[DavidKok]

I'm writing this post to summarise some of the thoughts I have on preempting. When my partner and I discussed our preemptive style we settled on something very close to what I'm writing here, and I think this approach is superior to the most common approaches to preemptive bidding. Prompted by chcantre's thread on weak two bids.

As a novice, we learn that we can preempt at the 2-level with a hand with 6-10 points and six card suit, at the 3-level with the same range but 7 cards, the 4-level with 8 cards and that we might open at the 5-level in a minor suit with either 9 cards or 8 and a side suit, but that generally we don't open 5♥ or higher. Maybe this advice was accompanied by the 'rule of 2 and 3 and 4', which states that if partner is broke you should be within 2 tricks of your contract when unfavourable, within 3 tricks at neutral vulnerability (so all or nobody vulnerable) and within 4 tricks when favourable. Larry Cohen gives some examples of this rule and its application. To my knowledge, bridge players have long joked that the rule has practically been replaced by the 'rule of 3 and 4 and 5' - the same rule, but bid one more. There are some variations ('rule of 2 and 3' - only distinguishing between vulnerable and not vulnerable, not taking the opponents' vulnerability into account), and just the other day there was a Bridgewinners thread joking about the 'rule of 4 and 7 1/2'.

Personally I've learned more about preempts than I thought was ever possible from two concise sources - Andrew Gumperz' sequence on preempts (I only linked the first post but it is a 9-part series) and Kit Woolsey's 14-page chapter on preempts in his 1982 book 'Matchpoints'.

Focusing on the latter for the moment, Kit describes an approach to preempting where there are no hard rules to his bidding, just pros and cons on any given hand compared to what might be expected of the bid. He lists three example 'dreaded' sequences: 3♥-(X)-P-(P); P, 3♥-(P)-P-(P) and the killer 3♥-(P)-P-(X); P-(P)-P (ouch). The chapter then argues that on practically all other continuations the preempt will have gained or not be very costly, so as long as you can avoid these three continuations you should probably preempt (note that near-identical considerations apply for 2- and 4-level preempts). He then lists a number of factors that might influence the likelihood of the auction continuing these ways: internal trump strength (presence of queen through nine), holding the ace of trumps, high cards outside your suit, how suitable the hand is in other strains, vulnerability, position and exchange of information.

Now jumping to Gumperz' series, I think it is sensible to add a few more 'losing' auctions to Kit's list. I suggest 3♥-(3♠)-4♥-(4♠); P-(P)-(pause)5♥/X-(the rest doesn't matter), 3♦-(P)-3NT-(P); P-(P) and 2♥-(P)-2NT*-(P); 3♥-(P)-P-(P).
The point on the first auction is that partner's save may well be a phantom sacrifice, or partner's double may well be assuming defensive tricks in your hand that you don't have. Traditionally suitability for a preempt focuses on offensive values (to make sure you don't go off 4 doubled, or the likes). However, I can't remember the last time I went for -1100, and believe me when I say that I have been trying. What happens far more frequently is that skilled opponents will stretch just a little bit to get their suits in, and partner has to decide whether to play or defend at an uncomfortably high level. It is important to have solid expectations on how many defensive tricks your preempt is expected to contribute.
The point on the second auction is that this is traditionally a very sound auction - if you can be relied on to have something like ♠Kx, ♥x, ♦KQTxxxx, ♣Jxx partner will probably claim 9 or 10 tricks shortly. However, if you wait for a hand like that to open 3♦, you are leaving serious IMPs on the table. The main message a preempt should convey is 'my hand is suitable for this strain, but very poor on support or defensive values in other strains'. With this style partner needs a powerhouse of a hand, with special emphasis on good support in our suit, to play in 3NT. A balanced 17-count with Ax in support doesn't cut it. To be clear - I'm not saying you have to copy this style, but that you have to choose between either preempting (far) less often than I think is wise, or bid impossible 3NT with some frequency, or pass out some strong hands over partner's preempts. In my opinion this is a discussion worth having in a committed partnership.
The last auction is about playing strength. If you go too far and your preempts promise absolutely nothing, partner will regularly have to investigate game and then pull the brakes one level higher than intended. The Bergen & Cohen partnership was famous for this, to the point they adopted 2-under transfers at the 2-level to distinguish the utter garbage from the normal preempts (next step asks, and garbage signs off). Similarly to the previous example auction, you have to find a balance between the frequency of your preempts, the type of hands that can make game tries and your willingness to be one level higher than the field.
Based on all the above I'd add some factors to Kit's list for evaluating preempts, arguably with some overlap: trump length, HCP, side voids, offence-to-defence ratio. This makes my list, sorted by importance:

• Position
  
• Vulnerability
  
• Exchange of information
  
• Offence-to-defence ratio
  
• Trump length
  
• Internal trump strength
  
• Suitability for other strains
  
• Side voids
  
• Ace of trumps
  
• HCP

This is probably a lot to take in, so let me go through a few examples.

mikeh, on 2022-March-07, 13:04, said:

White v red at imps first seat x xx KQ10xxx Qxxx is, imo, a clear 3D opening and not close to the weakest hand

• Position: +, first seat is the second best position (3rd-1st-2nd) for preempting.
  
