter it would take far less shape to find a winning raise, and you are giving up on this (in my experience, far more common) scenario.

That was specifically referring to the sort of hand that would be needed to bid to the five level over a third-hand preempt.

> You're fooling yourself if you think you know the limits of your combined strength as soon as partner passes.

If you wait to find out P's precise hand, you'll lose your advantage. Preempting on a wide range of hands (and not inviting P back to the table) in this position is an extension of the general approach in competitive bidding of giving the opponents the last decision. Sure, sometimes they'll get it right, and some of those times you could have got a theoretical par by bidding over them - but in general it will make their life much harder than not.

> What made you think I was talking about points?! I'm saying you can turn it into AJ8xxx xx xxx xx and it's still wise to open 2♠ first unfavourable. I'll even take AQTxx xx xxx xxx!

That's an interesting difference between us. To me, even if I were going to open a 5-card suit in that position, the A would be a killer, since it reduces the ODR as much as the flatness. I would be curious to experiment with some hands, though.

> The risk is that partner will make wrong competitive decisions, push to thin games or stay out of good ones, make a phantom sacrifice (preemptive or otherwise) or fail to find a good sacrifice had you taken a slower route

I maintain that none of these are concerns after a third hand preempt...

> or even that the PAR is 1NT making your way while you silently go three off in a 5-1 fit.

... this is much more so, and is why I'd be torn over Hand 6 but extremely implausible on a hand as pure as Hand 5.

> It's mostly inspired by all the +1100's I'm picking up over my 1♦ .

For what it's worth, I also play an unbalanced diamond, and have very rarely managed to punish interference over it.

> But more to the point, conditional on me having an unbalanced diamond and my LHO having a weak hand with spade length (say, 6(+)) I will have a 1=4=5=3 or 1=3=5=4 a large fraction of the time, so partner can frequently make a good guess.

Yeah, fair enough.

> so the 3-level is nearly always safe with some tolerance for diamonds so the pressure on partner is greatly reduced compared to, say, 1♣-(2♠).

I'm not sure why any of what you've said would reduce pressure on responder. If he has a trap pass, it doesn't help him know whether he can safely pass if he's got a pseudo-fit on the side.

> 1=2=5=5 and 1=2=6=4 are perfect hands to double with when it comes back to opener, partner knows you will often not have 4 hearts for this and will choose diamonds with tolerance or 2NT with hearts + a minor.

Interesting tool. Does it have a name? Also with the various 'Sohls, it can't solve everything, though - what does partner do when he has (eg) 2533?

> Shape-based game tries after a third hand preempt really don't sound great to me. We are almost always outgunned, bidding on shape rather than strength. Never mind game, get partner ready for the possible competitive decision at the 4-level. Make a fitbid or a weak raise or an artificial strong raise to tell partner of our shape and defensive strength. Whether or not we can take 10 tricks is of secondary concern.

It matters a lot whether and what (dealer's) RHO has bid. I'm mainly talking about when he's passed, in which case you don't care about competitive decisions, and you're worried P has a strong hand. If he's bid a suit, you can bid yours directly or perhaps fit non jump. If he's doubled, there's a case for either. But by driving up even one level you're announcing an excellent fit, so the preemptor is still the one who can make the final decision about whether to sac

[DavidKok]

I think we've got too many discussion points going on at once. I also don't have an answer to some/most of them. The generic form of my answer is that I think you should allow partner back into the auction even after a third seat preempt and definitely after a second or first seat preempt, both with strong (not applicable after a third hand preempt) and shapely relatively-weak hands. I'm a big fan of the theory of the last guess, but I don't think the auction P-(P)-? is sufficiently descriptive to claim that we are in a better position to make an informed guess than the opponents are.

• I disagree that preempting is always +EV if the opponents bid on over you. You can lose big on auctions where you don't find your game because partner played you for a much weaker hand, you can lose big when you have tolerance for other suits and play in the wrong strain, and lose small when you either miss a good sacrifice or find a poor one. Bidding 2♥ in third seat favourable with hand 7 (xxx xxxx xxx xxx), 9 (Qx KJ9xxx KQx Kx) and 11 (x AJ9xxx KQx Qxx) means partner will be flailing around with, say, xx QTxx Axx xxxx after they overcall 2♠. It is far from clear that "pass those hands, so that third hand has more freedom" is an optimal or even good strategy. Also be careful that your preemptive strategy doesn't slip into "my wild preempts are good, partner is at fault for not interpreting this correctly" which, even if theoretically optimal, is unplayable.
  
• You suggest preemptor has broken even on 1♣-(2♠)-3NT (why open 1♦, by the way?) and I mostly agree (I think preemptor is slightly behind - doubly so if we have tools for putting preemptor on lead). As a general note I think such a hyperaggressive preemptive style needs to not just break even but win on the majority of auctions to compensate for infrequent big losses. Your inference that partner will know not to lead your strong suit is a double-edged sword at best (and, if properly disclosed, can lead to issues).
  
