[SimonFa]

I tend to be conservative when it comes to preempts, unlike my partner who I believe is too quick on the draw. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a lot to be said for preempt but they do require a lot of discipline.

Anyway, last night he had 4 x 3♣ preempts out of 24 MP boards and I thought it might be quite instructive to get the opinion of more advanced players to find out whether or not I am too harsh on partner and to help beginners get a better understanding of the art of preempting:

1. W v R, partner deals:

♠874 ♥J2 ♦Q ♣KT96543

I really didn't like this one because the suit has too many holes, the queens is wasted and the J isn't much use, although the vulnerability is good. . Expecting a better suit and with ♣A2 I went one down in for 16/18 MPs so I suppose job done. Ops best score was 4♦ making.

I might have preempted this board for the same reason I went to 3NT, because we had very weak ops, however I know partner never considers that when pushing the bidding.

2. R v W

♠J9743 ♥A6 ♦void ♣KT9653

P (P) 3C (3NT)

I thought this was barmy at these colours with that hand and we were lucky to get away with 4/18 when LHO went only -1 in 3NT instead of doubling us. Six other tables were -2, presumably because they weren't tipped off where the club king was weren't playing against one of the strongest declarers in the club.

Needless to say I wouldn't have bid it.

3. W v R

♠T3 ♥KQT ♦T ♣KQJT653


P (1H) 3C (3D)

Although not strictly a preempt and I suppose opposite a passed hand its not an unreasonable bid. However he then committed the cardinal sin as the bidding went

P (4d) 5C (5D)

All pass for 1/18 MPs as they were one of only four pairs to find the game and it was against the same declarer so 12 tricks were made.

(I would have probably opened with 4C on that hand then shut up)

4. W v W

♠T985 ♥void ♦A96 ♣JT8532

3C (3D) 3H (4D)
P (P) 4H AP

I was quite annoyed at this one and getting 14/18 didn't make it any better as I thought it was a terrible bid in first chair and all it did was put me under pressure (as did the first example).

As always, thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Simon

[the_clown]

1. Completely normal preempt at this vulnerability, I would always open this.

2. I think preempting with this hand is really bad. You hold 5 ♠s and have only a mediocre 6 card suit.

3. I think its close whether to bid 3 or 4♣s. In general it is not a good idea to preempt and bid again.

4. Almost as bad as the second one, suit is terrible, holding 4♠ is not much upside as well.

[relknes]

1. More agressive than I bid, but acceptable at favorable vulnerability if you play a "Rule of 2/3/4" style.

2. Terrible. This would be bad with 4 spades, but with 5 spades? Never.

3. I would open 5♣ here. 5 losers at favorable vulnerability, with a great suit. Bidding 3♣ is bad, in my opinion, and then bidding again is worse. 1♣ is my second choice. If you are going to treat it as a preempt, go for the jugular, otherwise open it 1♣ and just keep competing in clubs, hoping they double you into game.

4. Bad, though not as bad as #2. Too many losers at equal vulnerability, even for a 2/3/4 style. 4 spades on the side is a minus. Just bad all around.

Edit: on hand 3, I noticed 1♣ is not an option since RHO opened. Oposite a passed hand, I still vote for 5♣, but my second choice is 2♣ and competing until they double me.

[inquiry]

When considering preemps, consider the vulnerabiity (especially yours but theirs as well), the quaiity of your suit, and your goals for bidding. Let's examine the four hands....

1. W v R, partner deals: ♠874 ♥J2 ♦Q ♣KT96543

You are not vul, two opponents have yet had a time to preempt. This is the time to be aggressive. i would open 3♣ with this unless partner requires that i have a hand that will only go down three if doubled opposite "normal splits". This hand does not meet that standard. But this is one of the time to apply the pressure.


2. R v W ♠J9743 ♥A6 ♦void ♣KT9653
P (P) 3C (3NT)

If being aggressive in first seat is advised, being so in third seat is even more so (while in 2nd seat, you need should have a standard "solid" preempt to open, none of the hands were 2nd seat). Having said that, when you are vul, you have to use caution. This hand has a number of flaws, a poor suit (for being vulnerable), a five card major on the side, solid defensive values. In third seat, I might open 1♣ but never 3♣ on this one.


3. W v R ♠T3 ♥KQT ♦T ♣KQJT653
Second seat, first seat opens 1♥

I am liking 3♣ or 4♣. The disadvantage of both 3♣ and 4♣ is that it will make 3NT very hard to reach if your partner has something, as at this vul, he will not take you to be this strong. I am probably bidding 2♣ at the table, but 5♣ also has a lot of merit, and I might bid that.


4. W v W ♠T985 ♥void ♦A96 ♣JT8532
1st seat.

Ok, I don't mind the 3♣ bid as much as the other posters. In 3rd seat I would certainly open 3♣. The minus (weak suit, four card major) are major drawbacks, and I would probably pass, but I would not throw stones at a partner who took a "position" on this hand. It will go south some times, but will wins swings at other times.

[jillybean]

A few years ago Ben (inquiry) sent me an excellent note on preempts and the various styles. It detailed 3 approaches (conservative, standard and aggressive)
and the hand type, shape, strength that you could expect for each style. I can't find the document, since then I have changed PC's once or twice so it could have been lost on an old PC or it may be on one of my backup drives , I'll keep looking. Or maybe you still have it Ben? I'd love to find it and it would be a great document to post here.

[Zelandakh]

Hand 1 is a completely normal 3♣ preempt for me. The colours and position are excellent for using a pressure style.
Despite being in third seat, hand 2 has all of the warning signs not to open 3♣. The colours are wrong, we have decent defence, particularly for the majors, the suit is ropey and there is no certainty that the opps can make anything. It is not unreasonable to open this hand 1♣ in third but 3♣ is asking for trouble.
The biggest problem with bidding 3♣ on hand 3 is that partner is very badly placed to advance if you are also going to do it with a hand like #1. Because of this, I prefer a simple 2♣ overcall. But change the ♥KQ to small diamonds and a club preempt would be clear.
Hand 4 is the most interesting of the bunch. This one is very much a matter of style. I daresay that Robson-Segal would approve of opening this one 3♣ in first seat at Love All. It is an excellent position to be preempting in after all. If you believe in such a style then go for it, especially if playing MPs against a good pair. I think for the majority this is just going too far though. In third seat, this would be a clear 3♣ opener of course.

The main thing here is to be on the same wavelength so that partner has some chance of getting the advances right. It is also important to be able to disclose properly to opponents. It seems to me that first and foremost you and your partner need to get together and decide on what your preempting philosophy is going to be. Perhaps you can come to some compromise where you make undisciplined preempts not vulnerable and in third seat but disciplined preempts at other times. That will give both of you a chance to see the advantages of the other's approach. Also, to Simon, I would suggest you have a good read of the preemptive openings section of Robson-Segal (find it at Dan's site, section beginning with page 115). That might at least give you some insight into where your partner is coming from. It might even help for your partner to read it to so they understand when not to make an undisciplined preempt.