[Cascade]

mikeh, on Mar 28 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Mar 27 2008, 04:22 PM, said:

1♦, I still have a partner.

Sorry, Kathryn, but opening 1♦ is the worst thing to do to a partner.

This just depends on how strict your requirements are for various pre-empts.

When the vulnerability is slightly different we open many hands at the one-level that look more like good pre-empts since our favourable vulnerable pre-empts are quite wide ranging and we find that the best compromise is to open the very best hands that we might otherwise pre-empt at the one-level.

Nil vulnerability there are some hands that fit into this category. A similar hand to the one given with say two aces among its 9 hcp we would probably open 1♦. We might even do that vulnerable but for a different reason - Axxxxxxx is not a great suit to pre-empt. Alternatively we might downgrade that suit to 3♦ vulnerable.

My experience is that it is very good to have your pre-empts well defined. Our rules at nil vulnerable first seat are:

3♦ around 6-9 and within about 3-4 tricks of the contract

4♦ similar to 3♦ but with more diamonds or more distribution say 7=4 - yes we would open 4minor with a side four-card major (but not always)

5♦ around 9 tricks but not strong in high cards and/or very short in the majors - at this level our range is not so dependent on vulnerability as for our 3-level pre-empts. Our 3-level pre-empts might vary between within 1-trick and within 5-tricks of the contract depending on vulnerability. Whereas our 5-level pre-empts might rarely stretch down to only 8 tricks favourable and up to 10 tricks unfavourable - more like 8-9 favourable 9.5-10 unfavourable.

When we have a hand near the top end hcp-wise that does not quite fit one of these bids we will consider opening 1♦.

[mikeh]

Cascade, on Mar 27 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 28 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Mar 27 2008, 04:22 PM, said:

1♦, I still have a partner.

Sorry, Kathryn, but opening 1♦ is the worst thing to do to a partner.

This just depends on how strict your requirements are for various pre-empts.

I was partway through a long post on this, but it was even more boring than most of my longer posts, so I quit. However, I think you are mistaken in this test. Don't make a decision about whether to open at the one level by considering your rules on preempting. Consider, instead, your far more important rules on 1-bid openings.

1-level openings are primarily constructive. Preempts are (largely) destructive. I could go on but I will spare all of us

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Mar 28 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 27 2008, 05:23 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 28 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Mar 27 2008, 04:22 PM, said:

1♦, I still have a partner.

Sorry, Kathryn, but opening 1♦ is the worst thing to do to a partner.

This just depends on how strict your requirements are for various pre-empts.

I was partway through a long post on this, but it was even more boring than most of my longer posts, so I quit. However, I think you are mistaken in this test. Don't make a decision about whether to open at the one level by considering your rules on preempting. Consider, instead, your far more important rules on 1-bid openings.

1-level openings are primarily constructive. Preempts are (largely) destructive. I could go on but I will spare all of us

That is fine if you have some gap between your one-level bids and your pre-empts.

I don't like that style.

For me if a hand is too good for a pre-empt then I open it one and vice-versa. Occasionally there is a hand that is too flawed for a pre-empt that I will pass but that is distinct from being too good for a pre-empt.

Basically we define our opening bids: one-level; pre-empts; and passes. Then we try and fit a finely graduated range of hands into our bids. At times, for example when the vulnerability is favourable we pre-empt more freely by lowering our bottom limit - I am not 100% convinced this is best but this is what we and most others do. As a consequence we find that we need to shift the top end of the pre-empt range a little downwards. When we do this some otherwise maximum pre-empts slip into our one-level openings. Sure this is not idea for the one-level bids but overall it forms a style with which we are comfortable.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Mar 28 2008, 12:43 AM, said:

That is fine if you have some gap between your one-level bids and your pre-empts.

I don't like that style.

Same here. The point range around 10 is the most frequent especially for unbalanced hands, so it is impractical to have to pass those hands that are between opening strength and preempt strength. If there is a gap, I would remove it by playing slightly sounder preempts.

Anyway, with an 8-card it can hardly be an issue, if it's too strong for 3♦ I can just open 4♦ or 5♦ or 3NT or whatever my system allows for.

