[jdonn]

Sorry for being unclear in my random assumption. I mean to say each increased level or preemption probably something-like doubles the preemptive value.

[helene_t]

What does it mean to "double" the preemptive value?

Say opps will make the wrong decision 10% of the time if you pass, 20% of the time if you open a natural weak 2♣, 40% of the time if you open 3♣ and 80% of the time if you open 4♣. Surely there is a point of diminishing return somewhere, it's not like they will go wrong 160% of the time if you open 5♣ (ok, maybe they go more badly wrong so it could be counted as 160%, but .... )

[jonottawa]

I'm not in any rush. LHO might have a 10 count. 1♣ for me. 1N if midnights.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Dec 15 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

What does it mean to "double" the preemptive value?

It could mean a lot of things. Maybe something like what you suggest but with a much lower starting value. Or maybe a doubling of our imp expectation. Or maybe a measure of how many of LHO brain cells die.

[lamford]

There are people that it would be better to walk the dog against, but assuming we have no information on the opponents, 5C is middle of the road. If it goes (5H) - P - (Pass) I think I just float and try to go plus. Partner may have an unexpected two tricks with QJTx in diamonds.

[the hog]

5C.

[hanp]

I agree with Josh that "4C has 80% of the preemption of 5C" is a meaningless statement and a silly argument.

[PaulLanier]

For 10 hands simulated by deal 3.1, bidding 5C pays off about 85% of the time, doubled or not. Since 5C makes about 70% of the time, EW stand to gain by bidding on, even if they bid too high.
- Playing 5CXN loses 1-2 hands, with minimal IMP cost (-, +-)
- Game makes both ways on 6 hands; playing 5CNX gains a double IMP swing (++*).
- On one hand NS make 5C and EW make 2H (++).
- 5CX is a good sac against EW game (+).

♠AJ765 ♥T872 ♦J87 ♣T|♠KT8 ♥963 ♦A5432 ♣A8|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠- AKQJ54 ♥KQT96 ♦97 ♣- ~ 6HEW, 5CNX+1 NS++*
♠K65 ♥QJT3 ♦AT64 ♣T7|♠T7 ♥K876 ♦KJ87 ♣A98|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠AJ8 ♥A9542 ♦Q9532 ♣- ~ 2HEW, 5CNX= NS++
♠K5 ♥JT762 ♦753 ♣AT8|♠AJ87 ♥8543 ♦AJ4 ♣97|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠T6 ♥AKQ9 ♦KQT9862 ♣- ~ 5DEW, 5CNX=/+1 NS++*
♠J76 ♥K762 ♦KT943 ♣9|♠T5 ♥AQJ4 ♦8762 ♣A87|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠AK8 ♥T9853 ♦AQJ5 ♣T ~ 3HEW, 5CNX-2 NS-
♠JT75 ♥T962 ♦J8532 ♣-|♠K6 ♥KJ874 ♦Q964 ♣T8|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠A8 ♥AQ53 ♦AKT7 ♣A97 ~ 5HEW, 5CNX-1 NS+
♠A6 ♥T982 ♦KT95 ♣A97|♠KT875 ♥76 ♦Q8764 ♣8|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠J ♥AKQJ543 ♦AJ32 ♣T ~ 4HEW, 5CNX=/+1 NS++*
♠J85 ♥KT986 ♦842 ♣A9|♠KT6 ♥Q32 ♦KT765 ♣87|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠A7 ♥AJ754 ♦AQJ93 ♣T ~ 5DEW, 5CNX= NS++*
♠AJ875 ♥Q952 ♦J872 ♣- |♠KT ♥T874 ♦9653 ♣T97|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠6 ♥AKJ63 ♦AKQT4 ♣A8 ~ 4HEW, 5CNX= NS++*
♠KT86 ♥T5 ♦JT872 ♣T8|♠J5 ♥KQJ987 ♦Q54 ♣97|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠A7 ♥A6432 ♦AK963 ♣A ~ 6DEW, 5CNX= NS++*
♠7 ♥J762 ♦AJ952 ♣A98|♠AJ86 ♥Q984 ♦K73 ♣T7|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠KT5 ♥AKT53 ♦QT864 ♣- ~ 4HEW, 5CNX-3/-2 NS+-
♠KJ7 ♥A83 ♦JT965 ♣97|♠AT65 ♥JT764 ♦A84 ♣8|♠Q9432 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJ65432|♠8 ♥KQ952 ♦KQ732 ♣AT ~ 5DEW, 5CNX-1 NS+

