[kpc7964]

From experience, I have formulated a following guidelines about opening at three level:

1. Avoid opening at three level in the first position. You may end up pre-emping tour partner.
2. You should have minimum 6 cards and 13 counts including shortges and length. Also you must have either AK or KQ (AQ will not do).

What is your experience? What do you think about these guidelines? Are they good?

[gwnn]

1. no; you still want to pre-empt; the idea is that in 1st position you want to make your preempts somewhat more predictable. in that case your partner in case he is strong can make intelligent decisions. Mind you, this is strongest in 2nd seat. When you are in 2nd seat, there is a 50% chance thta your partner is "the strong hand" (if there is one strong hand at the table). If you're in 1st seat it's 33% and if you're in 3rd seat it's 0%

So 1st seat your preempts should be OK, relatively predictable, say a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10.

2nd seat 8.
3rd seat 0. You can do whatever you want in 3rd seat

2. I don't know what you're asking.

[wank]

1) read what gwnn wrote

2) good players don't add points for shortness and length - they make more of a judgement decision. however, i'm not saying they are meaningless - simple mathematical rules are useful for beginners until they develop judgement.

if you want comments on whether your evaluation system is sensible or not, you need to say how this 13 points is constituted, e.g. singleton = 4 points? 3 points? 2 points? i suspect this is a system you found in a book but obviously most people won't have read the same book.

whatever it means though, you're definitely being far too restrictive in only opening KQ or AK suits - and i'm a very conservative pre-emptor myself so i'm not feeding you an aggressive line.

[the hog]

kpc7964, on Aug 8 2010, 04:50 PM, said:

From experience, I have formulated a following guidelines about opening at three level:

1. Avoid opening at three level in the first position. You may end up pre-emping tour partner.
2. You should have minimum 6 cards and 13 counts including shortges and length. Also you must have either AK or KQ (AQ will not do).

What is your experience? What do you think about these guidelines? Are they good?

Totally disagree with everything you have written. There have been a number of threads on pre emption. I suggest you read those.

[pooltuna]

kpc7964, on Aug 8 2010, 04:50 AM, said:

From experience, I have formulated a following guidelines about opening at three level:

1. Avoid opening at three level in the first position. You may end up pre-emping tour partner.
2. You should have minimum 6 cards and 13 counts including shortges and length. Also you must have either AK or KQ (AQ will not do).

What is your experience? What do you think about these guidelines? Are they good?

They are anti %age.

1st position is the best place to preempt because you are preempting 2 opponents. Care needs to be taken that your defensive values are not "excessive" plus some consideration of your major suit holdings needs to be balanced into the equation. Generally 6 to 11 HCP should be an acceptable range. Your holding does not need to be AK or KQ in the suit and some care about suit texture is warranted clearly AQT9xxx is better than AQxxxxx

[peachy]

What matters A LOT in preempting is the vulnerability: Nobody-We-They-All.

The soundest is second seat "We" because in that case one opponent has already passed which makes it a 1-in-2 chance we are preempting partner instead of the opponents while in first seat the chance of preempting partner is only about 1-in-3. The least sound is 3rd seat and "They". A close contender for the least sound is 1st seat and "They".

I think it is best to keep your guidelines flexible; that keeps the opponents guessing - which in fact is the whole reason for preempts. So mix it up a little:) The price you pay is that on occasion it is partner who has to be guessing, whereas if you prefer strictly structured preempts you are just painting a roadmap to the opponents whether they end up declaring or defending. Few decades ago rules such as 3-2-1 were common, but those are no longer much used. The "rule" is now more like Umpteen-3-1. Even if you don't like that for your own preempts, at least should be aware what others commonly do.

[neilkaz]

I just pulled an excellent but aging book (1993) off my shelf. "Preempts from A to Z" by Ron Andersen and Sabine Zenkel. The recommended style may seem cautious to some of the young pro level players here and I usually am also a bit more loose since it can be so difficult for the opps to proceed after a preempt.

