[mtvesuvius]

Playing precision (In a Sectional MP Pairs), I picked up AJ8x Ax 98 KT86x and opened 2♣. LHO passed and partner (Who, although I have played with him for several years, still messes up basic precision auctions) bids 3♣. RHO asks what 3♣ is. I respond "Constructive or worse... Generally 'furthering' the pre-empt". RHO passes, I pass and LHO reopens with a double and partner redoubles. All Pass. So you are beginning we wonder what partner has... The lead is a small club:

Scoring: MP

Small ♣ lead. Duck from dummy and RHO plays the Nine. Plan the play if you want...

---

My line is Hidden:

Spoiler

I won the T♣ and played the 9♦, and let it ride. I now led a small ♠ and LHO ducks his KQ9x... So I won the ten. I now played a ♠ to my hand and ruffed a ♠ in dummy. I played a ♥ back to my hand, and finessed the ♦ again. Now I played the A♦ and pitched my last ♥. Finally, I ruffed my ♥, and was left with K8♣ and RHO had A7♣. Making 6. 2040.

After the hand is over, the opponents call the director, and claim damage from MI. I had given them the correct agreement, and the director let the result stand... I was just thinking afterwards... Were they entitled to any redress?

Anyway, this is by far one of the biggest scores I have gotten in a while (That didn't involve a grand). 2040!!

[Stephen Tu]

I agree with the ruling, but I'd probably use different wording when explaining the calls; you used a couple of words that might have created a false impression of weakness on both sides for inexperienced opponents unfamiliar with big club methods. I'd say "non-invitational, wide-ranging, blocking", and not call your opening a "preempt".

[rbforster]

I'd call 2♣-3♣ "furthering the preempt" in precision, at least the way I play. It's not a broke hand to raise, but opener would need something truly exceptional to bid on.

[peachy]

Rob F, on Apr 9 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

I'd call 2♣-3♣ "furthering the preempt" in precision, at least the way I play.  It's not a broke hand to raise, but opener would need something truly exceptional to bid on.

Is there a definition of preempt that I am not familiar with? Out of curiosity, I'd like to know why a Prec 2C would be called a preempt.

[Trinidad]

In The Netherlands, the ruling would go against you.

There, they would rule MI, since you don't have an "established" agreement. After all, you stated that partner, although you have played with him for several years, still messes up basic precision auctions. In that case, it doesn't matter what your convention card or system book says. If your partner messes this up regularly, the "book agreement" is not considered your actual agreement.

So, in The Netherlands you would probably get an AS of 3♣ with 3 overtricks for +170.

Personally, I don't agree with the Dutch interpretation of the Bridge Laws. But they do have a point.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Merriam-Webster online defines

preemptive said:

of a bid in bridge, higher than necessary and intended to shut out bids by the opponents.

By this definition a Precision 2♣ opening is not preemptive because it is not "higher than necessary". As for 3♣, I suspect "constructive or worse" is enough.

[blackshoe]

So, Rik, what is their actual agreement, in your opinion?

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2009, 01:38 AM, said:

Merriam-Webster online defines

preemptive said:

of a bid in bridge, higher than necessary and intended to shut out bids by the opponents.

By this definition a Precision 2♣ opening is not preemptive because it is not "higher than necessary". As for 3♣, I suspect "constructive or worse" is enough.

I don't know what that definition means. It's higher than necessary because it wasn't 1♣. If you say 1♣ means something else so it wasn't higher than necessary, I could make the same argument about weak 2 bids.

[gwnn]

Adam, I think you misinformed them when you put the apostrophes around 'furthering' and not 'preempt'. ( )

Anyway, wd with the weird score. It is only at rare times in a junior's life that they discover an unknown number.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2009, 01:40 AM, said:

So, Rik, what is their actual agreement, in your opinion?

That is the exact problem that I have with the Dutch practice. It makes it practically impossible to disclose your agreements.

In this case, you could make up something like: "The book says that he has a non constructive raise, but he often doesn't follow the book."

The real problems come with the notorious Ghestem convention. (1♠)-3♣. This shows the reds, but obviously occasionally someone has a long club suit instead. If you would disclose that properly you would get to: "Red suits, but he forgets sometimes and then he has clubs." But an agreement "Red suits or clubs" is disallowed in many places, since it is a brown sticker convention.

So, in short, don't ask me. Ask the Dutch Bridge League.

Rik

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Apr 10 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2009, 01:38 AM, said:

Merriam-Webster online defines

preemptive said:

of a bid in bridge, higher than necessary and intended to shut out bids by the opponents.

By this definition a Precision 2♣ opening is not preemptive because it is not "higher than necessary". As for 3♣, I suspect "constructive or worse" is enough.

I don't know what that definition means. It's higher than necessary because it wasn't 1♣. If you say 1♣ means something else so it wasn't higher than necessary, I could make the same argument about weak 2 bids.

It means what it says. Okay, it's not perfect. You can poke holes in it if you like. It would be more constructive if you were to come up with a better definition.

Some writers argue that weak two bids are "constructive" rather than "preemptive". Is describing your partner's weak two with either of these words wrong, then?

Every bid above one club has some preemptive value. That doesn't mean that every bid above one club is preemptive, whatever system you're playing.