Regards, Paul

[gnasher]

PaulLanier, on Dec 16 2009, 06:19 PM, said:

10 hands simulated by deal 3.1

Those hands (there are 11, by the way) look a bit odd. Look at the total number of clubs for each hand:

Partner: 19
RHO: 23
LHO: 13

And the total number of spades:

Partner: 35
RHO: 33
LHO: 20

I know that the failure to open a weak two will have had some effect, but these hands still seem rather extreme. Can you post your criteria?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-December-16, 11:52

[neilkaz]

I also open 5♣. If you are going to preempt, do it to the max.

[hanp]

Besides posting the criteria, could you also explain what it means for 5C to pay off? Did you for each hand estimate how the auction would progress after 5C and what would happen after alternative starts?

(admittedly, I don't know what the alternative starts are.)

[BateEmo]

How do you imagine your partner's hand -balanced 8-10 HCP? Or much less? I think 5 clubs should be about normal here.

[PaulLanier]

My apologies to gnasher and others who noted suit length problems in my post on this. I think when I added suits to the original Deal output something went wrong! Here is the original output. A void is represented by a space, so that can casue some difficulty reading the hands. The Deal code follows these hands.

I played the hands out mentally, as if I were declarer, to get the expected hand results. I'm guessing
others might get somewhat different results!

AJ765 T872 J87 T|KT8 963 A5432 A8|Q9432 KQJ65432| AKQJ54 KQT96 97 ~ 6HEW, 5CNX+1 NS++*
K65 QJT3 AT64 T7|T7 K876 KJ87 A98|Q9432 KQJ65432|AJ8 A9542 Q9532 ~ 2HEW, 5CNX= NS++
K5 JT762 753 AT8|AJ87 8543 AJ4 97|Q9432 KQJ65432|T6 AKQ9 KQT9862 ~ 5DEW, 5CNX=/+1 NS++*
J76 K762 KT943 9|T5 AQJ4 8762 A87|Q9432 KQJ65432|AK8 T9853 AQJ5 T ~ 3HEW, 5CNX-2 NS-
JT75 T962 J8532 |K6 KJ874 Q964 T8|Q9432 KQJ65432|A8 AQ53 AKT7 A97 ~ 5HEW, 5CNX-1 NS+
A6 T982 KT95 A97|KT875 76 Q8764 8|Q9432 KQJ65432|J AKQJ543 AJ32 T ~ 4HEW, 5CNX=/+1 NS++*
J85 KT986 842 A9|KT6 Q32 KT765 87|Q9432 KQJ65432|A7 AJ754 AQJ93 T ~ 5DEW, 5CNX= NS++*
AJ875 Q952 J872 |KT T874 9653 T97|Q9432 KQJ65432|6 AKJ63 AKQT4 A8 ~ 4HEW, 5CNX= NS++*
KT86 T5 JT872 T8|J5 KQJ987 Q54 97|Q9432 KQJ65432|A7 A6432 AK963 A ~ 6DEW, 5CNX= NS++*
7 J762 AJ952 A98|AJ86 Q984 K73 T7|Q9432 KQJ65432|KT5 AKT53 QT864 ~ 4HEW, 5CNX-3/-2 NS+-
KJ7 A83 JT965 97|AT65 JT764 A84 8|Q9432 KQJ65432|8 KQ952 KQ732 AT ~ 5DEW, 5CNX-1 NS+

Deal script:

###################################################
# bbo36009
#
# none vul, IMPs
# P-P-?
# you hold: Q9432 - - KQJ65432
#
# To execute:
# deal -l -i bbo36009 [num] > bbo36009.txt
##################################################
south is Q9432 - - KQJ65432

main {

# North does not open
reject if {[hcp north]>11}
reject if {[losers north]<15}

#East does not open
reject if {[hcp east]>11}
accept if {[losers east]>14}

}

#################################################

[gwnn]

I think this is one of the typical hands that simulations can't settle at all, however well you define your constraints.