[Walddk]

How do you like this agreement? In 3rd seat non vulnerable against vulnerable a pre-empt (usually at the 3-level) can be most anything. Natural perhaps, but also very unusual.

I have the agreement with my favourite partners that we are NOT allowed to join the auction unless we have 7-card support for the "suit". So 3♦ in this position could be

x
xxxx
QJ10xxx
xx

as well as

Ax
Qx
Axxxxxx
Kx

or

xxx
xxx
Jxxxx
Qx

Needless to say, partner always alerts the pre-empt and explains properly: "Either a standard pre-empt, perhaps wide ranging, or any weak hand, usually 5-cards in the suit. I am not allowed to bid".

Roland

[the hog]

How do I like this? Not much.

[Walddk]

The_Hog, on Mar 17 2005, 06:06 AM, said:

How do I like this? Not much.

Maybe you are the one in 4th seat with the powerhouse. Then I can understand

Roland

[whereagles]

I've been playing like that for 5 years now.. lol.

One thing I can say about it: it works.

[flytoox]

I think this is in Robson's book on partnership bidding. It works very well. I remembered once I held sth like xxx,Axx,xx,QJT98 and I opened 3C in third seat.

On the other hand, I think it is more effective against weak opps. Against good opps I dont think 3m preempt will be very effective. 3M preempt is different.

[Walddk]

flytoox, on Mar 17 2005, 06:29 AM, said:

On the other hand, I think it is more effective against weak opps. Against good opps I dont think 3m preempt will be very effective. 3M preempt is different.

It applies to any suit opened. Maybe I wasn't specific in my first post. My apologies.

Roland

[kgr]

Too much for me:
I would bid:
x
xxxx
QJ10xxx
xx

=> 3♦

as well as

Ax
Qx
Axxxxxx
Kx

=> 1♦ : Still good chance for 3NT

or

xxx
xxx
Jxxxx
Qx

=> 2♣ with my regular partner. Either weak 6card ♦ or a strong hand. After having passed already he has to bid 2♦ now.

3♦ opening in 3rd hand NV vs V: partner alerts: "Normal preempt, but can be 'gambling' in this position: can be shorter, stronger and weaker".
Partner can raise like over a normal preempt, but more cautious. (he does not have to pass).
eg:
after
p-(p)-3♦-(X)
He will bid 4♦ with a 4-card ♦, certainly if most points in ♦

[helene_t]

7-card support is a too strong requirement. If you have the partnership understanding that a preempt could be based on less than four trumps, it is a BSC.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Mar 17 2005, 06:32 AM, said:

7-card support is a too strong requirement. If you have the partnership understanding that a preempt could be based on less than four trumps, it is a BSC.

My irony didn't catch apparently. By the way, it is still possible for opener to have up to 6 card in the suit even if you have 7-card support!

The bottom line, however, is that responder can never bid.

Roland

[Walddk]

I am obviously fully aware of the fact that this approach is very destructive, and some may not like it just because of that. In this context it might be interesting to know that my Danish colleague (bridge manager) and world class player, Lars Blakset, invented Blakset's 2♠ non vulnerable, in 1st, 2nd and 3rd alike, as showing:

0-5 hcp, any shape. An ace not allowed!

This is surely even more destructive since there is no known suit, if any. Responder will always pass if his RHO passes, unless he has around 20+ hcp of course.

Roland

[Gerben47]

I like it. Always agressive preempting It might not be allowed because it is a controlled psych.

You might open 3♥ on KJxxxx x xxx xxx and partner is not allowed to bid. After you get doubled you bid 3♠ and partner is still not allowed to bid... And if they don't double they will surely not play hearts...

I already play that a preempt in 3rd NV is 0-13, longest suit is the one bid. Do not raise unless you have one more card in support than you would have for the same situation in a different seat.

Blakset's 2♠ looks a bit like the Lorenzo 2 bids as now in OltMaas (newer version of OltBrink):

NV 1st 2nd seat:

Pass: Not an opening bid but at least 8 HCP
2♣: 0 - 7 no 4-card major (forced)
2♦: multi
2M: 0-7 at least 4 cards (forced)

[Walddk]

Gerben47, on Mar 17 2005, 07:06 AM, said:

It might not be allowed because it is a controlled psych. Blakset's 2♠ looks a bit like the Lorenzo 2 bids as now in OltMaas (newer version of OltBrink)

In pairs events surely not, but in longer team matches yes, and definitely in major international championships where you must send your convention card months in advance in order to give your opponents time to prepare a defence.

