[benlessard]

MP - vul/nv

2nd seat

Ax
????xxx (7 hearts)
x
Kxx

what is your break even point between 2H and 3H ?

What about first seat ?

Thanks

[Codo]

With Qxx in hearts, I would open 2 Heart,
with QJx 3 Hearts
with more 1 Heart

In first seat I would do more or less the same.

[rhm]

Given your construction I can not come up with a heart holding where I would open 3♥ first or second seat at unfavorable vulnerability.
Time to be conservative.
If the heart texture at these colors is good enough for a 3♥ bid, with an ace and a king on the side I have enough to open the bidding with 1♥.
One of my few preempt rules (from bitter experience) is: With an unpassed partner if I have enough to open with a one bid I will not consider a preempt below game.
If I have weak hearts and not enough to open with 1♥, I would open 2♥, e.g ♠Ax,♥Qxxxxxx,♦x,♣Kxx.
If I have ♠Ax,♥QJxxxxx,♦x,♣Kxx I open 1♥. (Though they coincide here, this has nothing to do with the rule of 20)
You would have to give me an eighth heart at these colors before I would consider 3♥ with weak hearts and less than an opening bid, e.g. ♠Ax,♥JTxxxxxx,♦x,♣Kx.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

I'd never open either 2♥ or 3♥ in second with an ace and king outside.

[han]

Ditto gnasher. I particularly dislike 2H.

[benlessard]

Quote

I'd never open either 2♥ or 3♥ in second with an ace and king outside.

Quote

With an unpassed partner if I have enough to open with a one bid I will not consider a preempt below game.

You must really like your opponents to give them an easy ride like this. Having too restrictive requirements lead to preempting not often enough, and too loose lead to lack of precision or too much risk. However if your suit is good (risk is low) and the strenght value is right and you dont preempt because of some defensive values or ODR you are simply missing the boat IMO.

Red vs white you should be willing to miss some slam because you will be able to get some equity back by blocking some of the saves, this alone is a huge winner that other considerations will have a hard time to compensate. Also there is some slam that are easier to find after a preempt because of the good suit or the 7th card, simply because sometime repeting your suit doesnt tell the whole story.

I understand that some preempt are halfway between 2&3 so that neither 2H or 3H will be right on spot for value, but for me passing them is gross and opening them at the 1 level isnt that good.

Preempt at favorable vul with defensive side values is much more annoying since it might induce a phantom save. All vul the risk of sac is lower so I can accept stiffer ODR requirement.

[cherdano]

benlessard, on 2013-April-11, 16:56, said:

You must really like your opponents to give them an easy ride like this. Having too restrictive requirements lead to preempting not often enough, and too loose lead to lack of precision or too much risk. However if your suit is good (risk is low) and the strenght value is right and you dont preempt because of some defensive values or ODR you are simply missing the boat IMO.

If you have a good suit, 7321 shape, and a Ax Kxx outside, you don't have a preempt. Open 4♥ if you like, but never 3♥ in 2nd seat, and certainly never 2♥ in 2nd seat.

[mycroft]

You may be letting them get to games they wouldn't otherwise, but *you* aren't getting to those same games, and they are getting to a lot of games that are going down 50-a-trick instead of your +140 (had you opened 1) or +500 (if partner has a clue you have more than the half-a-trick in defence you promised). And your partner is taking a lot of phantoms, knowing that you're only getting one heart trick (well, you're getting zero, but your two defensive tricks and help for his make up for that).

With Ax Kxx outside, any suit where it's safe to open 3x in "the worst seat to preempt" at unfavourable is a strong enough hand to open 1.

"If your suit is good (risk is low)", then I have an opener, not a preempt. AKQTxxx and a stiff looks right for an unfavourable 2nd seat 3M. The same strength, with the side suits specified, is QTxxxxx. Not happening.

[keylime]

I open a 7 card preempt two at adverse colors. I try to have suit quality but the 7th card compensates for it.

[rhm]

benlessard, on 2013-April-11, 16:56, said:

You must really like your opponents to give them an easy ride like this. Having too restrictive requirements lead to preempting not often enough, and too loose lead to lack of precision or too much risk. However if your suit is good (risk is low) and the strenght value is right and you dont preempt because of some defensive values or ODR you are simply missing the boat IMO.

Red vs white you should be willing to miss some slam because you will be able to get some equity back by blocking some of the saves, this alone is a huge winner that other considerations will have a hard time to compensate. Also there is some slam that are easier to find after a preempt because of the good suit or the 7th card, simply because sometime repeting your suit doesnt tell the whole story.