• Vulnerability: ++, white versus red is the best (white v red - white v white - red v red - red v white).
  
• Exchange of information: ++, the opponents have no idea what's going on.
  
• Offence-to-defence ratio: ++, the queen of clubs might come home on defence but I'm not holding my breath. That ten of diamonds is a great asset on offence and worthless on defence.
  
• Trump length: -, nominally partner would expect a 7-card suit for a 3-level preempt (well, in the old days).
  
• Internal trump strength: +, we're missing jack and nine.
  
• Suitability for other strains: +, we might belong in clubs but at least we don't have anything in the majors.
  
• Side voids: +, no side voids.
  
• Ace of trumps: +, we don't have it.
  
• HCP: +, 7 points is in the normal range.

All in all there are a lot of pluses and almost no minuses, so I'd open this 3♦ in a heartbeat. As mikeh said this is not even close to the weakest hand suitable for this bid - I would also open 3♦ second hand white v red, or first hand white v white or red v red, or first seat white v red but swap the queen of diamonds for the nine.

♠x, ♥AJTxxxx, ♦Kx, ♣xxx (from Gumperz' article), second hand all red.

• Position: -, second seat is the worst position.
  
• Vulnerability: -, all red is the second worst vulnerability.
  
• Exchange of information: -, the pass to your right limits the opponents' prospects, while partner's holding is unknown.
  
• Offence-to-defence ratio: -, your ace of hearts always rates to take a trick, and the diamond king is about as useful on defence as it is on offence.
  
• Trump length: +, you have seven of them.
  
• Internal trump strength: +, we're missing queen and nine but that's reasonable.
  
• Suitability for other strains: ++, this hand only plays in hearts (unless partner insists on NT).
  
• Side voids: +, no side voids.
  
• Ace of trumps: -, we have it.
  
• HCP: +, 8 points is in the normal range.

All in all this is much more of a mixed bag for a preempt. I would still open 3♥, but I would much prefer to not be holding the king of diamonds, or for my ace of hearts to be the king instead. The danger that LHO is going to put partner to a tough guess is very real. So is the chance that partner will go wrong, not expecting two likely defensive tricks in our hand. If RHO had opened, even with e.g. 1♣* (can be 2), this hand is much closer to 2♥ than 3♥ because of the exchange of information.

♠KQT9x, ♥x, ♦ATxx, ♣Jxx, white versus red, third seat. Consider 2♠.

• Position: ++, third is the best position.
  
• Vulnerability: ++, we are white versus red.
  
• Exchange of information: +, the pass to your right limits the opponents' prospects, but partner's pass practically rules out that we have a game.
  
• Offence-to-defence ratio: +, the ace of diamonds is a bummer but the heart shortness suggests taking our their likely heart contract anyway, and the ten of spades is a good offensive card.
  
• Trump length: -, we only have five instead of the normal six.
  
• Internal trump strength: ++, we're just a jack short of a long sequence. As an aside: there is next to no chance that we get doubled, because the opponents are lacking the spot cards to leave it in.
  
• Suitability for other strains: --, we might well belong in a minor suit.
  
• Side voids: +, no side voids.
  
• Ace of trumps: +, we don't have it.
  
• HCP: --, This hand is well over strength for a preempt.

I think this is a good 2♠ preempt. Partner is a passed hand and is unlikely to go crazy, and we are most likely not letting them play 2♥ anyway. The main risk is missing a 3♣/3♦ contract, but the internal solidity of the spade suit means it should be playable opposite an empty doubleton or even a singleton.

[HardVector]

I notice that a lot of people talk about "rules" that you should follow in preempting, but rarely discuss the actual reason to preempt. The reason to preempt, is to force the opponents to guess what to do, and not your partner. Keeping that thought in mind will often guide you to making correct decisions if you are able to anticipate the way the auction may continue. For instance, if you are inclined to preempt with J9xxxx, consider what partner is going to lead holding Kx if the opponents end up in 3n. Your preempt has now caused partner to make a bad play if they lead the K, therefore the preempt was bad. I recently had someone preempt with me as a partner, and it turned out they had Txxxxx as their trump holding with 2 outside aces ("I had a 6 card suit and 8 pts, what's the problem?"). Their preempt caused me to take a 5 level "sacrifice" against a contract that the opponents couldn't make. These are examples where you are forcing your partner to guess what to do, and not the opponents, therefore are bad preempts.

