Page 1 of 1
RAISING A PREEMPT
#1
Posted Yesterday, 03:14
At our last 2 sessions partner has opened a preemptive 3.
I held 4 card support, 12/14 points, 7 losers (new or modified losing trick count) and passed.
He made 10 tricks.
I was taught that partner would have used rule of 2 3 4 (he expects to go off 2 at unfavourable vulnerability, etc) and I should raise not on my points, but on the tricks I expect to contribute.
Questions
How do the experts decide what to reply to a preempt?
Does the law of total tricks apply in response to a pre-empt? (If yes, I must raise with 4)
How many losers should I expect a prempt to have? (I think 8)
Does the losing trick count apply in response to a pre-empt? (If yes, I must raise with 7)
Thanks
PS Humble apologies if this is a duplicate, I am getting posting errors again.
I held 4 card support, 12/14 points, 7 losers (new or modified losing trick count) and passed.
He made 10 tricks.
I was taught that partner would have used rule of 2 3 4 (he expects to go off 2 at unfavourable vulnerability, etc) and I should raise not on my points, but on the tricks I expect to contribute.
Questions
How do the experts decide what to reply to a preempt?
Does the law of total tricks apply in response to a pre-empt? (If yes, I must raise with 4)
How many losers should I expect a prempt to have? (I think 8)
Does the losing trick count apply in response to a pre-empt? (If yes, I must raise with 7)
Thanks
PS Humble apologies if this is a duplicate, I am getting posting errors again.
#2
Posted Yesterday, 03:58
I'm no expert, but do use the Rule of 2,3,4.
At a base level I expect 8.5 modified losers (exception in Clubs). I tend to open a Weak 2 with 9.5/9
I will apply LoTT, but this tends to be with weak hands when I suspect the opponent's have a game.
I would aim to raise hands with 6.5 modified losers, but can be higher depending on vulnerability, revaluation, level of support etc.
I did have a hand recently on which I pre-empted FV min. (playing Namyats too can cap playing tricks), partner (pick-up) raised to 4 with an opening bid, but only 3 were makeable. It can be swings and roundabouts.
At a base level I expect 8.5 modified losers (exception in Clubs). I tend to open a Weak 2 with 9.5/9
I will apply LoTT, but this tends to be with weak hands when I suspect the opponent's have a game.
I would aim to raise hands with 6.5 modified losers, but can be higher depending on vulnerability, revaluation, level of support etc.
I did have a hand recently on which I pre-empted FV min. (playing Namyats too can cap playing tricks), partner (pick-up) raised to 4 with an opening bid, but only 3 were makeable. It can be swings and roundabouts.
#3
Posted Yesterday, 04:55
I'm certainly no expert but vaguely use 234 with slight flexibility determined by context, how I feel and what the hand looks like
I would only raise directly if it is to game, but will always consider doing it competitively
No point unnecessarily raising a part score
It's a simple euqation. Work how many tricks partner has from their 234? and add how many tricks you think you can add
By the way I am more a counting losers to estimate tricks rather than adding up trumps kind of person
I have occasionally tried to use the LOTT in competitive auctions but for some reason the numbers never add up
Don't forget sometimes I take a risk on 3NT
Regarding the OP which of 234 was partner using. But on average 7 losers from opener and 7 in your hand makes 10 tricks
I would only raise directly if it is to game, but will always consider doing it competitively
No point unnecessarily raising a part score
It's a simple euqation. Work how many tricks partner has from their 234? and add how many tricks you think you can add
By the way I am more a counting losers to estimate tricks rather than adding up trumps kind of person
I have occasionally tried to use the LOTT in competitive auctions but for some reason the numbers never add up
Don't forget sometimes I take a risk on 3NT
Regarding the OP which of 234 was partner using. But on average 7 losers from opener and 7 in your hand makes 10 tricks
#5
Posted Yesterday, 05:46
What the experts do is generally try to think of typical hands that partner might hold for his preempt and how the play might go. If enough of these seem to make game (or offer good chances for it) then raise. This generally works better than hard rules around high card points or total tricks, although it obviously requires being able to quickly decide whether a pair of hands offers good chances for game.
If not up to this, Id generally recommend raising to game if you have 10+ trumps. If you cant make it, often opponents were making something anyway.
If not up to this, Id generally recommend raising to game if you have 10+ trumps. If you cant make it, often opponents were making something anyway.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#6
Posted Yesterday, 09:00
#1 The Law of Total Tricks is still valid, ..., given the opponents did not bid, you have no real indication
how good their fit is, except, if you have a 9 card fit, they have a 8 card fit.
So it is unclear, how much help it will provide, the short cut bid to your trump fit level assumes, that the
points are evenly split, also the Law of Total Tricks gets more instable the higher the level.
You may also run into trouble, if you preempt with fewer cards, that the standard, i.e. if you open frequently
a w2 with a 5 carder, opener a 3 level with 6 cards, ...
#2 If you follow the rule of 2/3/4, the preempt tells you the looser count.