I understand that some preempt are halfway between 2&3 so that neither 2H or 3H will be right on spot for value, but for me passing them is gross and opening them at the 1 level isnt that good.

Preempt at favorable vul with defensive side values is much more annoying since it might induce a phantom save. All vul the risk of sac is lower so I can accept stiffer ODR requirement.

I agree on your objections to the first quote, but naturally not to mine.
We probably can agree that there needs to be an upper limit on the strength of any preempt, but this limit can be higher when you preempt to game.
My rule is simple: As I said when I have opening bid strength I will not consider a preempt below game with an unpassed partner. My weak twos are weaker than opening bids and so are three level preempts.
Preempts have much more to gain when the alternative is Pass than when the alternative is a one level bid.
I do not like to give my LHO all the constructive room he may need. Unless I am broke, I will not pass with a seven card major. I do not believe this to be winning Bridge.
The pair, which bids more precisely after a preempt or after a one-level opening than after Pass needs still to be born.
Pure preempts (fewer side suit values) reduces headaches for partner. Unfortunately they also make life much easier for opponents in many ways including play and defense. In my opinion they are blunt swords.
I welcome them to all of my opponents. But they should alert their preempt agreements. Many pairs pay only lip service to full disclosure in this area.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2013-April-12, 01:58, said:

Pure preempts (fewer side suit values) reduces headaches for partner. Unfortunately they also make life much easier for opponents in many ways including play and defense. In my opinion they are blunt swords.
I welcome them to all of my opponents. But they should alert their preempt agreements. Many pairs pay only lip service to full disclosure in this area.

Are you saying that people who play pure pre-empts should alert their pre-empts, but people with a looser style should not?

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2013-April-12, 02:34, said:

Are you saying that people who play pure pre-empts should alert their pre-empts, but people with a looser style should not?

I admit that this is a grey area, because in the past many authorities (for example Truscott) have argued you should not preempt with side values. (Reese was not one of them)
But I believe the tide is changing and the majority has loose requirements. Nobody argues that strong suits with few defensive values would not be more ideal.
If you have strict agreements like "our partnership can not have a side suit ace if it opens with a weak two or higher", this is very useful information when I defend or declare a hand after such a preempt and I think I am entitled to this information.
My experience is that few provide this information on their own.
For example where I play weak two opening bids have to be alerted (silly, because strong twos in a major are out of fashion), but when asked the only information you typically get is "weak".

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2013-April-12, 03:17, said:

I admit that this is a grey area, because in the past many authorities (for example Truscott) have argued you should not preempt with side values. (Reese was not one of them)
But I believe the tide is changing and the majority has loose requirements. Nobody argues that strong suits with few defensive values would not be more ideal.

It's not a grey area in the places where I usually play bridge. Generally speaking you should alert according to the regulations in force. If the alert regulations in your juristiction tell you to alert stylistic differences from the norm, you should alert them; if not, you shouldn't.

I don't know what the rules are in Germany, but in England and America it would definitely be wrong to alert merely because your preempts are purer than most people's. In WBF or EBL events, the test is whether it is a "special partnership understanding", which is defined as "one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament". I don't think that would apply to an unusually pure style of preempt.

Quote

If you have strict agreements like "our partnership can not have a side suit ace if it opens with a weak two or higher", this is very useful information when I defend or declare a hand after such a preempt and I think I am entitled to this information.

Yes, of course you are entitled to this information, but that doesn't mean that the alert procedure is the best way for you to obtain it. Unnecessary alerts distract the opponents and waste time.

I don't really see why you think an alert is necessary here. It's generally understood that preempting styles vary, in the same way as styles vary for opening one-bids, overcalls, and many other categories of bid. If you need to know what the opponents' preempting style is, why not just ask them or look at the convention card, just as you would if you wanted to know about their style of opening one-bids?

Quote

My experience is that few provide this information on their own.
For example where I play weak two opening bids have to be alerted (silly, because strong twos in a major are out of fashion), but when asked the only information you typically get is "weak".

And if you need more information, you can ask for more. I don't really see what problem you're trying to solve.

[PhilKing]

Ax
????xxx (7 hearts)
x
Kxx

As soon as the question marks become suitably high for the suit to be worth a preempt, surely I have a 1♥ opening. There are reasons why second at hand at Red is almost universally regarded as the worst position to preempt, and I can't think of a construction that even comes close to meeting the brief.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2013-April-12, 05:25, said:

It's not a grey area in the places where I usually play bridge. Generally speaking you should alert according to the regulations in force. If the alert regulations in your juristiction tell you to alert stylistic differences from the norm, you should alert them; if not, you shouldn't.