This is why no matter how aggressive you want to be, you need to have firm understandings with your partner as to what holdings you can have to preempt. If you could have anything from AKJ in your suit to Txxxxx, your range is too great and partner is going to have to guess.

Now, if partner is a passed hand, then a lot of "rules" go out the window, because partner will rarely hang you as a passed hand.

[DavidKok]

I disagree. The example hand of Txxxxx with two outside aces is a terrible preempt (it would score negatively on well over half the criteria in my list), but it's not because of a wide range. Having a trump suit holding that is substantially different from what your partner might play you for is a downside, but that is not in and of itself sufficient to rule out taking action. Goading partner into a poor lead against 3NT (which, at the point of making the decision, the opponents haven't even bid yet) is also a downside, but again not necessarily decisive. On my list the internal trump strength is number 6 - it's certainly relevant, but far from the most important condition.

I'm promoting making the basis of the understanding the offence-to-defence ratio, rather than the offence or the HCP. Preempting on total junk is fine in my book (at certain positions and vulnerabilities), as long as you don't have much outside your suit either. This way you can preempt frequently - with different suit lengths, suit qualities and HCP - and partner will still not get the phantom sacrifice calls wrong.

[pescetom]

An interesting post, thanks.

Why do you assign negative value to the Ace of trumps here? I understand deprecating side Aces, but always considered the trumps Ace a nice to have, although no substitute for internal suit strength.

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2022-March-08, 11:17, said:

Why do you assign negative value to the Ace of trumps here?

I'll quote Kit Woolsey in full, since I don't think I can give a better explanation:

Kit Woolsey said:

Possession of the ace of trumps. Oddly enough, this is a liability rather than an asset for preemptive purposes. The reason is that card is a big factor on defense. If you wind up playing the hand in your preempt, which is the dangerous situation, the success of your preempt will often be determined by how well pairs at the other tables holding your opponents' cards will do if they buy the hand. That ace in your suit might mean ace and a ruff at the other tables, which is why it is a liability rather than an asset. You would rather have KQTxxxx than AQTxxxx when you preempt.

[mycroft]

• 3♥-(3♠)-4♥-(4♠); P-(P)-(pause)5♥/X-(the rest doesn't matter): bad, bad partner. If she was going to go to 5♥ over 4♠, she should have done so over 3♠ and not give the opponents an educated choice. Double by the raiser is, of course, "I bid 4♥ hoping they'd go, because now they're going down", and the pause doesn't affect that - at least as the preempter, it doesn't. (I play double by the preempter as "I want to sacrifice").
  
• 3♦-(P)-3NT-(P); P-(P): Fine. In fact, this auction is exactly why I have a (sub-optimal in general, but it wins on confidence) agreement that unlike the rest of my preempts (more aggressive than most), 3m in 1/2 is "happy to put dummy down in 3NT". I have no worries about this auction at all (even when partner bids it because -450 still scores better than -600/-620).
  
• 2♥-(P)-2NT*-(P); 3♥-(P)-P-(P): Yeah, this is awful, no matter what 2NT asks for. And I get it more than most (see: "more aggressive than most" above). Again, it's a question of whether you play 2♥+2 a lot or 3♥-1 a lot (or where in that balance you fall). Or you don't preempt as often ("more disciplined") and lose that way.

[LBengtsson]

I remember a few weeks past seeing a Vugraph game with Zia (Mahmood) opening 5♣ with a hand like ♠x ♦AJ10xx ♣J109xxxxx in first position, I forget the vulnerability. Is that a good preempt, is that a gambling preempt? Can you preempt at the 5 level missing the top three honours in your suit? And many other questions....

I wish I had all the hand to show you. But it was lucky. The hand with all the ♣ honours was in 4th position and could not do anything except pass, and if that hand doubled then partner with no ♣ and a weak 6-4-3-0 hand would have chosen to bid at the five level in a major suit, my guess.

Every preempt is a gamble, reward versus loss. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Trying to work out what the bidding will be after a preempt is just more of a guess. What you do need to know is what sort of hands that partner will preempt on? Having some consistency when making preempt bids and partnership understanding is more of value than guessing where the bidding will go.

[pescetom]

LBengtsson, on 2022-March-08, 15:13, said:

Every preempt is a gamble, reward versus loss. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Trying to work out what the bidding will be after a preempt is just more of a guess. What you do need to know is what sort of hands that partner will preempt on? Having some consistency when making preempt bids and partnership understanding is more of value than guessing where the bidding will go.

But partnership understanding is also something that should be shared with opponents, of course.
It's not bridge if you are guessing less than them.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2022-March-09, 14:10, said:

But partnership understanding is also something that should be shared with opponents, of course.
It's not bridge if you are guessing less than them.

I haven’t looked at the new ACBL CC (since I haven’t played an ACBL event since it came in) but the old one had boxes to check re style…and we always checked very light fav(tho there was no box for seat, any decent player knows style should vary with seat) and sound vul v not.

