[bravejason]

Holding a 7 card suit and contemplating a 3 level preemptive bid, does it make sense to ignore point count and focus on the location of the high cards?

I'm asking because if you count both long suit points and short suit points, then a 7-3-2-1 shape is worth 5 points on distribution alone. Thus a holding like KQJTxxx Qxx xx x ought to be opened with 1 of a suit instead of 3. It's a 7 card suit and an 8 HCP hand, but it's a 13 pointer with distribution. Recognizing that point has some limitations, I'm wondering if it really should not be applied to 7 card suit hands.

Maybe the above hand is a bad example? Fundamentally, the question is where do you draw the line, however fuzzy it may be, between opening 1 of a suit and 3 of a suit?

I presume the same concepts apply to 2 level preempt decision as well, but do chime if that is not the case.

I imagine some hands should passed. Such as xxxxxxx Ax Ax xx. Does it ever make sense to pass a hand while holding a 7 card suit?

I remember as a kid watching my grandmother play a hand with some friends and she remarked when the dummy came down with a 7 card suit "Never table a 7 card suit!".

[Stephen Tu]

bravejason, on 2016-July-20, 09:42, said:

Holding a 7 card suit and contemplating a 3 level preemptive bid, does it make sense to ignore point count and focus on the location of the high cards?

I'm asking because if you count both long suit points and short suit points, then a 7-3-2-1 shape is worth 5 points on distribution alone. Thus a holding like KQJTxxx Qxx xx x ought to be opened with 1 of a suit instead of 3. It's a 7 card suit and an 8 HCP hand, but it's a 13 pointer with distribution. Recognizing that point has some limitations, I'm wondering if it really should not be applied to 7 card suit hands.

Opening a 1 bid is supposed to promise a certain amount of defense. Like around 2 quick tricks minimum or so. So that if opps climb in and end up at 5c or something when partner doubles them they actually go down because you actually contribute some high card tricks on defense, and haven't based your opening bid just on having a long suit and playing strength.

Preempts tend to be gauged on playing strength, estimated number of tricks provided by your own hand, rather than point count. The old rule of 2 (at unfavorable) and 3 (how much you think you are down if partner provides nothing) , but players are usually more aggressive these days, more like rule of between 2 and 5 depending on exact vulnerability and which seat and how aggressive your partnership agrees to be.

With long suits you preempt if it is the best description of your hand, to both rob opps of bidding space hoping they get it wrong, while partner should be able to guess reasonably accurately how much to raise you if appropriate. You open with a 1 bid if you are much stronger than the average preempt (mostly hands with 11+ HCP, some tens), and you fear partner with a strongish hand will miss a game/slam when you have an extra ace/K, extra trick than you have on average for opening that bid, and you don't care as much about obstructing opps because you have high card defense against them if they outbid you. You pass if your suit is really poor, and when partner is weak or misfit you either go down too many if it gets passed out or doubled and passed out, or your side cards tend to make your bid a phantom sac, they set your opponent's contract but your poor trumps doom your own contract.

Quote

Maybe the above hand is a bad example? Fundamentally, the question is where do you draw the line, however fuzzy it may be, between opening 1 of a suit and 3 of a suit?

Your hand isn't close to a 1 opener. If you changed the Q of hearts into the ace then it could be a 1 opener.

Quote

I presume the same concepts apply to 2 level preempt decision as well, but do chime if that is not the case.

yes.

Quote

I imagine some hands should passed. Such as xxxxxxx Ax Ax xx. Does it ever make sense to pass a hand while holding a 7 card suit?

Certainly you should usually pass if the suit is really poor. But it depends on seat and partnership aggressiveness and side cards. With 2 side aces I'd never preempt on a suit this poor. But at favorable vul 3rd chair with less outside, aggressive players might preempt on suits this weak anyway to pressure the opponents. The bids on such weak suits tend to be higher variance, they get horrible results when opps choose to defend and your suit breaks badly, or when your bid on nothing elicits a bad lead from partner from his Kx holding or whatever, but they can get good results when the preempt causes the opps to misjudge and get to the wrong spot, too high/low or wrong strain. When you loosen suit quality requirements, you get to preempt more often, so the opps go wrong more often, but it also backfires on you more often when you are too high, cause bad lead, or your preempt pushes the opps into a better spot then they actually would have gotten to uncontested.

Quote

I remember as a kid watching my grandmother play a hand with some friends and she remarked when the dummy came down with a 7 card suit "Never table a 7 card suit!".

The usual adage is don't put down an 8 cd suit as dummy if that suit is not trumps. 7, it's much less ironclad, but the general rule is that you should strive to play in the weaker hand's long suit if reasonably possible. Note that if you open a preempt, and partner bids 3nt, you are going to put down your hand as dummy always. Partner either has support and stoppers and plans to run your suit for 6/7 tricks to make his 9, or he has a running suit of his own and has 9 tricks anyway.

[bravejason]

Thanks for the detailed reply. Certainly, a few things for me to chew on there.

