[Hanoi5]

Is there such a thing as the 1, 2, 3, 4 rule for pre-emptive opening bids? What is it about?

[mikestar13]

I have heard of this (though I don't use it):

Be within 1 trick of your bid at unfavorable.
Be within 2 tricks of your bid at both vulnerable..
Be within 3 tricks of your bid at neither vulnerable.
Be within 4 tricks of your bid at favorable.

I find that this rule makes vulnerable preempts too conservative for my taste.

My own preference is the rule of 2,3,4:

Be within 2 tricks at unfavorable.
Be within 3 tricks at equal.
Be within 4 tricks at favorable.

With the understanding that doubtful hands go low vulnerable and go high not vulnerable.

[Siegmund]

Never even heard of "1,2,3,4" before. Extremely conservative.

2-3-4 as mike describes is a very common agreement.

The ancient rubber bridge version was "rule of 2 and 3" (2 vul, 3 nv - 2 unfav 3 otherwise, if you are a modernist), as rubber scoring doesn't really create the condition of "favorable" vulnerability.

[Vampyr]

Obviously the 1-2-3-4 rule makes certain assumptions about partner's hand to arrive at the total expected tricks. I don't remember what these assumptions are; maybe a fitting minimum?

[P_Marlowe]

We play a 1,2,3,4 rule for preempts, in general it is the already described 2-3-4 rule,
but in 2nd position we promise 1 more trick (actually we use looser count).

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Lovera]

About the "rule of 2 and 3" i suggest "to convert" in rule of 1-2-3: when you must value level of pre-empt (preferibly using LTC) consider to lose a trick if vul vs not vul, two tricks if pair vul and three tricks when you are not vul vs vul.

[gwnn]

I use a variation thereof: I look at my hand and decide whether to open 1, 2, 3, or 4. (or pass) (or 5)

[helene_t]

Suppose you value your hand as five offensive tricks and one defensive. Assume partner's hand takes the same number of tricks in defence as in offence. Assume opps can just make game in a major, i.e. partner has two tricks in addition to your defensive trick, i.e you have in total 7 offensive tricks.

This means that you can bid to the 2-level at r/w, 3-level at equal, 4-level at w/r.

But of course opps might have 11 offensive tricks in which case you should bid one level less, or they may have a minor suit fit and no stopper in your suit so 10 tricks is not enough for them for game. Or they may have only 9 tricks in their major fit in which case you can't afford to go down doubled at all if vulnerable. This all suggests that the above is a bit too optimistic.

On the other hand, preempts can easily work even if they are technically too high. Opps sometimes make the wrong decision. You may push them to an unmakeable slam when they "should" just have taken their money.

The bottom line is that it is not only about what you think you can make yourself. Also think about what the opponents can make.

And think about how difficult your preempt will make it for them to find their best contract. If they play phoney club, preempting over their major suit opening (or their 1NT opening) does less harm to them than preempting over their 1♣ opening, because the 1♣ opening is less descriptive so they face more difficulties when you take away their bidding space.

Similarly, a 2nd or 3rd seat preempt creates less havoc than a 1st seat preempt because when you preempt in 2nd/3rd seat, LHO knows that RHO doesn't have opening strength, which can make his decisions easier.

[MrAce]

Timo's rule of 1.2.3.4...

Rule 1 = Preempt
Rule 2 = If you did not preempt in last 2 boards, it is likely that you are a coward
Rule 3 = If you did not preempt in last 3 boards, you are certainly a coward!
Rule 4 = If you did not preempt in last 4 boards, you are probably the most loved opponent by far in the field.

Or

Rule 1=Preempt
Rule 2=Tell your pd to preempt.
Rule 3=Tell your teammates to preempt.
Rule 4=Tell everyone in the team that only acceptable excuse to not preempt requires a MD report attached to it or a picture of a gun put on your head! (or if they preempted before you)
Rule 5=Never compliment an aggressive preempt by a pd or teammate which caused opponents to give you so many imps. It was your pd's or teammate's regular duty to do so. Never criticize an aggressive preempt or any kind of preempt when they don't work occasionally. (unless preempt was made at lower level than it should be)

[Shugart23]

Playing match points exclusively, my partner and I play 3,4,5 when partner is not a passed hand and 2,3,4 when partner has already passed....But hand should have little defensive value and no 4 card Major unless partner is a passed hand.....seems to work out well for us...

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2015-April-11, 06:35, said:

Timo's rule of 1.2.3.4...

Rule 1 = Preempt
Rule 2 = If you did not preempt in last 2 boards, it is likely that you are a coward
Rule 3 = If you did not preempt in last 3 boards, you are certainly a coward!
Rule 4 = If you did not preempt in last 4 boards, you are probably the most loved opponent by far in the field.

Or

Rule 1=Preempt
Rule 2=Tell your pd to preempt.
Rule 3=Tell your teammates to preempt.
Rule 4=Tell everyone in the team that only acceptable excuse to not preempt requires a MD report attached to it or a picture of a gun put on your head! (or if they preempted before you)
Rule 5=Never compliment an aggressive preempt by a pd or teammate which caused opponents to give you so many imps. It was your pd's or teammate's regular duty to do so. Never criticize an aggressive preempt or any kind of preempt when they don't work occasionally. (unless preempt was made at lower level than it should be)

Remind me to never play rubber bridge with you as my partner. The only excuse for these rules is that you pick up a lot of weak hands

I do agree, btw, with the notion of never criticizing a teammate or partner's aggressive pre-empt on the grounds that it didn't work, and I know your tongue was firmly in your cheek on the others.

However, reading your rules made me think of a weak 2♦ opening bid that a good friend of mine, and a very fine, successful player, once made in the round-robin stage of our team trials....with J9xxxx in diamonds, red v white. It went pass, pass double and his LHO held 19 high including AKQ108x in diamonds. The bad diamond break beat slam at the other table, otherwise he would have won 1 imp for 1400 Nobody was impressed by that argument.

[aguahombre]

Thanks for necro-ing this thread; I had missed Gwnn's post.