[Liversidge]

We want to develop our preemptive bidding. We have read about the Rule of 2 & 3 where you open to within 2 playing tricks (Vul) or 3 playing tricks (Non Vul) of your bid (Klinger, Hacketts and others) or alternatively the Rule of 2,3,4 at adverse, par and favourable vulnerability (No Fear and others). Then partner counts quick tricks & ruffing tricks and decides whether game looks a reasonable bet. Seems a step forward in partnership bidding, but bidding 3H at favourable vulnerability with only 5 playing tricks on the Rule of 2-3-4 looks rather scary. We play duplicate only. Any advice on which version we should adopt is appreciated.

[pescetom]

I think the rule of 234 is sound bridge. If 3H/S worries you just think what it does to your vulnerable opponents. But the really important thing is to be on same wavelength as partner.

[The_Badger]

You could come to a compromise. Rule of 2,3 for teams. Rule of 2,3,4 at pairs. You need steadier bidding at teams, and your teammates won't be able to criticise the gung-ho approach of bidding pre-empts on almost anything these days.

My favourite bridge partner, David, didn't care for pairs, and we rarely won at matchpoints, but at IMPs you always knew he had his bid.

There again, if your teammates are up for 2,3,4 pre-empts too, well at least you are on the same page.

[P_Marlowe]

we use the 2-3-4 rule at IMPs / MP, but in 2nd pos. we go with 1-2-3.

[pescetom]

In first position I play 2-3-5 or something close. As always shape is vital to bid at the low limit.

[rmnka447]

Whatever style you adopt, just be consistent in how you apply it. It's even OK if both partners apply it slightly differently as long as you pretty much stick to the parameters you've agreed upon. Where you are likely to run into trouble is if at similar vulnerability conditions the preemptor is completely unpredictable -- preempts on KQ10xxxx one time and Jxxxxxx another.

[nekthen]

These days, I operate on feel. My question is what will the room do? Big swings come at pairs when you bid against the room, good and bad.
The biggest mistake I see time and again is opening 4 on a hand without 8 cards and strong enough to open at the one level, a sure way to miss slams!
Always assess first if your hand is good enough to open with a regular one bid before considering a preempt.
Next consider your table position first to bid you are preempting two opps and partner, second to bid you are more conservative because you are preempting one opp and one partner finally third go wild! Ignore rules about having a second suit and even have one less card than normal, especially with spades, but be wary with 9 or 10 hcp, consider that the hand may be getting passed out. The weaker you are outside your suit the more effective your preempt will be.

[dsLawsd]

What they said above. Mostly consider the state of the score and don't open at the 3 or 4 level with weak suits.
Partner never has the hand you wish them to hold.

Check out Jeff Ruben's book "The Secrets of Winning Bridge"
and perhaps Larry Cohen's two books on the law of total tricks.

It appears that you and partner are putting in the hard work now to become excellent players!

[Tramticket]

Liversidge, on 2018-September-21, 06:50, said:

We want to develop our preemptive bidding. We have read about the Rule of 2 & 3 where you open to within 2 playing tricks (Vul) or 3 playing tricks (Non Vul) of your bid (Klinger, Hacketts and others) or alternatively the Rule of 2,3,4 at adverse, par and favourable vulnerability (No Fear and others). Then partner counts quick tricks & ruffing tricks and decides whether game looks a reasonable bet. Seems a step forward in partnership bidding, but bidding 3H at favourable vulnerability with only 5 playing tricks on the Rule of 2-3-4 looks rather scary. We play duplicate only. Any advice on which version we should adopt is appreciated.

In another current thread on length tricks and the rule of 20, MikeH and Miamjid gave an excellent analysis why hand valuation is about far more than just applying rules. I can't recommend highly enough the value of their comments. I am not in their class, but I do try and value hands using judgement based ion available information, using point counts and "rules" as only the starting point.

Now consider this thread where we are asked to value the hand for preempts based on more rules. I suggest that these should only be a start in assessing the hand. Other factors that effect the decision include: (1) seat at the table (there is a big difference between a pre-empt opposite a passed partner and a pre-empt in first seat or particularly second seat (where you are likely to pre-empt partner; (2) form of scoring (pairs or IMPs?); (3) does the hand have any defence? (The best pre-empts have little or no defensive strength); (4) level of the pre-empt (most would expect a more disciplined preempt at the two level; (5) suit length and quality; (6) Do you have the spade suit? (7) vulnerability.

I'm not saying that rules can't help, but your bridge will improve if you cultivate judgment.

[helene_t]

I am not a big fan of the 123 rule.

For one thing, opps' vulnerability matters as well, although bit less. All red is a bit more dangerous than all white.

Another thing is that safety is about offense-defense difference, not about offense per se. Compare
KQJxxxx
x
xx
xxx

to

xxxxxxx
AK
A
xxx

The first hand expects to take 6 tricks while the second expects to take 7 or 8. But the first is much safer because if you go two down in 3♠ with that hand, meaning partner only contributed one trick, opponents could certainly make game, and probably slam if partner also has only one trick in defense.

The second hand could go two down in 3♠ on a board where opps can only make a partscore.

The third reason why I am not such a fan of the 123 rule (and this may be an unpopular opinion) is that I don't like making preempt strength depend on the vulnerability. If you allow first-seat preempts on pure trash when nonvulnerable, I am not sure what to do in first seat when you hold a sound preempt.
- If you also preempt with that, your preempts will become too wide range for partner to handle
- If you open the sound preempts at the 1-level, you suddenly play different systems at different vulnerability. This is too complex for me.
- If you pass with a sound preempt (I know people who do that), then it is just facepalm (sorry for being rude)

So what I would suggest is this:
- Agree what a typical preempt looks like. This doesn't depend on 1st/2nd seat nor does it depend on vulnerability.
- At matchpoints, you can be a bit less disciplined in first seat than second. Note that "disciplined" doesn't mean sound. It just means a bit wider range and more flaws allowed.
- At IMPs, you can also be substantially less disciplined at favourable vulnerability, and you must be quite disciplined at unfavourable.

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on 2018-September-25, 15:41, said:

The third reason why I am not such a fan of the 123 rule (and this may be an unpopular opinion) is that I don't like making preempt strength depend on the vulnerability. If you allow first-seat preempts on pure trash when nonvulnerable, I am not sure what to do in first seat when you hold a sound preempt.
- If you also preempt with that, your preempts will become too wide range for partner to handle
- If you open the sound preempts at the 1-level, you suddenly play different systems at different vulnerability. This is too complex for me.
- If you pass with a sound preempt (I know people who do that), then it is just facepalm (sorry for being rude)
<snip>

You open a level higher, i.e. a sound w2 will become a 3 level preempt, a 3 level preempt will become a 4 level preempt.
The only case, where you have some issues, is if are 1st / 2nd possition green vs. red, and you would need to open a sound w2
on the 4 level, which puts you out of the room. Passing and getting in later at the 3 level (if at all) works reasonable well,
since it is a bit uncommon, and if the opps are faced with uncommon situations, they may or may not react well.