BBO Discussion Forums: Preempting with a side suit void - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1

Preempting with a side suit void

#1 User is offline   Liversidge 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 2014-January-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sleaford, Lincolnshire
  • Interests:Bridge, Gardening, DIY, Travel

Posted 2018-July-11, 14:44

Why is it not a good idea to make a 2 or 3 level preempt with a side suit void?
http://www.cincybrid...id_Preempts.pdf
0

#2 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,058
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2018-July-11, 15:06

I don't agree with a lot of what's in there. That's very old style and for example I would never consider not opening KQJ109xx, xx, xxxx, void 3 at any vul (I'd consider 4 at favourable) or most 8014 hands 4 unless too good.

You can agree to deviate from the standard advice, we take the view that first seat is a good place for undisciplined preempts (you can mess up 3 people, 2:1 it's not partner), and also we DO open weak 2s 1st and 3rd with stuff that would give the writer of that document apoplexy, 4 card side majors and all. 2nd seat should always be more disciplined and 4th seat you don't preempt in the same way at all.
0

#3 User is offline   Liversidge 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 2014-January-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sleaford, Lincolnshire
  • Interests:Bridge, Gardening, DIY, Travel

Posted 2018-July-11, 15:34

View PostCyberyeti, on 2018-July-11, 15:06, said:

I don't agree with a lot of what's in there. That's very old style and for example I would never consider not opening KQJ109xx, xx, xxxx, void 3 at any vul (I'd consider 4 at favourable) or most 8014 hands 4 unless too good.

You can agree to deviate from the standard advice, we take the view that first seat is a good place for undisciplined preempts (you can mess up 3 people, 2:1 it's not partner), and also we DO open weak 2s 1st and 3rd with stuff that would give the writer of that document apoplexy, 4 card side majors and all. 2nd seat should always be more disciplined and 4th seat you don't preempt in the same way at all.

Thanks.
What do you think of the Rule of 2-3-4 for a pair moving on (we hope/think) from novice level? I know good players don't need Rules of X,Y,Z but we still find them helpful in some situations (Rule of 22, Rule of 15, Rule of 11 etc). As a retired teacher I call them my 'scaffolds'. We have good frameworks for bidding in uncontested auctions and for overcalls but when it comes to responding to partner's 3 level preempt with a view to making our contract, we have to guess (poor suit/poor hand or good suit/good hand?). At least with 2 level preempts we can use the 2NT enquiry. For 3 level preempts we think the Rule of 2-3-4 might be better than guessing, although we still have to think about 'seat'.
And should we forget about the '4' bit (we only play duplicate)? In Klinger's basic bridge book he just recommends the rule of 2&3)
0

#4 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,058
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2018-July-11, 16:02

View PostLiversidge, on 2018-July-11, 15:34, said:

Thanks.
What do you think of the Rule of 2-3-4 for a pair moving on (we hope/think) from novice level? I know good players don't need Rules of X,Y,Z but we still find them helpful in some situations (Rule of 22, Rule of 15, Rule of 11 etc). As a retired teacher I call them my 'scaffolds'. We have good frameworks for bidding in uncontested auctions and for overcalls but when it comes to responding to partner's 3 level preempt with a view to making our contract, we have to guess (poor suit/poor hand or good suit/good hand?). At least with 2 level preempts we can use the 2NT enquiry. For 3 level preempts we think the Rule of 2-3-4 might be better than guessing, although we still have to think about 'seat'.
And should we forget about the '4' bit (we only play duplicate)? In Klinger's basic bridge book he just recommends the rule of 2&3)


If you decide to go for a reasonably disciplined structure then not unreasonable, certainly can make it easier to judge when to raise.

3rd seat green v red is THE place for wide ranging preempts, 4 or even more is not silly there.
0

#5 User is offline   dsLawsd 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 2017-September-15

Posted 2018-July-11, 23:34

The most important thing is to have good partnership agreements, including what sort of suits you open at each level and in particular over a weak 2 bid what is 2nt and replies?

I prefer a disciplined choice and suit in 1 and 2 seats without regard to a void issue. But a void can cause partner constructive problems about how high to bid. 2 ways asks (short or long) in combination with a size ask can help.

The rule of 2.3.4 is a good guide- but you can consider what form of scoring and what is the state of your game to decide to vary from that if your partner can tolerate it.

I recommend reading Kit Woolsey's Matchpoints book and Jeff Rubens great book The Secrets of Winning Bridge to guide your choices.

