[TimG]

I realize this is essentially a style question, but I am curious what your preference is.

[SteveMoe]

Rule of 2 says 3♠.
Would consider 4♠ white vs red.

[the hog]

I would bid 3S on this.

[Yu18772]

Red versus white preempts are solid - so imo 3♠ should be just about this hand.


Yu

[MrAce]

If this is not 3♠ at these colors and position, i dunno what is.

[JLOGIC]

I'd bid 3S also

[dake50]

May I have a T/O Dbl to joke on this hand?
What is the downside?

[rhm]

2♠

I can see 6 likely tricks. RHO has already bid. For a preempt we have some defense. The vulnerability is wrong.
I do not relish playing 3♠ doubled.
Opponents will often have no attractive constructive bid over 3♠ and when this is the case good opponents will decide more often than not to take the money from 3♠ doubled.
Very often that will be the right decision for them.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2012-August-13, 00:27, said:

If this is not 3♠ at these colors and position, i dunno what is.

I know. For example if one of my minor suit cards were another heart I would bid 3♠. Colors and position are all wrong for a preempt of 3♠.
I think it was Woolsey - a strong believer in preempts - who claimed, that even good players underrate how much their competitive decisions should be colored by the vulnerability.

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

rhm, on 2012-August-13, 02:10, said:

I know. For example if one of my minor suit cards were another heart I would bid 3♠. Colors and position are all wrong for a preempt of 3♠.
I think it was Woolsey - a strong believer in preempts - who claimed, that even good players underrate how much their competitive decisions should be colored by the vulnerability.

Rainer Herrmann

Mine was coloured by the vulnerability. This is a 4S bid not vulnerable.

[rhm]

the hog, on 2012-August-13, 05:09, said:

Mine was coloured by the vulnerability. This is a 4S bid not vulnerable.

Kit Woolsey's claim was not that good players ignore the vulnerability.
When considering a preempt and how high to go it is usually a good idea

1) To look not only at your own vulnerability.
2) You should often make at least a 2 trick difference between favorable and unfavorable vulnerability.

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

rhm, on 2012-August-13, 02:10, said:

I know. For example if one of my minor suit cards were another heart I would bid 3♠. Colors and position are all wrong for a preempt of 3♠.
I think it was Woolsey - a strong believer in preempts - who claimed, that even good players underrate how much their competitive decisions should be colored by the vulnerability.

Rainer Herrmann

Can you please explain this a little more for me, Rainer ? Did u mean if you had 7♠+4♥ you would bid 3♠ ? Don't get me wrong i am just trying to understand the logic behind it.

I don't know what made you think my decision was made ignorant to the vulnerability, doesn't it matter how agressive you are in style ? For example would you think this is a normal 3♠ at these colors for a pair who can bid 3♠ white vs red with JT9xxxx x Qxx xx ? Because i bid 3♠ with that in fav vulnerability.

Although 3♠ is a preempt bid in nature, i think at these colors it also has the "picture bid" function. I dont think any other start with this holding actually can give pd such a precise picture of my hand besides the fact that it preempts opponents fwiw. These are the hands you want your pd to bid game with stiff or even void spade depending on his strength.

rhm, on 2012-August-13, 02:00, said:

2♠

I can see 6 likely tricks. RHO has already bid. For a preempt we have some defense. The vulnerability is wrong.
I do not relish playing 3♠ doubled.
Opponents will often have no attractive constructive bid over 3♠ and when this is the case good opponents will decide more often than not to take the money from 3♠ doubled.
Very often that will be the right decision for them.

Rainer Herrmann

I can confidently say that i disagree with every single line of the above statement. It is just amazing how a very good player can see things in such a pessimistic and subjective view.

-Unless you play preempts promising solid suit, you will almost always have a little defense on the side. You are talking as if you have unexpected stuff on the side

-Nobody likes to play 3♠ doubled at these colors. But you are talking as if it is always the opponents who has the rest of the deck

-And even if they do, you are talking as if they can always tell how firm or loose you preempted by looking at your eyes. They can hold exactly same hand when they double you and collect 500 and when you make 3♠ doubled. In fact, if i have opponents like you i would bet my paycheck that it wont be doubled %90 of the time when it was right to double us. OMG he bid 3♠ red vs white !!! Those who fear to death from going down at these colors even with a textbook 3♠, also have a bad habbit of fearing their opponents making a doubled partscore even with a text book punishment position.