.. neilkaz ..

[peachy]

neilkaz, on Aug 8 2010, 11:24 AM, said:

I just pulled an excellent but aging book (1993) off my shelf. "Preempts from A to Z" by Ron Andersen and Sabine Zenkel. The recommended style may seem cautious to some of the young pro level players here and I usually am also a bit more loose since it can be so difficult for the opps to proceed after a preempt.

.. neilkaz ..

There is nothing wrong in a cautious preempting style.

[gwnn]

well sure there's nothing inherently wrong with it but of course there is probably a theoretical optimum for most people (and this optimum is going to vary from person to person and to some extent from opps to opps) and compared to that there will be too cautious and too loose.

anyway what the opening poster tried to outline, i.e. no 3 level openers in 1st seat, ever, is definitely too cautious

[NickRW]

I was originally taught, many moons ago, the rule of 1/2/3 - i.e. at unfavourable vuln. you need to be within one playing trick of your bid - so that would be 8 tricks for a 3 level preempt. At equal vuln. be within 2 tricks of the bid and 3 tricks at favourable. That style is too cautious for the modern game (if indeed it was ever sensible) - but rule of 2/3/4 is not too bad.

In 1st seat I allow minor frivolity with respect to that rule - 2nd seat play it very straight - 3rd seat, as others have said, you can get a bit imaginative. And 4th seat a "preempt" is essentially "to play" - obviously a preempt there is preempting nobody as you can pass and get out for a zero score - so any bid is not planning to get a minus. But it is rare to hold a preempt style hand in 4th seat and not hear one of the other 3 players open.

One point to bear in mind is your shortness in the majors (or other major if you have one of them yourself). A void there is quite a strong indicator to push a little more. Conversely the longer you are, the more conservative you should get - maybe you have a fit with partner - or perhaps they only have 7 card major fit(s).

As with everything else in bidding, it is perhaps more important that partner knows what to expect rather than choosing the "optimum" (whatever that is) style.

Nick

[bab9]

neilkaz, on Aug 8 2010, 11:24 AM, said:

I just pulled an excellent but aging book (1993) off my shelf. "Preempts from A to Z" by Ron Andersen and Sabine Zenkel.  The recommended style may seem  cautious to some of the young pro level players here and I usually am also a bit more loose since it can be so difficult for the opps to proceed after a preempt.

.. neilkaz ..

Reading this book at the moment. It is changing how I look at and play pre-empts.

[P_Marlowe]

kpc7964, on Aug 8 2010, 04:50 AM, said:

From experience, I have formulated a following guidelines about opening at three level:

1. Avoid opening at three level in the first position. You may end up pre-emping tour partner.
2.  You should have minimum 6 cards and 13 counts including shortges and length. Also you must have either AK or KQ (AQ will not do).

What is your experience? What do you think about these guidelines? Are they good?

#1 No, but since you also risk preempting your p, your preempts should be better
defined and more consistent (similar over time) than in 3rd place.
In 2nd position, you have one opponent and your p, so the above gets more
important in 2nd position.
#2 For hands, which want to investigate game in a constructive manner, e.g. hands
with 13 points (however you count them), there is the one level, openings on the
3 level usually show hands with long suits, but with less high card strength than
necessary for a one level opening.
Regarding suit quality: playable, at least in 2nd position.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[zenko]

Of all literature Five Weeks to Winning Bridge by Alfred Sheinwold has I think the best and very detailed explanation of the prempts logic for young players, so I would suggest reading that.

Among other things he advises against preempting when holding "tops", say AK65432 is much more dangerous suit to preempt with than say QJ109876 because it is more sensitive to bad brakes, and even more importantly because it can often provide too many quick tricks, useful on defense (so you are risking a phantom save) or on offense when playing in some other trump contract (so you are risking missing a better contract when partner is short in your suit and not strong enough to act over your preempt)