• The tool on 1♦-(2♠)-P-(P); X-(P)-? is just scrambling, although there are more complicated versions out there. Notably some people use 2NT by opener in competition as a hearts-showing hand, since the unbalanced diamond rarely wants to bid NT anyway. The 2=5=3=3 hand is not great but not terrible: with inv(+) values you double the first time, and weak hands can somewhat safely present the hand as a hearts-diamonds two-suiter. Opener will, with a takeout double of spades after an unbalanced diamond opening, always have 5(+) diamonds or exactly 1=4=4=4 so I don't feel too bad letting opener choose between 3♦ and 3♥. We will on occasion play in the 5-3 diamond fit when a 5-3 heart fit is available, no big deal at IMPs (also note that in this scenario the opponents have failed to find their 10-card spade fit).

[AL78]

LBengtsson, on 2023-February-13, 10:54, said:

Call me "old" and "primitive" for stating this, but the soul of the game is at stake here where aggression wins over skill. I love to see an expert player make a slam with a complex squeeze, but I am less impressed where a chance bid gains a profit. Is it psychology? well, if it is then bridge is being reduced to the status of poker if that happens.

My club is going down that line of super-aggressive bidding. It does a good job of increasing the variance and sometimes wins for the perpetrators. Seems to work best when it is a unique action around the field, irritating when you have to defend 3♠-1 and the rest of the pairs your way are allowed to play in 2♥=

[mikeh]

I have no interest in getting into a lengthy back and forth about the many points raised in this thread.

I do have some questions of the OP, and of anyone who thinks that its appropriate to preempt 2H in third seat on both of xxx xxxx xxx xxx and x AJ9xxx KQx Qxx

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

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

You may argue that going -2300 isn’t a big deal and, obviously, I’m exaggerating for effect. My point is that such wide range hands take your partner out of the game while, and for the same reason, turn the game into a form of poker.

You may enjoy this, especially if playing against less than top-level,opponents. I’m sure you have had a lot of laughs from beating up on opponents who are bewildered by your style, even if you provide full disclosure.

Btw, alerting at the table is not, imo, sufficiently ethical. You need to let the opps know before the hand is dealt

I go further: in a typical mp event or a Swiss team of short matches, there simply isn’t time for even quite experienced players to decide upon a strategy

Thus, to me, this approach, regardless of its technical merits, is very dubious. I think it creates huge ethical issues.

As for its merits, against top flight players, I’m dubious but recognize that the style is likely to greatly increase variance and, when one has weakness opposite a passed hand, increasing variance may be a long term winner

Personally, my philosophy in team matches, including those where, on paper, we are underdogs, is that I don’t want either partnership on my team to ‘lose’ the match by having a silly result due to a high variance method.

Go for 1100 against their game, because responder gambled that partner has a good playing hand for a preempt, and he had Jxxxx and 5332…find another team. I’m not interested in heroes who take their teammates out of the game even if the heroics sometimes win 13 imps or more.

Miss an easy save because responder gambled that partner has the crap hand? Find another team.

[Cyberyeti]

Mike, we played the highly variable preempts in 1st seat as well as 3rd (you are potentially twice as likely to mess up an opp as partner), although somewhat less variable than the OP until the EBU banned them.

Jxxx, xxx, xx, Jxxx was a first seat 2♠ by our methods, AQJxxx, xx, xx, Qxx would be too.

3rd seat we didn't go much above that.

Where it scored is the issues it gave the next hand when it had a minor suit oriented hand unsuitable for a double, and the weak 2♦ opener caused problems when opps were say 4234 without a diamond stop if in 2N range. We collected a long series of +2/300s when the auction went weak 2-3m-p-p-p. We actually collected more 4 figure penalties than we conceded and bid a few unlikely slams where we were able to get more of our distribution across after weak 2-2N.

We mentioned that our weak 2s may be weaker and shorter than they expected when we sat down.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-February-14, 13:46, said:

Mike, we played the highly variable preempts in 1st seat as well as 3rd (you are potentially twice as likely to mess up an opp as partner), although somewhat less variable than the OP until the EBU banned them.

Jxxx, xxx, xx, Jxxx was a first seat 2♠ by our methods, AQJxxx, xx, xx, Qxx would be too.

3rd seat we didn't go much above that.

Where it scored is the issues it gave the next hand when it had a minor suit oriented hand unsuitable for a double, and the weak 2♦ opener caused problems when opps were say 4234 without a diamond stop if in 2N range. We collected a long series of +2/300s when the auction went weak 2-3m-p-p-p. We actually collected more 4 figure penalties than we conceded and bid a few unlikely slams where we were able to get more of our distribution across after weak 2-2N.

We mentioned that our weak 2s may be weaker and shorter than they expected when we sat down.

I consider your explanation to be extremely inadequate. Jxxx xxx xx Jxxx is NOT adequately described as ‘may be weaker and shorter than you expect’

I would be extremely upset if you gave that explanation to me and then had that hand.

