[barmar]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2009, 12:34 AM, said:

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.

The phrase in question was "continuing the preempt". You can't continue a preempt if there wasn't one to begin with.

However, the word "preempt" is often used loosely. For instance, one of the reasons given for using weak and mini NT openings is their preemptive nature. In this context, the term is used to indicate that it takes the 1 level away from the opponents, and the same is true of a Precision 2♣. In fact, this is essentially the non-bridge meaning of the word (taking action to prevent someone else from doing something).

[Gerben42]

I just explain as "not invitational". That's what it is.
Maybe if they compete and I have some extra distribution, I might want to raise again. But now I'm supposed to pass.

P.S. I hate it when opponents then ask: "How many points?"

[blackshoe]

Gerben42, on Apr 14 2009, 02:15 AM, said:

P.S. I hate it when opponents then ask: "How many points?"

"points, schmoints"

[Gerben42]

blackshoe, on Apr 14 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Apr 14 2009, 02:15 AM, said:

P.S. I hate it when opponents then ask: "How many points?"

"points, schmoints"

Not for them, unfortunately...

BTW, 2040 is the next year that is also a bridge score (the previous one was 2000).

[1eyedjack]

Sounds like one of those hands where you spend your time before playing to trick 1, in addition to planning the play, also calculating the score, so that when you quit trick 13 you can immediately write it down. When oppo says wow you worked that out fast, you just answer "familiar result".

[barmar]

That's probably how jpahk did it last week when I gave him 1160 (vulnerable 2♦XX+1).

[mycroft]

"zero to just under invitational. We accept invitations on hands that reevaluate to a good 13."