Nobody argued that you need to follow the rules. Whether the rules itself are sensible or should be changed is a different matter and can be argued.

Quote

I don't think that would apply to an unusually pure style of preempt.

I happen to believe if you have an unusual agreement, as you seem to agree, it should be alerted, whether a treatment or a convention. I admit it can sometimes be argued what is unusual.
If I play a notrump range, say 10-12, which is different to what most pairs in the room play, I alert.
I do not care that I do not need to according to regulation, I simply want to make my opponents to be aware of it. I do not want an unfair advantage.
No opponent has yet complained that I did, nor that I did waste time.
The opposite has happened to me.
The whole room is playing 15-17 notrump opening and suddenly a pair comes along and opens 1NT. I assume 15-17, passed out, until I find out they were playing 12-14 and we missed game.
No redress, yet I feel pissed off.

Quote

Yes, of course you are entitled to this information, but that doesn't mean that the alert procedure is the best way for you to obtain it. Unnecessary alerts distract the opponents and waste time.

I don't really see why you think an alert is necessary here.

I happen to think that "unnecessary alerts distract the opponents and waste time" happens when you alert what is usually played. Isn't that what the English word "alert" means: To make you aware of something unusual?

Quote

It's generally understood that preempting styles vary, in the same way as styles vary for opening one-bids, overcalls, and many other categories of bid. If you need to know what the opponents' preempting style is, why not just ask them or look at the convention card, just as you would if you wanted to know about their style of opening one-bids?

And if you need more information, you can ask for more. I don't really see what problem you're trying to solve.

This is all besides the point. I know my rights to ask. Questions about treatments and agreements can also be a waste of time and those questions can also pass UI information when I defend.
The point is, if an unusual agreement exists, who has the responsibility to make opponents aware that such an agreement is active?
In the spirit of full disclosure is it your responsibility to make opponents aware of them or can you just keep quiet and plea rather naive "opponents could always have asked".

Rainer Herrmann

[dake50]

Give me your response structure before I answer.
Will we know all 3 top trumps are held? One missing?
Will we know A+K side controls? No side A? No side K?
Will we know fitting K,Q,J10 for partner's suit for tricks?
The very reason to have constraints is to allow few questions
to be answered to go slamming.
Let alone getting double/bid-on correct.

[gnasher]

I agree that if you play in a culture where everyone will assume a strong notrump and the rules don't cater for this, it's reasonable to ignore the rules and alert other ranges. Or I might simply mention it at the start of the round, so as to avoid distracting anyone during the hand.

But there's a huge difference between alerting an unexpectedly weak notrump opening and alerting an atypically restrictive preemptive style. Unless you're telling me that everybody where you play has a loose pre-empting style, it won't be a surprise to encounter a pair that does not.

I can't imagine how an agreement of this sort would affect your decisions in the bidding, and by the time you get to the play you can normally ask without conveying any UI. Hence an alert serves no purpose, and it just wastes time whilst they ask you what the bid means.

Excessive alerts are counterproductive. The point of alerting is to tell the opponents something that they don't know, will need to know, and won't think of asking about unprompted. Are you really saying that a preemptive style that prohibits holding an ace and a king outside falls into this category?

[Trinidad]

I will not open 2♥ or 3♥ in second seat red vs white at MPs whatever cards you put in place of the question marks.

What a sad thread. I thought I was young and aggressive, but I am clearly getting old.

Rik

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2013-April-12, 07:47, said:

I agree that if you play in a culture where everyone will assume a strong notrump and the rules don't cater for this, it's reasonable to ignore the rules and alert other ranges. Or I might simply mention it at the start of the round, so as to avoid distracting anyone during the hand.

But there's a huge difference between alerting an unexpectedly weak notrump opening and alerting an atypically restrictive preemptive style. Unless you're telling me that everybody where you play has a loose pre-empting style, it won't be a surprise to encounter a pair that does not.

I can't imagine how an agreement of this sort would affect your decisions in the bidding, and by the time you get to the play you can normally ask without conveying any UI. Hence an alert serves no purpose, and it just wastes time whilst they ask you what the bid means.

Excessive alerts are counterproductive. The point of alerting is to tell the opponents something that they don't know, will need to know, and won't think of asking about unprompted. Are you really saying that a preemptive style that prohibits holding an ace and a king outside falls into this category?

I don't want to oversell my point. I said it is a grey area.
I agree that too many alerts are counterproductive.
Admittedly it is not that unusual. I just like to know such things

Rainer Herrmann

[neilkaz]

This is the worst seat and colors to preempt. No way am I preempting in this situation with an A and K outside my suit. As soon as my suit becomes good enough to preempt, I'd have enough to open 1 here.