[jillybean]

We have had some discussions in other threads regarding preempts holding a side 4 card Major. It is considered the topic deserves a separate thread.

Every bridge lesson I took, every book I have read, tells us Do NOT open a weak 2 with a side 4 card major. Bidding has become a lot more aggressive, styles are changing and preempts with 4 card Majors are acceptable to some, at least in the Netherlands.

DavidK has contributed in the other thread. https://www.bridgeba...rent-contracts/

I'd like to start a discussion regarding preempts w/4cM , how widespread is the style?

If we adopt this style of preempting should partner be a little more liberal in bidding a major over partners 2♦ opening?
What are the considerations with with 64xx 46xx shapes?

TYIA

Edit: 1st and 2nd seat !

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

You should seperate 1st / 2nd from 3rd.
I dont think there is a lot of disagreement, with the statement that it is ok, when you are in 3rd.

If you are really concerned about missing a fit in the unbid major, you could adopt a opening, that
shwoes 5+/4+ in the majors. I am not sure, how well those structure handle 6/4.

On a related note, it is usually said, that you should ignore the 4 card suit, if you have a 7/4 distribution.

In general it is a question, what you value more, precision or frequency.
The loss in frequency is not huge, if you dont open the 6/4 hands.

For whats it worth, we dont have issues opening 6/4 in the major with a bid showing only the 6 carder.


With kind regards
Marlowe

[mycroft]

It's just one more thing that you can decide how far you want to go down a path of "potentially preempting partner" to be more aggressive, just like "suit strength", "outside defence", "what about 5-carders", ...

The "traditional wisdom" is that a preempt should only play well in that suit, and in particular shouldn't be a hand that would give a limit raise in a/the other major. Partner will not be happy when you score +110 or +140 in 2♥ with +420 in 4♠ on.

Same as the "traditional wisdom" says that partner with strength should be able to raise your weak 2 to game on a singleton and know you're not off three trump tricks and a trick.

There are only two issues with this:

• at least in first seat, there are two opponents and one partner. There might not be an "other major" fit - or it might belong to the opponents! (It's a lot of fun watching the opponents in 4♠ when partner, not me, shows out on the second round of trump...)
  
• Game is great and all that, but most auctions are competitive struggles, and passing when others are making a (less descriptive, sure, but still very descriptive) bid, and taking away much of 2 levels, puts you on the back foot. Now, bidding with a more descriptive opener when everybody's bidding (but partner has to cater to...) is a plus, so it's a balance. What liberties lead to more better returns than losses, and where's your (comfort, safety, results) borderline?

I like Kit Woolsey's "two flaws" theory (in his book "Matchpoints"). I consider "holding a limit raise in the other major" as a flaw. But if the hand is otherwise an auto, then it's not a problem for me. But as I have frequently said, I don't care what my weak 2 style is, as long as partner will expect what I put down, and partner won't violate those rules when I have to make the "game or..." or "double or..." decisions. I might bridle at the restrictions, but our scores will be better that way than "I heard you, but I'm going my way anyway, because I'm Right™".

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-August-07, 09:16, said:

Hi,

You should seperate 1st / 2nd from 3rd.
I dont think there is a lot of disagreement, with the statement that it is ok, when you are in 3rd.

Absolutely. I have updated OP

[DavidKok]

I intend to comment in more detail later but I feel like I'm hogging the thread and stifling discussion. Two quick points though:

• In the Netherlands people generally bid more aggressively than is common elsewhere, and a significant part of the international success of our top players is attributed to this style. That being said the majority is still playing more traditional approaches. My personal opinion on preempts are far far outside the norm even by Dutch standards, and while the majority at my club would likely not raise a brow at an outside 4cM in a preempt, the national average most certainly would.
  
• I've said it in the other post and it bears repeating: the more rules you put on your preempts, the fewer IMPs and MPs you make. I am fully aware that there are differences between first, second, third, vulnerable, not vulnerable, continuation schemes, artificial preempts, constructive preempts, natural preempts and other. I've played really sophisticated versions of a lot of them, with pages upon pages of notes regarding requirements and artificial shape-showing continuations and more. And every time I burned a page of the notes, my score went up. I now consider this 'wisdom' that third seat is special, that vulnerable we need a six card suit, that we can't hold an outside 4cM &c. a bunch of sophistry. There's some truth to all of it and definitely take all factors into account, but don't miss the forest for the trees.

[mycroft]

I play EHAA. There is a limit where removing rules reduces your results.

It's fun. It's not world-championship calibre.

Don't really know where that line is, but I do know it's there.

[awm]

I think there’s a difference between preempting in a six card major with four of the other (which I think is generally fine) vs. preempting in diamonds when holding a four card major (seems substantially worse) vs preempting with a five card major (using a bid that shows only that major) when holding four in the other major (seems much worse).

In general it’s fairly rare that a fit in your four card side suit takes more tricks than you can take in your six card suit (it is possible for sure, but not common enough to overcome the advantages of preempting). But obviously for 5 vs 4 this is much less true, and when the six card suit is a minor you often want to play 4M since 4m does not give you a game bonus.