#3 The LTC applies, you have a trump fit
The main problem is, if you have a bal. hand, you looser count is usually high, you should count cover cards.
how good their fit is, except, if you have a 9 card fit, they have a 8 card fit.
So it is unclear, how much help it will provide, the short cut bid to your trump fit level assumes, that the
points are evenly split, also the Law of Total Tricks gets more instable the higher the level.
You may also run into trouble, if you preempt with fewer cards, that the standard, i.e. if you open frequently
a w2 with a 5 carder, opener a 3 level with 6 cards, ...
#2 If you follow the rule of 2/3/4, the preempt tells you the looser count.
#3 The LTC applies, you have a trump fit
The main problem is, if you have a bal. hand, you looser count is usually high, you should count cover cards.
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#7
Posted Yesterday, 11:04
Oh, you've never read me saying this before...
"what is your partnership preempt style?"
If you can't answer this, immediately and confidently, you will never get these hands right. (If you can answer this, you will still not get all of them right, fewer with some styles than others. Preempts Work, sometimes against the side preempting; learn to deal with it.)
If partner does Rule of 234 (which I personally think is about one trick conservative at all vulnerabilites - okay maybe not specifically all red, because of the Matchpoint Death Score), then yeah, go on 3/4/5 cover cards. But even here, if partner is a fan of outside strength counting to get to Ro#, then you're going to pass hands that make game because your "useless" queens and jacks magically sound up partner's outside strength.
The ability to make these decisions (and I play on the looser end of the bridge preempt spectrum by preference, even on the looser end of Flight A; many expert pairs preempt with my style (but they play better than I do), but many do not) leads me to one of my few preempting demands - limited outside strength, especially controls. (This also helps me make the decision on whether we can set them when they push.) Even if it meets Ro3, I don't want to preempt on
"Partner opened 3♠, and..." All questions that start that way are totally unanswerable without knowing what partner has agreed she will have. As I said, with some agreements, they can be totally unanswerable even with perfect knowledge - because those agreements play the odds against you holding the big hand (which, at least in 1st seat, are 2-1). When it does happen, you guess and you sometimes guess wrong.
I like your style of deciding whether to go on; I bet some of the current run of bad results here is just "good" luck (everything splits, 2 finesses on, key honour drops on the third-round ruff making your last card in the side suit good,...); I bet also some is partner preempting on hands where your "points" that aren't "tricks" actually are; I bet some are you miscounting cover cards (i.e. "tricks"); and maybe more.
But all of your questions are a huge great "it depends":
Bridge is Hard, and preempts are a gamble. Sometimes you'll lose. Interestingly, one of the things that makes Bridge Hard is the fact that it has been shown that (provided you can play well) the level to which gambling pays off in the long run is much higher than we teach novices (which annoys the "Bridge is not Poker" people no end).
(*) When I learned it, it was in the context of "3 bids are [level based on vul] basic LTC, and *limited to 5 HCP*." My partnership that played this system occasionally decided to keep the LTC scale for our 3M and 4-level preempts, but replace the (unworkable in our real system) HCP requirement with "no more than one A or K outside".
(**) When they use it however, they're usually exploiting the "Single Mode of Evaluation" fallacy. See my history.
"what is your partnership preempt style?"
If you can't answer this, immediately and confidently, you will never get these hands right. (If you can answer this, you will still not get all of them right, fewer with some styles than others. Preempts Work, sometimes against the side preempting; learn to deal with it.)
If partner does Rule of 234 (which I personally think is about one trick conservative at all vulnerabilites - okay maybe not specifically all red, because of the Matchpoint Death Score), then yeah, go on 3/4/5 cover cards. But even here, if partner is a fan of outside strength counting to get to Ro#, then you're going to pass hands that make game because your "useless" queens and jacks magically sound up partner's outside strength.
The ability to make these decisions (and I play on the looser end of the bridge preempt spectrum by preference, even on the looser end of Flight A; many expert pairs preempt with my style (but they play better than I do), but many do not) leads me to one of my few preempting demands - limited outside strength, especially controls. (This also helps me make the decision on whether we can set them when they push.) Even if it meets Ro3, I don't want to preempt on
- partner will just never be able to judge their hand when I could (should?) have
look at how different the ♠Q and ♦Q are - and will you ever be able to guess which minor Q is useful (say if the first hand was 2713 instead)?
"Partner opened 3♠, and..." All questions that start that way are totally unanswerable without knowing what partner has agreed she will have. As I said, with some agreements, they can be totally unanswerable even with perfect knowledge - because those agreements play the odds against you holding the big hand (which, at least in 1st seat, are 2-1). When it does happen, you guess and you sometimes guess wrong.
I like your style of deciding whether to go on; I bet some of the current run of bad results here is just "good" luck (everything splits, 2 finesses on, key honour drops on the third-round ruff making your last card in the side suit good,...); I bet also some is partner preempting on hands where your "points" that aren't "tricks" actually are; I bet some are you miscounting cover cards (i.e. "tricks"); and maybe more.
But all of your questions are a huge great "it depends":
- How do the experts decide what to reply to a preempt?
