[Apollo81]

Every now and then you will pick up a low-HCP, shapely hand such as one of these:

a. ♠KQ109xxx ♥--- ♦KJxxx ♣x
b. ♠--- ♥Q109xxx ♦--- ♣K109xxxx
c. ♠x ♥x ♦QJ10xx ♣QJ109xx

Let's say you're at favorable vulnerability in 1st seat. Pretty much every discussion I've seen about this situation sees the responses split into two camps:

1: make one high-level initial preempt in an attempt to make the opponents guess wrong, even if you may not be preempting in the right suit or at the right level for what is "optimal" on the hand
2: pass (or open at the 1-level) initially and then get a two-suited (or second-suit) bid in later so that your side can best judge how high to compete (and in what suit)

For example:
(.a.)
camp 1: opens 4♠ then usually passes further opposing bidding
camp 2: opens 1♠ and then bids spades/diamonds depending on auction

(.b.)
camp 1: opens 4♥ (?) then bids clubs later depending on auction/table feel
camp 2: pass then bid Michaels or Unusual NT at second call

(.c.)
both camps probably pass then bid Unusual NT unless playing a "minors" opening

How about a middle-road approach: preempt, but only preempt high enough so that you can probably get your other suit in before the bidding gets out of hand?

With this approach:
(.a.) open 3♠, then bid: 4♠ over 4♥; 4♦ over 4♣. The former must show a 2-suiter (either minor) since you wouldnt preempt and bid again on a one-suiter; you'd just open 4♠. Furthermore, partner knows you are probably 7-5 since with 7-4 or 8-4 you wouldnt mention diamonds and with 6-6 you could open just 2♠ (in this approach) and then bid again later.

(.b.) open 2♥, then bid ♥ again or ♣ at next call depending on auction. If you open 3♣ first, what will you do over the opps' 4♠? You can bid notrump, but partner will think you have minors and may take a diamond preference over clubs when he has better clubs than hearts (and then youre stuck)

(.c.) open 3♣, then bid notrump later.

Obviously this approach is partner-dependent; some partners would not be able to "read' such auctions.

Perhaps this approach combines flexibility and preemption well. I have never seen anyone advocate bidding this way, nor have I ever tried this. What do people think?

[inquiry]

At favorable vulnerabilty I would be scared to open (A) only 3S. While unlikely, I wouldn't want to play eactly 3S. And it is too good for a favorable vul 4S bid, and wrong distribution for 4D transfer to 4S opening. so 1S it is for me.

On C), I would, as you suggest, pass... planning a two suit auction

On B.) I am not going to let them play it below fvie clubs. So it doesn't really matter what I open, 1H, 2H, 3H, 4H are all fine (call it a psyche at the one level bid). Bidding clubs first, is clearly a non-starter as you will be stuck (as you note) over 4S. I think I start 4H at this vul.

[whereagles]

There's a third type of way to bid the hand: open a low preempt and bid again later.

I kinda lean towards the 'open high pree' field, though I use the 'open low pree, rebid later' on occasion. What I never do is open a 1x.

[Apollo81]

inquiry, on Sep 27 2006, 02:07 PM, said:

At favorable vulnerabilty I would be scared to open (A) only 3S. While unlikely, I wouldn't want to play eactly 3S. And it is too good for a favorable vul 4S bid, and wrong distribution for 4D transfer to 4S opening. so 1S it is for me.

On C), I would, as you suggest, pass... planning a two suit auction

On B.) I am not going to let them play it below fvie clubs. So it doesn't really matter what I open, 1H, 2H, 3H, 4H are all fine (call it a psyche at the one level bid). Bidding clubs first, is clearly a non-starter as you will be stuck (as you note) over 4S. I think I start 4H at this vul.

(.a.)
Obviously we dont want to "stop competing" at 3♠ on the first hand. The danger of opening 4♠ is that we don't really like our situation after 4♠-(5♥)-pass-(pass) At least, I would expect that bidding over this would be right a lot of the time but not all the time. The danger of opening 1♠ is that this may not be "preemptive enough" My post suggested a 3♠ opening followed by further action at preemptor's next call. I was looking for comments on THAT

(.b.) I think it matters what you open. 1♥ suggests defense. 4♥ suggests longer hearts than clubs. Perhaps it is best to open 2♥ or 3♥? The criticial decision here is, as you say, proably what to do after they bid over our 4♥/5♣.

(.c.) As the original post states, I agree that the "normal" way to bid this is to pass then Unusual NT. What do people think about 3♣ followed by 4NT?
---

The point of my post was to suggest a new(?) approach to bidding distributional two-suited hands when no one has opened and to solicit comments on the suggested approach.

[pclayton]

'Soft preempting' is an interesting idea.

We've had some discussions here about handling superfreaks via a NAMYATS opening and a followup. Namyats is handy, since the opener gets another chance to bid. For instance something like: AKxxxxx, x, void, KJxxxxx could be a 4♦ opening followed by 5♣. August Boehm's article in the BW "Science at the Freak Show" covered a lot of these ideas.