[perko90]

You should not be counting short suit points and whatnot for opening or preempting.
With rare exception, an opening hand should always have 10+ HCPs.
And with similar rare exception, preempts (below game) should have at most 10 HCPs.
While styles vary, Bergen's Rule of 20 is a pretty popular standard for an opening. I like to make sure I have 2 QTs with a bare minimum, too.
For preempts, it's all about trick taking. I learned the Rule of 2-3-4 as a novice and I pretty much still stick to it today.
At Unfav you should be within 2 tricks of your bid; at equal, 3 tricks; and at Fav, around 4 tricks.
As a general rule of thumb, your suit should be headed by the QJ or QT9 or better. It varies by partnership agreement, but that's a good place to start.
Also, below game preempts should never have 2 outside A's.
If you go with the above, you will occasionally pass 7-card suits. But you should rarely have any confusion on whether to open or preempt.

[Tramticket]

Effective pre-empts are based on hands that offer the potential of lots of tricks when playing the hand but offer little possibility of taking defensive tricks. These are the hands where you can make life awkward for the opponents by taking away their bidding space.

You are right that you should pass with xxxxxxx Ax Ax xx. Let's examine the potential strength playing or defending:
- If you play you might win 4 spade tricks (assuming the suit breaks normally - e.g. one of the other players has three cards, one has two cards and one has a singleton). You will also win a heart and a diamond. Total tricks = SIX.
- If you defend you expect to win two trick (the aces).

Now compare a hand such as KQJ10xxx xxx xx x. Although this hand has fewer points, it is a great hand for pre-empting. Again, examine the potential strength playing or defending:
- If you play you expect to win 6 spade tricks (losing one spade to the ace). Total tricks = SIX.
- If you defend you do not expect to win any tricks (If we assume the 3-2-1 break of the spade suit, then someone is likely to ruffthe second round).

Both hands offer similar prospects playing the hand - but the first offers some defensive strength, so you have much less reason to fear the opponents bidding.

Things can change dramatically if your partner is a passed hand. Now you know that your pre-empt will not be disrupting partner's constructive sequence with a strong hand. Sitting in third seat, after two passes, opening 3♠ on xxxxxxx Ax Ax xx might be ugly, but also might be effective.

[billw55]

bravejason, on 2016-July-20, 09:42, said:

Thus a holding like KQJTxxx Qxx xx x ought to be opened with 1 of a suit instead of 3. It's a 7 card suit and an 8 HCP hand, but it's a 13 pointer with distribution. Recognizing that point has some limitations, I'm wondering if it really should not be applied to 7 card suit hands.

This hand is perfect to preempt, a classic textbook example. Many players would open 4♠, in the right conditions.

bravejason, on 2016-July-20, 09:42, said:

I imagine some hands should passed. Such as xxxxxxx Ax Ax xx. Does it ever make sense to pass a hand while holding a 7 card suit?

Yes, this hand is a clear pass.

For me, the primary meaning of a preemptive bid is: "this hand has little value unless declared in my suit. It isn't very good for defense, or as dummy in some other contract." Also the suit quality should be from average (nonvulnerable) to sound (vulnerable). Garbage suits are out. Outside aces are a deterrent but not forbidden, as are four card majors on the side.

As a corollary, an opening bid at the one level implies some reasonable minimum of defense or high cards. The former hand lacks this and should not be opened 1♠.

[Vampyr]

bravejason, on 2016-July-20, 09:42, said:

I'm asking because if you count both long suit points and short suit points, then a 7-3-2-1 shape is worth 5 points on distribution alone.

Counting actual specific point values for distribution is a technique you will eventually discard, but while you are doing it, understand that long-suit and short-suit values are in a way two sides of the same coin, so you can't count them both.

For the most part, in some situations valuing length will be important and in others shortness will be more valuable. Occasionally these factors will be somewhat combined, as in recognising that, eg 7321 is better offensively than 7222, but differences like this are not usually assigned point values.

[Stephen Tu]

Vampyr, on 2016-July-21, 08:17, said:

Counting actual specific point values for distribution is a technique you will eventually discard, but while you are doing it, understand that long-suit and short-suit values are in a way two sides of the same coin, so you can't count them both.

I really don't see why not, it depends on what scale you are using. The authors who teach counting both for length and shortness (e.g. Root) use different point scales from the people teaching short suit only and often only count both after a fit is found. Most patterns will come out same point as short-suit only counts, or +/- 1 pt, and bidding evaluation is all mostly estimation and ranges and subject to re-evaluation as the auction progresses, so given that bids show a range and any reasonable point count system will come out fairly close to another, partner should never really be able to tell how you are counting, so to me counting both is fine.

[jogs]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-July-21, 10:24, said:

I really don't see why not, it depends on what scale you are using. The authors who teach counting both for length and shortness (e.g. Root) use different point scales from the people teaching short suit only and often only count both after a fit is found. Most patterns will come out same point as short-suit only counts, or +/- 1 pt, and bidding evaluation is all mostly estimation and ranges and subject to re-evaluation as the auction progresses, so given that bids show a range and any reasonable point count system will come out fairly close to another, partner should never really be able to tell how you are counting, so to me counting both is fine.

When will these theorists recognize that there are two independent random variables used to estimate tricks? They are power and pattern. HCP are part of power. Distribution is part of pattern. Length and shortness should not be expressed in points. Points is a sub variable of power. Length and shortness are sub variables of pattern. The prize is estimating and counting those tricks. Use power and pattern separately to estimate tricks. This technique makes it easier to identify duplication.