Maybe in the UK it’s considered acceptable. I guarantee you that you’d not get away with it for long in NA.

Personally, I have no problem with a pair who wants to play just about anything legal IF they provide proper and timely disclosure.

Indeed, if your idea of good bridge is that you consider Jxxx xxx xx Jxxx equivalent to AQJxxx xx xx Qxx, I’d not enjoy playing against you (since I don’t like players who play tge game as if it were poker) but I wouldn’t be feeling disadvantaged…unless you had merely given me that bullshit ‘warning’.

What I despise is players who play a very non-standard method with cute and misleading, though technically ‘correct’ descriptions. It’s funny how often such players are on the same, concealed, wavelength (obviously I’m not saying that last applies to you…I’ve never played against you, but I’ve seen it a number of times over the years).

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2023-February-14, 15:42, said:

I consider your explanation to be extremely inadequate. Jxxx xxx xx Jxxx is NOT adequately described as ‘may be weaker and shorter than you expect’

I would be extremely upset if you gave that explanation to me and then had that hand.

Maybe in the UK it’s considered acceptable. I guarantee you that you’d not get away with it for long in NA.

Personally, I have no problem with a pair who wants to play just about anything legal IF they provide proper and timely disclosure.

Indeed, if your idea of good bridge is that you consider Jxxx xxx xx Jxxx equivalent to AQJxxx xx xx Qxx, I’d not enjoy playing against you (since I don’t like players who play tge game as if it were poker) but I wouldn’t be feeling disadvantaged…unless you had merely given me that bullshit ‘warning’.

What I despise is players who play a very non-standard method with cute and misleading, though technically ‘correct’ descriptions. It’s funny how often such players are on the same, concealed, wavelength (obviously I’m not saying that last applies to you…I’ve never played against you, but I’ve seen it a number of times over the years).

Bear in mind in this country weak 2s are not infrequently 5 cards and 4 points, so weaker and shorter than you might expect is about right. The warning usually got opps to consult the card so they knew exactly what they were facing.

Also they were alerted rather than 5+ cards which were announced, so the warning was as much to point out the 3 weak 2s, and that the alerted 2♦ was not a multi.

[AL78]

mikeh, on 2023-February-14, 15:42, said:

I consider your explanation to be extremely inadequate. Jxxx xxx xx Jxxx is NOT adequately described as ‘may be weaker and shorter than you expect’

LOL, it's like saying Death Valley gets a bit warm and dry in summer.

[AL78]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-February-14, 16:35, said:

Bear in mind in this country weak 2s are not infrequently 5 cards and 4 points, so weaker and shorter than you might expect is about right. The warning usually got opps to consult the card so they knew exactly what they were facing.

Also they were alerted rather than 5+ cards which were announced, so the warning was as much to point out the 3 weak 2s, and that the alerted 2♦ was not a multi.

Could you say a weak two could be as short as four, which is comparable with what you have to announce when playing a short club in a five card major system? That sounds to me like a direct description of your method.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-February-14, 16:35, said:

Bear in mind in this country weak 2s are not infrequently 5 cards and 4 points, so weaker and shorter than you might expect is about right. The warning usually got opps to consult the card so they knew exactly what they were facing.

Also they were alerted rather than 5+ cards which were announced, so the warning was as much to point out the 3 weak 2s, and that the alerted 2♦ was not a multi.

I’ve encountered players like you before

I appreciate that online posts can be and often are misinterpreted. I’ve had that happen myself, sometimes when I thought I was being funny, but I ended up insulting someone.

So maybe I’m being unfair to you.

But as I read your posts here, I get the distinct feeling that your objective is to comply with the strict letter of the disclosure requirements while in reality concealing your highly unusual agreements unless the opps ask specific questions: questions that most casual players wouldn’t think were necessary after your announcement

Put it another way:

Your partner opens 2S in third seat. You know that he might have Jxxx and out, and you bid on that basis.

You know that few, if any, opponent will think that he could have that hand

You feel no obligation to disclose this agreement and will argue, if the TD is called, that you’d made full disclosure

Then, I assume, if the opps get a bad result from not understanding your secret agreement, you get a chuckle out of it.

As I say, online posting can be misinterpreted. But if I’ve correctly described the situation, I doubt that anyone will have misunderstood how I feel about your approach.

[mikeh]

AL78, on 2023-February-14, 17:22, said:

Could you say a weak two could be as short as four, which is comparable with what you have to announce when playing a short club in a five card major system? That sounds to me like a direct description of your method.

Better add…and could be a two count as well

[the hog]

MikeH: "I consider your explanation to be extremely inadequate. Jxxx xxx xx Jxxx is NOT adequately described as ‘may be weaker and shorter than you expect’" Yes.
Cyberyeti: "Bear in mind in this country weak 2s are not infrequently 5 cards and 4 points, so weaker and shorter than you might expect is about right." Definitely NOT! This is a totally inadequate explanation.