I can see how transfer preempts can accomplish the same goal; however that puts a delayed penalty double in the hands of LHO - which is the reason they have fallen out of favor.

I for one don't want to give up maximum pressure and I hate the idea of holding my breath and opening 3♠ on a hand like: KQT9xxx, x, KJxxx, void, since I am a big favorite to make 4♠ opposite all three hands.

However, I also accept I have an unfounded paranoia that a 3♠ opening would be passed out.

Perhaps a better idea is to have the auction (and its cousins):

3♠ - dbl - pass - 4♥
4♠

mean "I have a superfreak (like the example hand), but an unknown side 5 card suit. Bid 5♣ if your'e interested, otherwise pass".

[joshs]

There really are more than 2 schools.

There is the Zia School (which you call soft pre-empting):
Open only 2 and then bid the other suit next. This way you have not accelerated the auction too much, not promised any defense, so can usually show the rest of your hand.

There are those of us whose strategy varies based on the relative suit strengths/lengths, and well as what suits we have:

For instance red/red in 1'st seat I premepted 3S the other day with:
AQJT9x T - J876xx

Move the Spade Q into clubs (AJT9xx T - QJ876x), I would have opened 2S and hoped to bid 4C next. In general, I am not in the pass camp when I have a good 6 card suit to bid, unless perhaps I have a higher ranking side suit that I don't want to lose.

The other day I had third seat after P-P-?, white vs red, playing light openings 1'st and 2'nd seat and sound openings 3'rd and 4'th I had:
QT8xx xx - AQ9xxx

I didn't feel any bid was correct (In first or second seat I would have opened this 2C, showing 6+C and about 10-14ish), so I passed. the auction continued:

P-P-P-1H
P-3H
And now I had to decide between 4C (planning on bidding spades next) and 4H. I chose 4H because I felt this sequence clearly emphazed my minor, since I would have opened 3'rd seat with some number of spades with any hand with better or equal spades, thats good enough to come in at this point. So oddly I was hiding my better minor, which I implied having. Whether my partner would have gotten the implication at the time, I am not positive, but hopefully he does now.

(Note: With 5 in a higher ranking suit and 6 in a lower ranking suit and an minimum opening bid, I tend to open the higher ranking suit, unless the suit disparity is really great like it is in the QT8xx vs AQ9xxx case. In fact, if I had both majors its really unclear what to do with this kind of two suiter. With submin high cards, and an awkward shape I might choose to pass and try to come in later rather than distort my suits....
)

[awm]

I think this greatly depends on the hand type. The major issue is that I expect partner to sometimes pass my preempt with a relatively good but misfitting hand. If it turns out that we have a huge fit in my secondary (unmentioned) suit, we will often miss a game or even slam on such a sequence. For example opposite the first hand:

x KJxx AQxx AJxx

I'd pass a 3♠ preempt with this hand. On a good day partner will have six spade tricks, and my hand provides about three tricks on average. On a bad day 3♠ might go down. But I'm really hoping for opponents to balance so I can hammer them. However, if partner holds:

KQT9xxx - KJxxx x

You can see that we have good chances at six diamonds and certainly want to be in at least game.

The existence of the secondary suit actually makes it less likely that opponents will balance, since they tend to have the wrong shape for a takeout double (too few cards in the unknown secondary suit). So I'd be very cautious about bidding the way you describe. I think it's more appropriate for weaker hands that would open at a lower level, like your second hand with hearts and clubs. Here you're less likely to miss game, and the auction at the 2♥ level is less likely to pass out.

Perhaps a good rule is: "If you'd open the hand at the two-level without the secondary suit, feel free to open at the two-level and then bid again. But if your hand is worth a three-bid or more even without the second suit, open at the one-level or pass."

[Apollo81]

awm, on Sep 27 2006, 03:57 PM, said:

I think this greatly depends on the hand type. The major issue is that I expect partner to sometimes pass my preempt with a relatively good but misfitting hand. If it turns out that we have a huge fit in my secondary (unmentioned) suit, we will often miss a game or even slam on such a sequence. For example opposite the first hand:

x KJxx AQxx AJxx

I'd pass a 3♠ preempt with this hand. On a good day partner will have six spade tricks, and my hand provides about three tricks on average. On a bad day 3♠ might go down. But I'm really hoping for opponents to balance so I can hammer them. However, if partner holds:

KQT9xxx - KJxxx x

You can see that we have good chances at six diamonds and certainly want to be in at least game.

The existence of the secondary suit actually makes it less likely that opponents will balance, since they tend to have the wrong shape for a takeout double (too few cards in the unknown secondary suit). So I'd be very cautious about bidding the way you describe. I think it's more appropriate for weaker hands that would open at a lower level, like your second hand with hearts and clubs. Here you're less likely to miss game, and the auction at the 2♥ level is less likely to pass out.

Perhaps a good rule is: "If you'd open the hand at the two-level without the secondary suit, feel free to open at the two-level and then bid again. But if your hand is worth a three-bid or more even without the second suit, open at the one-level or pass."