Roland

[whereagles]

I should say that, in my experience, the good results don't actually come from opponents missing a slam after an outrageous 0-5 points opening, but rather from opponents bidding to a hopeless game after a preempt in the 12-15 range with fair defensive power.

Pard is allowed to bid, but only when he has a decent fit. All his bids are lead-directors or save-suggesting.

[flytoox]

Walddk, on Mar 17 2005, 11:31 AM, said:

flytoox, on Mar 17 2005, 06:29 AM, said:

On the other hand, I think it is more effective against weak opps. Against good opps I dont think 3m preempt will be very effective. 3M preempt is different.

It applies to any suit opened. Maybe I wasn't specific in my first post. My apologies.

Roland

I understand you mean any three level preempts. I am just saying 3c/3d would not be as effective as 3H/S. After 3M preempts, opps are often forced to choose between 3N and 4 or 5 level. But after 3m preempt, they can look for major suits fit first, if failed, they can still try 3N.

[ochinko]

Walddk, on Mar 17 2005, 06:35 AM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 17 2005, 06:32 AM, said:

7-card support is a too strong requirement. If you have the partnership understanding that a preempt could be based on less than four trumps, it is a BSC.

My irony didn't catch apparently. By the way, it is still possible for opener to have up to 6 card in the suit even if you have 7-card support!

The bottom line, however, is that responder can never bid.

Roland

In favourable vulns I have opened succesfully an the 3rd level with as little as QT9xx (yes, 5 cards only, although 6 is better ). My partner knows I couldn't have an outside Ace, a King is highly unlikely too. Preferably, I won't even have a point outside the suit.

It may seem silly but with good distribution we open lightly, so if partner had a 6 card major, she would've opened multi, with a 5 card major and a 4+ card minor - Muiderberg, so it is very likely that opps have more than 30 hcp and at least a small slam when I'm in the third position after two passes. There were times when opps stopped at a game with 3 possible grand slams.

Petko

[ochinko]

flytoox, on Mar 17 2005, 08:03 AM, said:

Walddk, on Mar 17 2005, 11:31 AM, said:

flytoox, on Mar 17 2005, 06:29 AM, said:

On the other hand, I think it is more effective against weak opps. Against good opps I dont think 3m preempt will be very effective. 3M preempt is different.

It applies to any suit opened. Maybe I wasn't specific in my first post. My apologies.

Roland

I understand you mean any three level preempts. I am just saying 3c/3d would not be as effective as 3H/S. After 3M preempts, opps are often forced to choose between 3N and 4 or 5 level. But after 3m preempt, they can look for major suits fit first, if failed, they can still try 3N.

3m opening could be very effective too when opps have 2 major fits but are able to discover only on of them because of the stolen bidding space. Then they stop in game when there's a slam in their other major suit.

Petko

[ArcLight]

>I am obviously fully aware of the fact that this approach is very destructive, and some may not like it just because of that.

Effective or not, I think it makes the game less interesting and enjoyable, all around. I play bridge because I enjoy deductive reasoning, not because I enjoy bluffing games. I would rather play a game I enjoy, such as a deductive reasoning game, than win at a game I don't enjoy, a bluffing game.

I read an article by Mike Lawrence where he said it appeared to him that in Europe there was far more emphasis on destructive bidding. Some criticize teh ACBL for not allowing certain conventions, but I enjoy ACBL Bridge more than Destructive Bridge.

I am not saying that European or Destructive Bridge is less skillful, or ACBL bridge is superior. I am saying I enjoy ACBL style bridge far more.

And I think its easier to get new players involved in bridge with a simplified system, using few conventions, and no destructive bidding, other than ACBL approved pre-empts.

[Walddk]

Let's put things into perspective. How often do you think this happens? Right, once in a blue moon. It has to be non vul against vul in 3rd seat with a weak hand after 2 passes.

I can't see how that will make bridge less enjoyable.

Roland

[whereagles]

It's not randomizing: it's putting opps to a guess. That is a completely different thing.

Of course it doesn't mean open 2S on ANY 0-5 points and 5 carder. You have to look at the hand first.