And whatever the choices, look at the results over a large sample of hands not just a bad result in a few cases.
0

#6 User is offline   FelicityR 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 294
  • Joined: 2012-October-26
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2018-July-12, 02:30

How I would look at this is simply if you have a void in one suit, the opponents are probably likely to have an eight, nine or ten card fit in it so I would want to make it as difficult for them to find by pre-empting.

Admittedly, that's not always the case, as partner might have length in the void suit himself.

It's not always the void that is the problem, but missing a fit yourself as if you open a weak two bid (six card suit) with a void you will always have a four (or greater) card side suit.

Obviously, I always think the best thing is to always agree with partner how you pre-empt, void or no void, and the minimum suit quality depending on the vulnerability and table position.
0

#7 User is offline   HardVector 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 2018-May-28

Posted 2018-July-12, 11:56

The reason preempting with a void is a bad idea, is because the main idea of a preempt is to get the opponents guessing what to do. It's not to keep them from bidding, it's not to "steal" the auction, it's to remove bidding room to make a good decision. What you don't want to do, is now make your partner into the one who is guessing. Your preempts should clarify exactly what you have so your partner can now make a good decision on whether to bid more, stop, or even bid NT. If you have a void, your hand is potentially a lot stronger than you are saying, and you've removed all the room for partner to figure that out. Also, having a side suit can create strong hands, so if you are 2 suited you may not want to preempt unless you can show both suits.

When it's ok to do it, is when you know your partner is limited/weak. For instance, your LHO opens, partner passes, RHO makes a bid that shows 10+ (game inv). Now you are free to do whatever you like, it's their hand.

If you can't restrain yourself and absolutely MUST bid, then I would recommend bidding one level higher than you think to compensate for the added strength a void would provide. With a good 6 card suit, preempt to the 3 level. With 7, bid 4.

Trust me, it's very embarrassing to preempt a 3s bid and make 5 opposite a partner than has a vanilla 13 count.
0

#8 User is offline   miamijd 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 386
  • Joined: 2015-November-14

Posted 2018-July-12, 13:26

Contrary to what a few of the previous posters have suggested, the reason some older authorities recommended against preempting with a void has little to do with offense. Hands with voids don't have more offense; hands with side 4+ suits do. Thus, a 7330 hand isn't likely to be much better for offense than a 7321 hand (though 7321 beats 7222 any day). But a 7420 hand is significantly better than a 7330 hand. To the extent your hand has a side 4+ card minor, you can adjust for that by preempting a bit more aggressively.

No, the reason older authorities suggested -- very erroneously, in my view -- not to preempt with a void had to do with defense. If you preempt, you are likely to keep the opponents from finding their best fit. The thought was that if you are void, the opponents are getting the worst possible break in their suit, so you don't want to keep them from finding their "best fit" -- it will be bad for them.

I think that view is quite wrong:

1. If you have a void, the opponents probably have a bigger fit than they normally would. This means that the total trump count is higher than it would be if you were more balanced, which means more total tricks.

2. All other things being equal, with a particular total trump count, voids tend to increase, not decrease, the total trick count.

Both of these factors argue for being more, not less, aggressive in preempting when you hold a void.

Cheers,
Mike
0

#9 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 533
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2018-July-12, 14:52

 miamijd, on 2018-July-12, 13:26, said:

Contrary to what a few of the previous posters have suggested, the reason some older authorities recommended against preempting with a void has little to do with offense. Hands with voids don't have more offense; hands with side 4+ suits do. Thus, a 7330 hand isn't likely to be much better for offense than a 7321 hand (though 7321 beats 7222 any day). But a 7420 hand is significantly better than a 7330 hand. To the extent your hand has a side 4+ card minor, you can adjust for that by preempting a bit more aggressively.

No, the reason older authorities suggested -- very erroneously, in my view -- not to preempt with a void had to do with defense. If you preempt, you are likely to keep the opponents from finding their best fit. The thought was that if you are void, the opponents are getting the worst possible break in their suit, so you don't want to keep them from finding their "best fit" -- it will be bad for them.

I think that view is quite wrong:

1. If you have a void, the opponents probably have a bigger fit than they normally would. This means that the total trump count is higher than it would be if you were more balanced, which means more total tricks.

2. All other things being equal, with a particular total trump count, voids tend to increase, not decrease, the total trick count.

Both of these factors argue for being more, not less, aggressive in preempting when you hold a void.

Cheers,
Mike


I always considered this much as HardVector - a preempt should raise the bar of bidding and paint a "once and for all" picture of hand - but this argument is food for thought.
In any case a void is still quite rare and the rest of the article quoted makes a lot of sense for Novice and Beginner.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1


Fast Reply

  

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users