Then might the strategy I suggest be appropriate, say, in 3rd seat, with hands that might miss game opposite an opener?

-Noble

[awm]

I think a lot of this has to do with your general approach. There are many situations (of which this is one) where you can choose to:

(1) Bash some high-level contract as fast as possible. Sometimes this will be the wrong contract, because you will be too high or too low or belong in another strain. However, your losses from this will be compensated by forcing your opponents to guess. If/when opponents guess right it can be expensive for you, but if/when they guess wrong you will win big. These guesses can involve competing or not, doubling or not, what to lead, etc.

(2) Try to conduct a slow(er) auction to the best contract. This generally avoids really bad scores, but you also miss some opportunities for really good scores. Essentially you are reaching "absolute par" most of the time, which sometimes nets a very good result (when others are misjudging or missing the slam) and sometimes a not-so-good result (when it helps opponents figure out to do something that most other opponents aren't doing). However, you don't give opponents the chance to do anything that they couldn't have done on their own (assuming they can see all the cards).

Which of these approaches you choose is really a stylistic thing. Each can win in some situations. I'd suggest that preempting on a two-suiter with a bid that shows only one suit is essentially always in the first category. This is true regardless of whether you preempt high initially or preempt low and try to bid again. Basically you run the risk that you will be passed out in the wrong contract, or that opponents will bid in such a way that you can't show your second suit. I'd suggest that the "preempt and then bid again" tactic is more effective when the initial bid is fairly low and the suits are roughly equal in quality, whereas the "bid high and hope" strategy is better when one suit is markedly superior and you can't really imagine opening the hand below the three level anyway. But in either case you're following the first approach, hoping that your choice of bids will cause opponents to misguess.

Personally I tend to prefer approach (2) in many situations, so I often pass these sorts of hands and come in later. This does not (usually) force the opponents to guess, but also doesn't (usually)force my side to guess (partner will know what I have when I pass and then make a two-suited bid, and can judge whether to sacrifice).

[joshs]

BTW, I really can't see pre-empting 3S with the KQT9xxx - KJxxx x hand. If you are going to pre-empt in spades, it should be 4S, since you might make 4S opposite as little as xx xxxx Qx xxxxx (while the opps are cold for game, and might be cold for slam). In general, when you have exceptional side shape, but your primary suit is strong enough to treat as a 1 suiter and you view to treat it as a 1 suiter for tactical reasons, you should pre-empt 1 level higher than the number of trumps would suggest to reflect the additional playing strength. Of course if partner fits neither suit, you have a disaster on your hand.

For instance if you view: KQJTxx - xxxx xxx or KQJTxx - xxxxxx xx as a spade pre-empt, with the first hand you should probably pre-empt with 3S (at least NV) assuming you have no intention of showing any other suits and with the second you should definitely pre-empt 3S if you don't plan on bidding diamonds. In general, whenever you pre-empt at the 3 level or higher, you will often not get a chance to show a second suit even if you wanted to. (Passing might not enable you to show 2 suits either, but thats a different story).

There was a hand from the finals of the LM pairs where i had in 3'rd seat fav after two passes:
x A98xxx J ATxxx

Again there is a question of: should I pre-empt and if so how high. Since my heart suit was weak, I felt I could not open 3H. Instead of bidding 1H or P, I chose 2H since I do have 6 of them to an honor. Since my hand is aces, I have a lot of defense I was only willing to introduce clubs next if the auction dies below the 3C level. (If instead my hand was x A98xxx x QJT9x I would be happy to show my clubs next at the 4 level). In fact the auction went:

P-P-2H-x
3H-P-?
And I reraised to 4H because of my extra undisclosed playing strength. This got xed for down 1 when they were cold for 3N and for 4D.

There is so many different ways to bid these hands, so its hard to list them all, but suit quality of each suit is one of the most important factors.

[Apollo81]

joshs, on Sep 28 2006, 04:11 PM, said:

BTW, I really can't see pre-empting 3S with the KQT9xxx - KJxxx x hand. If you are going to pre-empt in spades, it should be 4S, since you might make 4S opposite as little as xx xxxx Qx xxxxx (while the opps are cold for game, and might be cold for slam).....

I'm not suggesting "preempt just 3♠"
I'm suggesting "preempt 3♠ then bid 5♦ at next turn."
This is based on the assumption that 3♠ will not pass out.

If you preempt 4♠, the bidding is likely to be at 5♥ when it gets back to you and you won't be able to act. Competing over 4♥ could be right or wrong, and you have the final guess on the hand. OTOH, no guarantee they get it right either, but I don't think you can bid again once you open 4♠.

If you open only 3♠, the bidding will proabbly be only 4♥ when it gets back to you. Now you can bid again (4♠), suggesting you have a 2-suiter (7-5)

Consider this hand with the hearts and spades reversed. Now I am sure the field would open 4♥ and bid 5♦ at next turn (over 4♠) which is basically the style I'm proposing. With these two suits, this style I think would be considered "normal" Facing a passed hand, you could just open 5♥ too to force a guess at the highest possible level. I think this is the same decision as the S-D hand, just a level higher.