Depends on what they have agreed a preempt looks like. awm has it here - they do a better job than you or I placing their cards into partner's hand and working out if they get enough tricks/cover enough losers. But note - that's what you *are* doing, by rule maybe instead of by analysis; good on you! - Does the law of total tricks apply in response to a pre-empt? (If yes, I must raise with 4)
As P_Marlowe explains, you're more likely to use the LoTT to get a good negative score ("push the preempt"), rather than "does it make". Definitely, though, if you have 4 trump and a ruffing value, you should consider at least one of those as "tricks"; even 3 gives an easy ruff when the suit breaks 2-1 (and a possible one if 3-0). - How many losers should I expect a preempt to have? (I think 8)
Depends on your agreements (very strongly!) It may not even be a single value in a specific position and vulnerability (if your agreements don't "look at LTC" or if your agreements include any "get in their way; let them guess"). Note, I definitely have played LTC-based preempts in the past (but they were limited in other ways as well(*)); it's a reasonable thing to do. - Does the losing trick count apply in response to a pre-empt? (If yes, I must raise with 7)
You'll notice I wasn't talking losers at all in my discussion above. Because straight "24-LTC" doesn't work well with preempts (all the people who use "Axx Axxx Axx Axx is the same LTC as QJ QJxx QJx QJxx" have a point *here*(**) because preempts tend to imply few "tricks" and few cards outside the trump suit, so Aces in your hand are good, but QJ is basically useless). What does work is Losers and Cover Cards - which is basically what you're doing (with "tricks" not "points"). The Q of trump is a great Cover Card, basically equal to the Ace (the Jack is pretty great too); any other Queen is effectively zero. Aces and Kings outside are (potentially) Covers; as discussed above, long trumps and shortness is (probably) Cover.
Bridge is Hard, and preempts are a gamble. Sometimes you'll lose. Interestingly, one of the things that makes Bridge Hard is the fact that it has been shown that (provided you can play well) the level to which gambling pays off in the long run is much higher than we teach novices (which annoys the "Bridge is not Poker" people no end).
(*) When I learned it, it was in the context of "3 bids are [level based on vul] basic LTC, and *limited to 5 HCP*." My partnership that played this system occasionally decided to keep the LTC scale for our 3M and 4-level preempts, but replace the (unworkable in our real system) HCP requirement with "no more than one A or K outside".
(**) When they use it however, they're usually exploiting the "Single Mode of Evaluation" fallacy. See my history.
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
#9
Posted Yesterday, 13:55
Case in point this afternoon (always interesting how the forum short circuits with reality).
Dealer RHO passes and at favourable vulnerability I hold ♠K5 ♥AQ965432 ♦8 ♣64, for me a clear 4♥.
LHO passes and CHO (occasional partner, not willing to discuss much) with ♠A863 ♥7 ♦K9 ♣AK753 goes looking for slam. Zero MP written on the wall.
Dealer RHO passes and at favourable vulnerability I hold ♠K5 ♥AQ965432 ♦8 ♣64, for me a clear 4♥.
LHO passes and CHO (occasional partner, not willing to discuss much) with ♠A863 ♥7 ♦K9 ♣AK753 goes looking for slam. Zero MP written on the wall.
#10
Posted Yesterday, 18:05
mycroft, on 2025-January-13, 11:04, said:
(**) When they use it however, they're usually exploiting the "Single Mode of Evaluation" fallacy. See my history.
Most Bridge rules are fallacious
Sometimes they work, sometimes not - I will not get too serious and suggest adding more complexity to said rules improves them or not either - but that was a Law hand
I have a bit of a fallacious gambling mentality. Enjoy the wins and forget the losses - it is only points and not dollars in my case - not even much loss of pride or credibility
And if my partner has to explain my bids they know how to do it
I love pre-emptive bidding
#13
Posted Today, 05:05
pescetom, on 2025-January-13, 13:55, said:
Case in point this afternoon (always interesting how the forum short circuits with reality).
Dealer RHO passes and at favourable vulnerability I hold ♠K5 ♥AQ965432 ♦8 ♣64, for me a clear 4♥.
LHO passes and CHO (occasional partner, not willing to discuss much) with ♠A863 ♥7 ♦K9 ♣AK753 goes looking for slam. Zero MP written on the wall.
Dealer RHO passes and at favourable vulnerability I hold ♠K5 ♥AQ965432 ♦8 ♣64, for me a clear 4♥.
LHO passes and CHO (occasional partner, not willing to discuss much) with ♠A863 ♥7 ♦K9 ♣AK753 goes looking for slam. Zero MP written on the wall.
Which is ..., even if he assumes a 8 card suit with AKQ in hearts, he cant assume the Ace of diamonds on top, i.e. after a diamond attack you are at 50%.
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#14
Posted Today, 10:04
P_Marlowe, on 2025-January-14, 05:05, said:
Which is ..., even if he assumes a 8 card suit with AKQ in hearts, he cant assume the Ace of diamonds on top, i.e. after a diamond attack you are at 50%.
Which was of course my comment. The rest of the room were all in 4♥ making without an overtrick to spare.
Page 1 of 1