-"Very often that will be the right decision for them" is a HUGE overstatement imo. Watching the BBO vugraph final sessions, and they know that their opponents are lose overcallers and preempters, still they let them slip away. Even the best of best players/pairs does not have a good record when it comes to punish bad preempts, letalone textbook preempts. They let an easy +800 and try to make their 3NT with a squeeze-endplay or another fancy technique to get their +400. I am not even mentioning the other side of the coin where your pd has some goodies and describing your hand perfectly helps him the most to decide whether your side can make a game or not, to double them or not, or to let them play or not silently.

-Vulnerability hurts when you get doubled, but it also hurts when you miss a vulnerable game. Even a juicy par bid/save. -200 is still 6 imps vs -420 which may even lead them to give you +50 if they decide to go 1 more level up thinking that it is dangerous to let you play 4♠, then it is 10 imps. There are a lot of variables, and just looking at your hand thinking that a small detail is very important, is naive imo. Which usually turns out to be not the deciding factor of outcome.

If this was some lousy suit and no shortness, i would agree with you. I would never mind a 1♠ bid either, but 2♠ did not even cross my mind untill i saw a very good player's vote and post like yourself.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2012-August-13, 14:42, said:

Can you please explain this a little more for me, Rainer ? Did u mean if you had 7♠+4♥ you would bid 3♠ ? Don't get me wrong i am just trying to understand the logic behind it.

Yes, if I hold 7=4=1=1 or even 7=4=0=2 (all else being equal) I have a far better chance making a trick more than with the actual distribution. Also opponents are more likely to misjudge. Of course I can go for the same number, but chances are I will not. It is not a small difference.

Quote

I don't know what made you think my decision was made ignorant to the vulnerability, doesn't it matter how agressive you are in style ? For example would you think this is a normal 3♠ at these colors for a pair who can bid 3♠ white vs red with JT9xxxx x Qxx xx ? Because i bid 3♠ with that in fav vulnerability.

Again I do not claim that you or any of the other posters ignored the vulnerability.
However I believe Woolsey is right that vulnerability should have an even bigger impact on our decision whether and how high to preempt.
There is nothing wrong in my view with bidding 3♠ white vs red with on JT9xxxx x Qxx xx as dealer.
For all you know opponents may have 13 tricks.
You may misjudge if you think I am a conservative bidder.

Quote

Although 3♠ is a preempt bid in nature, i think at these colors it also has the "picture bid" function. I dont think any other start with this holding actually can give pd such a precise picture of my hand besides the fact that it preempts opponents fwiw. These are the hands you want your pd to bid game with stiff or even void spade depending on his strength.

Agreed. As usual you and your partner need to be on the same wavelength.
Since I believe that at unfavorable vulnerability this is a "weak" jump 2♠ bid, partner needs to understand that a weak jump at these colors shows a very good suit, playable opposite shortage. If my partner does not expect such a hand for a 2♠ bid I can be in trouble.

Quote

I can confidently say that i disagree with every single line of the above statement. It is just amazing how a very good player can see things in such a pessimistic and subjective view.

I would bid 3♠ at equal vulnerability. I might bid 3♠ at this vulnerability as dealer.
The fact that a 1♦ was bid in front of you not only increases the chances that you might get doubled, but also that opponents will do that when it is right. In other words there is less guesswork for them after the opening.

Quote

-Unless you play preempts promising solid suit

Of course I do not. The spade suit is okay. That's why I said I would bid 3♠ at these conditions with a minor card less and heart card more. I do not consider this a trivial difference.

Quote

, you will almost always have a little defense on the side. You are talking as if you have unexpected stuff on the side

This in itself does not stop me, but it is a negative sign, because it increases the chance that we may go for a number with nothing on for opponents. Secondary honors in short side suits tend to be more valuable in defense than offense.
Truscott was a big believer in this when judging preempts.

Quote

-Nobody likes to play 3♠ doubled at these colors. But you are talking as if it is always the opponents who has the rest of the deck

No. That they have the rest is not the worst scenario. At least they can make something. The worst scenario by far is when dummy comes down with short spades and enough secondary honors in the minors to stop opponents from making anything.