In the case at hand, and having slept on it I think the correct description of responder's 3♣ raise is something like "our agreement is that it will be obstructive, generally up to about 9 HCP, at lest 3 clubs, probably no four card major, but partner tends to forget the system here, so while the bid is probably natural, he may have more strength than he should". A lot of words perhaps, but full disclosure of all relevant information is what the laws require. I say don't argue with that, just do it.

[Echognome]

Has anyone considered that East asked a question, received the information that the hand made the weakest possible bid and then passed anyway? Alternatively, East received the answer that would make it most likely to want to bid and then passed anyway. My question then is why East was asking any question at all during the auction. Of course it is not illegal to ask such a question, but I think we should also consider the UI that West had in addition to any issues of MI for NS.

[kfay]

Maybe East should learn their agreements... He clearly didn't want to defend 2♣XX so why pass?

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 10 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2009, 01:38 AM, said:

Merriam-Webster online defines

preemptive said:

of a bid in bridge, higher than necessary and intended to shut out bids by the opponents.

By this definition a Precision 2♣ opening is not preemptive because it is not "higher than necessary". As for 3♣, I suspect "constructive or worse" is enough.

I don't know what that definition means. It's higher than necessary because it wasn't 1♣. If you say 1♣ means something else so it wasn't higher than necessary, I could make the same argument about weak 2 bids.

It means what it says. Okay, it's not perfect. You can poke holes in it if you like. It would be more constructive if you were to come up with a better definition.

I don't think I poked holes in it, I think it's simply a bad definition. I like the one on the Bridge World website:

Quote

Preemptive

(1) (adjective) intended to hinder the enemy through the removal of bidding space from the auction

Well except that 'enemy' seems a bit harsh, they might have said opponents instead.

[blackshoe]

Okay, that's a better one. OTOH, the Precision 2♣ is what it is primarily (IMO) because there's no cheaper way to show an intermediate hand with a club suit, given that all the lower ranking bids, including 1♣, are already assigned other meanings. So I wouldn't call it preemptive, even though like all jump bids it has some preemptive effect. The 3♣ response to this opening does seem to me to fit The Bridge World's definition of "preemptive".

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

Okay, that's a better one. OTOH, the Precision 2♣ is what it is primarily (IMO) because there's no cheaper way to show an intermediate hand with a club suit, given that all the lower ranking bids, including 1♣, are already assigned other meanings. So I wouldn't call it preemptive, even though like all jump bids it has some preemptive effect. The 3♣ response to this opening does seem to me to fit The Bridge World's definition of "preemptive".

It seems that _intention_ is key in defining what is a preemptive bid and what is not.
"Hinder the enemy through removal of bidding space" is not all, it is the "Intended to hinder..." that matters. Standard 2C (strong, artificial) or plain old Flannery (ugh) also hinders but it is not the intention at all. So my question is, is the _intention_ of a Prec 2C to rob bidding space? I think not. The bid exists for practical reasons because a 1C bid is reserved for another purpose, not because it was designed and/or intended to be a preemptive bid. Well, just my thoughts.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Apr 10 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

Okay, that's a better one. OTOH, the Precision 2♣ is what it is primarily (IMO) because there's no cheaper way to show an intermediate hand with a club suit, given that all the lower ranking bids, including 1♣, are already assigned other meanings. So I wouldn't call it preemptive, even though like all jump bids it has some preemptive effect. The 3♣ response to this opening does seem to me to fit The Bridge World's definition of "preemptive".

When playing Precision, many hands that would open 1♣ in natural systems start with an ambiguous 1♦. So 2♣ is not necessarily the cheapest way to open with a ♣ suit. It requires more specific shape, including a long club suit.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Apr 10 2009, 10:13 PM, said:

When playing Precision, many hands that would open 1♣ in natural systems start with an ambiguous 1♦. So 2♣ is not necessarily the cheapest way to open with a ♣ suit. It requires more specific shape, including a long club suit.

I hear you, Barmar, but I don't see how it's relevant. My point was that there are hands with length in clubs that do not have a suitable opening below 2C. That there are hands with length in clubs that might open 1D (or for that matter, 1NT, 1H, or 1S) does not change that fact.

[jdonn]

Sorry if I contributed to this, I was trying to make the point that describing 3♣ as preemptive may not be wrong. I would never describe 2♣ as preemptive.

[mycroft]

"Natural, NF, no interest in game opposite most 15s. We have been known to raise on Hx in a bad hand, as a preemptive measure."

Of course we would open the original hand 1D, because resolving 4M5C hands is more icky than resolving the more ambiguous than otherwise 1D. Also, it allows us to raise on Hx in a bad hand, as a preemptive measure.

On a real note, in the ACBL, we've been known to rule that when your explicit agreement repeatedly disagrees with how you play it, that your implicit agreement is your real one (with the legality issues set up, yeah. But there's a reason why "reds or clubs" overcalls aren't legal, and just because you don't *say* you play them, if you actually do, it's just as bad. Get it right, I say, or stop playing it).

Having said all of *that*, 3C on that hand is a particularly horrible psychic, that deserves what it should have got. The fact that all the rest of the points were with 4th hand and they doubled means that you got lucky this time.