[awm]

I've noticed that some people like to preempt in certain situations holding pretty good hands (say 13 or more high card points). The arguments given for this usually involve keeping the opponents guessing about whether it's their hand and where our side's values lie, as well as making it tough for them to find the right strain. The arguments against involve possibly missing a game or slam for our side (or overbidding to a failing game when opponents are too weak to make anything), and forcing our own side to guess if the opponents choose to bid on over the preempt. I'm curious what people's views on this are.

I'm also curious what sort of results people get for preemptive openings with good hands -- this is probably a good candidate for bridgebrowser since it doesn't seem to have all that much to do with methods (especially if we rule out two-level preempts where some people play intermediate twos).

[pbleighton]

I'll only preempt at the game level with a good hand.

Peter

[glen]

The poll is missing 4th seat - in that seat preempts often are opening values of some sort - should replies to this question ignore the 4th seat?

[mike777]

I would never preempt with a "good opening hand" I do not consider opening 2 of a major in 4th seat as preempting but a constructive bid.

[pclayton]

I guess it depends on your definition of opening bid.

Is: xx, AKxxxxx, Kxxx, v (edited; argh) an opening bid? I'd preempt it in 1/2 or 3rd chair depending on vulnerability.

Funny; a 4 or 5 level opening is more apt to be an opening hand than a 3 bid. Never thought of that before.

[mike777]

IF I open "a good opening hand" at the game level I would not consider it a preemptive bid. I hope to make the game.

[Free]

For me it's a combination. I'll never do it when we have reasonable chance of a slam (with unpassed partner for example). So I'll never do it in 1st or 2nd seat. Otherwise, vulnerability is also a factor: V I'll bid solid, NV I bid trash hands as well as good hands.

I'm not that worried about missing a tight game. Usually people will interfere or partner will respond, and I can make a forcing bid...

[hrothgar]

Complicated topic:

First and foremost, things vary dramatically based on seat:

4th seat preempts are a lot stronger than preempts in other seats

3rd seat preempts are a lot more random than preempts in other seats and i'll often bid at the three level or even 4 level in fairly good hands. (I helps a lot that 1st seat passes playing MOSCITO are pretty tightly defined)

In general, I prefer fairly disciplined actions in first and second seat. (My bidding systems may be pretty weird, but I'm usually pretty disciplined within the context of those systems)

For me, the most obvious cases where I'll make a preempt with a strong hand is when I have a 7-4 of some such. I typically don't bother with any attempt at science on these hands. Check out the Marston's Law discussion for an obvious example.

[the hog]

As R says, this is not so easy to answer. Whether to pre empt depends on the seat, the vul, who the opps are, partner's predilections and which suit we are talkong about. As an example, I'd be far less likely to pre empt in S than H or a minor.
Totally agree with R regarding 7-4 shapes as well.

[MFA]

So, does anybody bid 4♥ with

♠A5
♥AQ109542
♦J972
♣-

?

First seat, all vul.

[awm]

I guess maybe I should give a few examples. Perhaps something like these:

AKQxxxx
xx
KQx
x

x
KQJTxx
AKxx
xx

x
AQJx
KQJxxxx
x

KQJTxx
x
AKxxx
x

x
AQJTxxxx
AQ
xx

All these hands have the property that they're pretty solid one-level opening bids (13-14 high, good suits). Each one is fairly unlikely to produce a slam opposite a passed hand. In general a game bid is "reasonably likely" to make but not guaranteed.

In general I would ignore fourth seat, since most people have different agreements about fourth seat opening bids. What I'm really referring to is making a bid that nominally shows a "weak distributional hand" with a fairly strong distributional hand, the idea being to make things difficult for the opposition. To some degree this was started by the comments about Burgess' rule, but also there have been a number of poll hands where some people wanted to make a "preemptive" bid holding fairly good values and others argued vehemently against it. I'm curious both how popular these bids are, and how effective they are against various levels of opposition.

[whereagles]

Every hand is a case-study of its own, but there are some guidelines. Usually, preempts with moderately strong hands work out well in these circumstances:

1. In any case were pard is a passed hand. Since he has squat, he'll be passing most of the time.

2. When opps started the bidding with a constructive opening. In this case pard might still unlimited, but odds are he's weak and thus has a hand similar to situation 1.

3. When opening 4M. Practice has shown that slams are too rare anyway to compensate for the pressure exterted on opponents. This is the riskiest situation in terms of missing out on a slam.

Having preempt with a strongish hand, one may eventually double opps later on to show one has a good hand after all. Note that to preempt with good hands below game you must be bloody sure you're not be missing out on a game.

[helene_t]

At IMPs, I often open 4M in first seat at favorable.

[Codo]

awm, on Jan 9 2007, 01:24 PM, said:

I guess maybe I should give a few examples. Perhaps something like these:

AKQxxxx
xx
KQx
x

x
KQJTxx
AKxx
xx

x
AQJx
KQJxxxx
x

KQJTxx
x
AKxxx
x

x
AQJTxxxx
AQ
xx

All these hands have the property that they're pretty solid one-level opening bids (13-14 high, good suits). Each one is fairly unlikely to produce a slam opposite a passed hand. In general a game bid is "reasonably likely" to make but not guaranteed.

In general I would ignore fourth seat, since most people have different agreements about fourth seat opening bids. What I'm really referring to is making a bid that nominally shows a "weak distributional hand" with a fairly strong distributional hand, the idea being to make things difficult for the opposition. To some degree this was started by the comments about Burgess' rule, but also there have been a number of poll hands where some people wanted to make a "preemptive" bid holding fairly good values and others argued vehemently against it. I'm curious both how popular these bids are, and how effective they are against various levels of opposition.

In first and second seat, I would open all these hands with one in my suit.
In 3. seat, I would open
1. 4 Spade
2. 4 Heart
3. 1 Diamond
4. 1 Spade
5. 4 Heart

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jan 9 2007, 07:24 AM, said:

I guess maybe I should give a few examples. Perhaps something like these:

AKQxxxx
xx
KQx
x

x
KQJTxx
AKxx
xx

x
AQJx
KQJxxxx
x

KQJTxx
x
AKxxx
x

x
AQJTxxxx
AQ
xx

All these hands have the property that they're pretty solid one-level opening bids (13-14 high, good suits). Each one is fairly unlikely to produce a slam opposite a passed hand. In general a game bid is "reasonably likely" to make but not guaranteed.

Still a very complicated question (and I'm going to ignore the entire mixed strategy arguements an list my favorite bid) There's also the entire issue of who I'm playing against which can really have a major impact on choice of bids

1. 4♠ in third seat.
Otherwise, 1♠ or 3N/4♦ depending on partnership

2. 1♥ in any seat

3. 5♦ in any seat

4. 1♠

5. 3N/4♣ in 1st/2nd
4♥ in 3rd/4th

[pbleighton]

I would open at the game level with 1, 3, and 5, and at the one level with 2 and 4.

Peter

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

1) first and second seat 1S, third and fourth seat 4S
2) 1S, I want to show my 2nd suit
3) 1D, I want to show my 2nd suit
4) 1S, I want to show my 2nd suit
5) first and second seat 1H, third and fourth seat 4H

With kind regards
Marlowe