[the hog]

Would if I could, but can't open 4D as that is Namyats. 5D for me.
Disagree strongly with Wayne - I believe pre empts should be wide ranging, not so strictly defined. It makes you too predicatable.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Mar 28 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

Would if I could, but can't open 4D as that is Namyats. 5D for me.
Disagree strongly with Wayne - I believe pre empts should be wide ranging, not so strictly defined. It makes you too predicatable.

I guess that depends exactly what you mean by wide-ranging means.

There has to be some compromise between wide-ranging and clearly defined. Especially when you are vulnerable wide-ranging doesn't seem to me to work. If we are wide-ranging and too high we risk a large penalty and if we are wide-ranging and too low we miss a big bonus. Obviously wide-ranging works much better when not vulnerable - we lose less when we miss the boat in either direction.

I think our style is far from predictable. We play aggressive five or six-card weak twos in the major nominally around 5-10 hcp. We do not have formal suit quality requirements although I wouldn't describe our style as suicidal when vulnerable. We are willing to open seven card-suits when the hand is not good enough for a weak three.

We frequently open six-card suits three of a minor and sometimes three of a major. Again our range is nominally 5-10 (maybe 9 more practically at the upper limit).

We are willing to open pre-empts with side majors, voids etc.

Yes our range is defined. At the two level that is wider ranging than at the five-level. But I do not think that makes unacceptably predictable.

[SchTsch]

4♦.

[SchTsch]

The_Hog, on Mar 27 2008, 10:34 PM, said:

Disagree strongly with Wayne - I believe pre empts should be wide ranging, not so strictly defined. It makes you too predicatable.

And your predictability will help your opponents in their high level decisions? Don't think so.

In 1st and 2nd position I prefer strictly defined preempts. Of course, deviations are possible but your partner will always act according to your strict definitions. Of course, if you are willing to take your chance you can preempt with a gristle, it is not forbidden.

[han]

I agree that well defined preempts are not more predictable than wider range. After all, the opponent have no information on what partner has. However, they do make preempts rarer and I hate it when my opponents preempt a lot.

[Cascade]

han, on Mar 29 2008, 04:24 AM, said:

I agree that well defined preempts are not more predictable than wider range. After all, the opponent have no information on what partner has. However, they do make preempts rarer and I hate it when my opponents preempt a lot.

We used to lower the standards for our favourable vulnerable pre-empts so that they were complete rubbish. This seems to be a common style but it is certainly not based on frequency. We have subsequently made the top end of these favourable vulnerability pre-empts more like the top end of our equal vulnerable pre-empts. We do allow a lower limit thus increasing the frequency of these pre-empts at the cost of losing some definition.

The fact is that the most frequent ranges are around 9-10 hcp not the rubbish that we used to have to wait for to bid on.

As an example for a 6-3-3-1 hand the most frequent ranges are:

2 point 9-10 hcp 0.199669137
3 point 9-11 hcp 0.295153087
4 point 8-11 hcp 0.387129039
5 point 8-12 hcp 0.473065471
6-point 7-12 hcp 0.554113674
7-point 7-13 hcp 0.627205246
8-point 6-13 hcp 0.691592655

by comparison 0-5 hands occur only 0.123373847 of the time. Say we play 6-9 pre-empt this means we achieve similar increases in frequency by changing the range to 6-10 (one extra point) and 3-9 (three extra points).

We don't get many players saying "we are not vulnerable lets bring some ten-counts into our pre-empts to increase the frequency". If frequency were the only aim then narrower ranges around 9-10 hcp would be more effective than wider lower ranges around.

Perhaps Fantoni-Nunes have completely the right idea with their intermediate twos

[the hog]

"And your predictability will help your opponents in their high level decisions? Don't think so."

No, I totally agree with you, I don't think it will help the opponents either. That is precisely why I like wide ranging pre empts.

[SchTsch]

The_Hog, on Mar 29 2008, 04:10 AM, said:

"And your predictability will help your opponents in their high level decisions? Don't think so."

No, I totally agree with you, I don't think it will help the opponents either. That is precisely why I like wide ranging pre empts.

Yes but predictability will help your partner to make a right decision when needed.