Of course 3rd seat is a different story and anything goes.

[P_Marlowe]

A problem with add. req. is, that you need to be switched on what the implications are in various situations.
If one is not playing litterally 1000 hands a week, myself I may not even play 20 hands f2f per week, than you
are not trained to spot the implications, and you loose out, you cant take adv. of the merrits and are stuck
with lower freq.

[mw64ahw]

What I play depends on my partner, but having started playing in a traditional fashion the following summarises my current state.

• I have no issue with any 4-card side suit with a six-carder
• I'm Ok having a 5-card side suit over a Weak 2M
• If we're competing for a part score then I like to get in first regardless of seat.
• If game is on we have the tools to find the right contract.
• No agreement for horrendous pre-empts in 3rd.
• I play either 6 card weak 2s, 5-card ones which may or may not have a side suit and 'Ekren' style 2♥ plus various Multis depending on partner.
• I stick with certain suit qualities and playing strength so partner knows what to expect, but this is not too high a hurdle.
• I will look at playing tricks versus vulnerability , but generally not too worried at the 2-level

[pescetom]

In general I'm closer in style and philosophy to Davidkok (aggressive wide-ranging preempts, focus on shape) rather than to mw64ahw (predictable suit quality and strength, focus on combined strength), but caught somewhere in the middle here.

My partners limit me to exactly 6 cards at 2 level and I'm not complaining too much about that, we have enough weird stuff to deal with (compared to frequency of play together) as it is.

But as mentioned in that preceding thread, I am experimenting with allowing a 4cM on the side. I always had the suspicion this might be a better idea than the books crack it up to be, and so far it seems to work out well overall, even over weak 2 diamonds (although we play that less wide-ranging anyway) and without particular follow up agreements.

But I do think that if one takes the plunge it would be logical to have follow ups that take account of the possibility of a side 4cM, and I'm interested in discussion of that (mw64ahw suggested one such scheme in another thread).

[mw64ahw]

pescetom, on 2024-August-08, 09:43, said:

In general I'm closer in style and philosophy to Davidkok (aggressive wide-ranging preempts, focus on shape) rather than mw64ahw (predictable suit quality and strength, focus on combined strength), but caught somewhere in the middle here.

My partners limit me to exactly 6 cards at 2 level and I'm not complaining too much about that, we have enough weird stuff to deal with (compared to frequency of play together) as it is.

But as mentioned in that preceding thread, I am experimenting with allowing a 4cM on the side. I always had the suspicion this might be a better idea than the books crack it up to be, and so far it seems to work out well overall, even over weak 2 diamonds (although we play that less wide-ranging anyway) and without particular follow up agreements. If nothing else, it's a great relief to get the six card suit off your chest.

But I do think that if one takes the plunge it would be logical to have follow ups that take account of the possibility of a side 4cM, and I'm interested in discussion of that (mw64ahw suggested one such scheme in another thread).

At the extreme I will bid on the hand below given it has 9.5 modified losers especially favourable so perhaps more aggressive than some
KTxxxx
xxx
xxx
x

[DavidKok]

A fanatic is one who can't change their mind and won't change the subject, so I won't go into another full explanation of my personal opinions on preempts. At the same time I did want to comment a bit more, focusing on the constructive tools.

In general I think the emphasis on constructive methods over preempts is highly overrated. This is especially true for jump responses (be they poor man's RKC, control bids, control-asking bids or other) but the non-jump responses are not exempt either. I found that by shifting the focus from suit quality, strength and other factors to ODR, I am still very often happy to play the suit I opened. Offensively-oriented hands typically only play well in their own long suit(s), so the need to look for other strains is relatively low even with my wide-ranging preempt style. What's more, the need to investigate level is also limited - it takes a rather strong hand to brave the 3-level opposite a wide-ranging preempt, even more so if it is a potential misfit auction.

But even putting all of that aside, it simply doesn't happen that often that we need to investigate game, slam or choice of strain after our weak 2. Much more often we are happy to pass in potentially the last making contract, or run to a more playable strain and stay there, or, most likely, watch as the opponents enter the auction and let us off the hook, and now it's their problem at the 3-level. It helps to have some tools to investigate choice of game in particular, but e.g. inviting (and possibly signing off at the 3-level) simply doesn't gain that much, and can lose quite a bit. Most importantly though, opener will take these factors into account when deciding to preempt. A lot of the offshape preempts are difficult hands to convey anyway, and a constructive (or competitive!) auction beginning with a pass would be a major headache. In those scenarios 'pass' has all of the risks and only limited upsides - keep in mind if it's a fit auction the opponents will likely compete, but showing a weak shapely hand constructively in a misfit auction is a problem always. If you still deem the risk of missing the right strain or level to be unacceptably big you can (should) pass instead of preempt, but I think passing is often the scarier option. Furthermore, the gadgets I've seen and played over weak 2's don't move the needle much on that front.
Let's say you open 2♦ and allow that to have a 4cM. Partner has a so-so 15-count with a 4cM and two diamonds. If partner knows that we have a fit in the major maybe game is on, but if we have the wrong major (or, most likely by far, no major suit) the 3-level might not be safe. What exactly are your requirements for finding out? I think these constructive tools are in practice infrequent enough to usually not be decisive for which hands make +EV preempts and which make -EV preempts.