Quote

-And even if they do, you are talking as if they can always tell how firm or loose you preempted by looking at your eyes. They can hold exactly same hand when they double you and collect 500 and when you make 3♠ doubled. In fact, if i have opponents like you i would bet my paycheck that it wont be doubled %90 of the time when it was right to double us. OMG he bid 3♠ red vs white !!! Those who fear to death from going down at these colors even with a textbook 3♠, also have a bad habbit of fearing their opponents making a doubled partscore even with a text book punishment position.

I agree that the fear of opponents making a doubled partscore is generally exaggerated, particularly so below the expert level.
However, even though I repeat myself I think you severely underestimate (not ignore) both the unfavorable vulnerability and the fact that there was a bid in front of you.
In my estimate this at least doubles the probability that good opponents will not let you off the hook and at the same time very much reduces the chance that they will take the wrong decision.
In other words 3♠ has far less to gain and much more to loose now.

Quote

-"Very often that will be the right decision for them" is a HUGE overstatement imo. Watching the BBO vugraph final sessions, and they know that their opponents are lose overcallers and preempters, still they let them slip away. Even the best of best players/pairs does not have a good record when it comes to punish bad preempts, letalone textbook preempts. They let an easy +800 and try to make their 3NT with a squeeze-endplay or another fancy technique to get their +400. I am not even mentioning the other side of the coin where your pd has some goodies and describing your hand perfectly helps him the most to decide whether your side can make a game or not, to double them or not, or to let them play or not silently.

I think there are 2 schools of thought:

one believes "Preempts always work"
the other believes "Preempts sometimes work"

Obviously there is no school which claims "Preempts rarely work".

I am firmly in the second camp. Preempts are not different to the rest of the game. Judgement and differentiation rules
It seems to me you belong into the first camp.

Quote

-Vulnerability hurts when you get doubled, but it also hurts when you miss a vulnerable game. Even a juicy par bid/save. -200 is still 6 imps vs -420 which may even lead them to give you +50 if they decide to go 1 more level up thinking that it is dangerous to let you play 4♠, then it is 10 imps. There are a lot of variables, and just looking at your hand thinking that a small detail is very important, is naive imo. Which usually turns out to be not the deciding factor of outcome.

If this was some lousy suit and no shortness, i would agree with you. I would never mind a 1♠ bid either, but 2♠ did not even cross my mind untill i saw a very good player's vote and post like yourself.

I like to preempt. But sometimes you need to hold back. At unfavorable vulnerability I will not hold rubbish.
We are probably in agreement that preempting one level lower not only saves you a trick if caught speeding, it also dramatically reduces the chance getting caught in the first place.
(The greatest bonanza - besides escaping a big penalty - comes, when they still double you and you make it, while 3♠ would be down one.)
However where we differ is, that even if you do not get caught, preempting higher is not always better.
Leaving opponents some wriggle room can be beneficial for your side. Some lucrative doubles are left in because opponents have nowhere to go.
Preempting with 2♠ only still cramps opponents bidding substantially. I think you underestimate the headaches even 2♠ can deliver in this scenario.

Rainer Herrmann

[TimG]

rhm, on 2012-August-14, 03:06, said:

Obviously there is no school which claims "Preempts rarely work".

I have a partner who is in this camp. One of the reasons for posting this hand in the first place.

[TimG]

duplicate

[dake50]

Hate this outcome. They would go 4H.
RHO has S-Kx. We win SQA.
They finesse into my HQ.
Partner wins a trick in the wash: 4H-1.
Nope! 3S-X-2 =-500.
Am I overestimating this case??
Either 4xH = surprise! or 1xH = 1-loser looks better.
H-Qx would win a H-trick - like that when they have 8+ Hearts.
3xH looks like they have only 7x Hearts - they won't misbid to 4H.
They guess 7xS 0-1xD 1-3xH 1-3xC in defending.
Little chance they get untracked.
I see little chance opponents Misbid or Underbid after 3S.
Risk of penalty for their overbid??
That's the comparison that's left.

[TimG]

dake50, on 2012-August-14, 08:40, said:

Little chance they get untracked.
I see little chance opponents Misbid or Underbid after 3S.
Risk of penalty for their overbid??
That's the comparison that's left.

If you overcall 1♠ and they compete in hearts, how high will you compete in spades on your own?

[MrAce]

@ Rainer : Fair enough, thanks for the detailed reply/explenation and i mean it. Fwiw i was one of those who believed "preempts always work" Now i think it would be fair for me to say i am in the "preempts work more often than not" camp.