If playing these days against good players, I assume similar, but if it’s important I check (without letting partner know of course…trivial online or with screens

[pilowsky]

mikeh, on 2022-March-09, 15:51, said:

... any decent player knows style should vary with seat) and sound vul v not.

If players have to start marking their level of decency on their cards; directing is going to become very problematic down here in the cheap seats!

[thepossum]

I know I'm in the wrong forum again but when I read about the 234 rule on Mr Pavlicek's site I have found it easier to at least get a rough idea on what type of reasonable pre-empt I should make. I didn't know about 3,4,5 yet

I sometimes even use 234 for my 1 and 2 level bids too

It definitely helps for people like me to have a fairly simple rule for 3 and up preempts though. Something I could even write on a Card I could just say sound to light style

[mycroft]

The new card has, in addition to the line for description of style of each 2 bid, a "style" line for 3 bids and another for 4-level. It even says "seat/vul". So, assuming we actually have players who fill in the new card and don't just fall prey to checkbox-itis (there's 20% more checkboxes on the new card. Granted, a large number of them are the 15 different 1♣ and 1♦ styles, but still: wheee!) they should have at least thought about it once.

And that's what I see regularly - what's your preempt style? "uhh..." Part of that is they play "preempts", the only way that exists (is the way they learned); part of that is they don't understand why it would matter (to them, or to the opponents). I hope this will help.

[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2022-March-10, 09:10, said:

The new card has, in addition to the line for description of style of each 2 bid, a "style" line for 3 bids and another for 4-level. It even says "seat/vul". So, assuming we actually have players who fill in the new card and don't just fall prey to checkbox-itis (there's 20% more checkboxes on the new card. Granted, a large number of them are the 15 different 1♣ and 1♦ styles, but still: wheee!) they should have at least thought about it once.

And that's what I see regularly - what's your preempt style? "uhh..." Part of that is they play "preempts", the only way that exists (is the way they learned); part of that is they don't understand why it would matter (to them, or to the opponents). I hope this will help.

Yes. Over the years, I'd been annoyed with players who say they play pre-emptive jumpshifts or jumpraises. Often they claimed to have no agreement about them but the word "pre-emptive."

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2022-March-10, 09:10, said:

And that's what I see regularly - what's your preempt style? "uhh..." Part of that is they play "preempts", the only way that exists (is the way they learned); part of that is they don't understand why it would matter (to them, or to the opponents). I hope this will help.

I see the first part more - "didn't we all learn this way?" (no, I read books).
I can also see that they might have a style but have difficulty describing it (because they never explicitly thought about it, or are just not good at description).
But IMO they all understand that it matters, both to them and to the opponents (whether they worry about inadequate disclosure or consider it a wise precaution is another matter).

[mycroft]

"no agreement beyond 'pre-emptive'." Sure, and you'll likely get the same from me - we preempt very aggressively, and that doesn't just mean "very weak", it means "if it looks right". But of course, I can tell you what I would bid a non-jump on, or a jump to game, and you can work it out with the same information I have.

But really, if that is the extent of their knowledge, that is all you're entitled to.

[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2022-March-10, 17:07, said:

"no agreement beyond 'pre-emptive'." Sure, and you'll likely get the same from me - we preempt very aggressively, and that doesn't just mean "very weak", it means "if it looks right". But of course, I can tell you what I would bid a non-jump on, or a jump to game, and you can work it out with the same information I have.

But really, if that is the extent of their knowledge, that is all you're entitled to.

No. There is the matter of partnership experience.

[mycroft]

Please explain where "partnership experience" is not a subset of "the extent of their knowledge".

Yes, I do know the difference between "we've never discussed this" and "we have no agreement".

Yes, I do know what implied agreements are.

Yes, I do know that there are many pairs who will not - or are incapable of - giving you "the extent of their knowledge".

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2022-March-11, 11:12, said:

Yes, I do know that there are many pairs who will not - or are incapable of - giving you "the extent of their knowledge".

But they do understand that this will work to their advantage, like it or not (many do).

Of course there has to be a limit, and that works to their advantage too, but this is an inherent paradox of the game as conceived.
Take a common and relatively simple situation such as 1♥ 1♠; 2♦ 3♣; 3NT p.
How strong might opener be?
How strong must responder be?
How certain is it that opener holds 4 diamonds?
Could he hold 3 spades?
What sort of stop in clubs does he promise?
How likely is it that responder has something in clubs himself?
u.s.w.
Now a well taught beginner has predictable certainties about most of this, but the average eternal intermediate pair knows their partner better than the book.
It would be embarassing (and arguably wrong, f2f without screens) to ask about such basics, but they know all the answers (however poor/unusual their effective agreement may be) while opponent on lead does not.