[nullve]

You can check out how current European champions Brogeland - Bakke continue after their constructive Weak 2M openings in note 7 here.

[jillybean]

nullve, on 2024-August-08, 12:01, said:

You can check out how current European champions Brogeland - Bakke continue after their constructive Weak 2M openings in note 7 here.

I see they play a 8-11 “weak 2M” and multi 2D 0-7
Are we, restricted and protected ACBL players allowed to do that yet? This seems to be ideal solution.

Nice convention card

[DavidKok]

The 2M's are legal at all levels.
The multi requires open+ level and sections of 6+ boards.

Constructive weak 2's really are an entirely different beast from preemptive weak 2's. Partner has an invitational or constructive hand opposite the 8-11 range much more often, so you need to be more disciplined when it comes to length, hand shape and suit quality. Ironically this makes them less frequent than more preemptive weak 2's. I find this a bit funny as one of the traditional arguments for 8-11 preempts is that by homing in on the range around 10HCP you maximise the frequency, but then you return all of that by placing more restrictions on shape, suit quality etc.
However, constructive weak 2's have the added benefit of removing the weakest 6(+)-card suit hands from your 1-level openings. Personally I think this benefit does not outweigh the costs, but others do.

[mikeh]

We use 2M as 10-13, may be shaded with shape, and our 2D multi is 5-9. Only when permitted, but we focus on imps where it’s always allowed.

The constructive 2M has benefits in and of itself. It makes life difficult for the opps..doubling our 2S for takeout is riskier than doubling either a ‘normal’ weak 2S or a minimum 1S opening bid. Overcalling is even more dangerous, although we have not yet collected any numbers.

But the main benefit is in actions such as 1S 1N 2S….this now shows about 14-16…and includes some hands with which we’d formerly jump to 3S. Thus we can sometimes play 2S when others are in 3S….once in a while that wins a small number of imps. Also, our jump rebid of a major is stronger than standard….a great 16+. When 3S would be a great 15-17, and ours is a great 16-18, responder can raise on some hands that would pass playing standard methods…while that sometimes gets us to a bad game, so far it’s worked very well. Obviously we’re not talking about huge frequencies but I’m confident that we’re in consistently better shape than we used to be before we adopted the method.

So I’m definitely a believer that this approach is a net winner….note that our range is higher than the B-B 8-11. Thus the impact on our 1M openings, and rebids, is going to be far greater than for them.

[helene_t]

DavidKok, on 2024-August-07, 11:07, said:

In the Netherlands people generally bid more aggressively than is common elsewhere, and a significant part of the international success of our top players is attributed to this style.

Ha-ha, in India my partner opened 3♣ holding AKJxxxx. An opponent said he refused to believe my partner was Dutch. The opponent had plaid a bit internationally and claimed that a Dutch player would always open at least 4♣ with such a suit.

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2024-August-08, 14:22, said:

Ha-ha, in India my partner opened 3♣ holding AKJxxxx. An opponent said he refused to believe my partner was Dutch. The opponent had plaid a bit internationally and claimed that a Dutch player would always open at least 4♣ with such a suit.

Amusing, but it also raises the interesting (to me) question of whether AKQxxx(x) with nothing on the side should still be a preempt, or be opened systemically 1 in suit.
I play it as a preempt because that's what my partners expect and what our follow-ups can deal with.
But I always had a suspicion that (even playing 2/1) it might be better to open 1 in suit and reassign the related preempt follow-up to a more high frequency meaning.

[mycroft]

mikeh, on 2024-August-08, 14:14, said:

We use 2M as 10-13, may be shaded with shape, and our 2D multi is 5-9. Only when permitted, but we focus on imps where it’s always allowed.

...if you have 15K MPs like "we do".

Paraphrasing the Charts, Open+ is allowed in:
Bracket 1 of unlimited Bracketed events;
Any other bracket where the lowest team has 12000 MPs;
The A flight of Flighted Swiss events at Regionals.
(and two day events with no masterpoint limit that aren't Bracketed. Are there any left?)


So: no events at Sectionals.
No in the Sunday Swiss, in a small regional where it's all stratified.
No in Bracket 2(!) in Penticton.
Oh, and no two-session IMP pairs (for the 6+board reason :-)

Not saying "wrong!" to MikeH; just pointing out that for us rabble, that "always" don't necessarily apply, before we do something we shouldn't.

[jillybean]

I think I will pick a liberal minded club owner/director and play Multi when possible , otherwise relax my weak 2 rules, test the water, and have some fun.