RainBow Series – Lesson VII



Pre-Empts


      Contrary to what other sources may advise, the purpose of a pre-emptive bid is not to direct a lead, or help partner find the best makeable contract.  Rather, pre-empts are a logical extension of the second part of Ward Rule #2:

      "Behave politely, bid obnoxiously."

      Any lead directing or constructive benefit which derives from pre-empting is purely incidental to its main goal: taking up as much bidding space as possible and to make it as difficult as possible for whichever side holds the balance of power.  The pre-emptor is gambling, then, that the hand belongs To the Opponents.  Only a few precautions are taken against the possibility that Partner is the one with the requisite 18+ points which might make this hand Ours.  We will begin by analyzing the strategies adopted depending on which seat opening Pre-Emptor occupies. 

     

----- Pre-Empts in FIRST Seat -----

      Here, a certain amount of discipline is required because of the real possibility of Partner holding a powerhouse.  However, two opponents have not bid, and we only have one partner.  Hence, the odds are 2-1 in favour of an opponent having great strength. 

     

----- Pre-Empts in SECOND Seat -----

      With one opponent having passed, the odds have now narrowed to 1-1 (i.e., 50%) that it is Partner whom we will be shutting out with our space-consuming pre-emptive opening bid.  Hence, pre-empts in second seat should be the most disciplined: 6 cards if opening at the 2-level, 7 cards if opening at the 3-level, 7-9 HCPs if not vulnerable, 8-10 HCPs if vulnerable. 

     

---- Pre-Empts in THIRD Seat ------

      Here we have the benefit of knowing who is the only player at the table who might have a powerful hand (i.e., LHO).  Hence, All bets are off regarding a 3rd seat pre-empt.  Pre-Emptor may be bidding with one card short of the usual total, and can have as few as 0 HCPs. 

10 9 8 x x x x x x x x x x

      Unless vulnerable versus not, open 2 in third seat with this hand.  What have you got to lose ?   With Partner holding 0-12 HCPs, the opponents have at Least

      28, enough for game, and may well have a slam !   

     

---- Pre-Empts in FOURTH Seat ----

      "Pre-empts" in 4th seat is something of a misnomer, since we could pass out the hand !    Hence, opening 2, 2, 2 or 3 here endeavours to "steal" a plus without allowing the opponents to find the fit in which they may be able to make a positive score.  In other words, this pre-emptor intends to make the contract bid.  This confidence is based on a good 6+card suit and 12-13 points.  Opener does not want to be raised (except, perhaps, in competition) by Responder, and does not envision game chances (else, open at the one level). 

      Because of the unique nature of the 4th seat opening bid, none of the discussion which follows pertains to a Fourth seat "pre-emptive" Opener. 

     

---------- Questions -----------

      1.  I have often seen experienced players open a weak 2-bid with a 5-card suit.  Is this recommended in 3rd seat ? 

      Answer: Most mentors would advise against it. 
      But in 3rd seat against vulnerable opponents, anything goes.  :)

      2.  Does an opening pre-empt promise 2 of the top honours in the bid suit ? 

      Answer: Not since the stone ages (i.e., before 1970).  :)

     

---- General Rules of Pre-Empting ----

      1.  Never open pre-emptively with an opening bid. 

      2.  Never pre-empt with more than 2 defensive tricks. 

      3.  Never pre-empt with 2 Aces. 

      4.  Never pre-empt with a 4-card major side suit in first or second seat. 

      5.  With long Diamonds, Hearts or Spades, pre-empt at the 2-level with six, at the three level or higher with seven. 
An opening bid of 3 *can* show only 6 Clubs. 

      4.  Tend not to pre-empt with exactly 2 defensive tricks.  Partner may make a "phantom" sacrifice in your long suit against a game which turns out not to make. 

      5.  Tend not to pre-empt with the Ace in your long suit (if partner is short, that Ace may well set up a ruff for a second defensive trick). 

      6.  Tend not to pre-empt with exactly 2 defensive tricks.  Partner may make a "phantom" sacrifice in your long suit against a game which turns out not to make. 

      7.  Tend not to pre-empt with the Ace in your long suit (if partner is short, that Ace may well set up a ruff for a second defensive trick). 

      8  Tend not to pre-empt with a Void — especially a Major suit void.  This might give you a ruff ... and if they end up in this suit, it will break as badly as it can for them. 

     

----- Counting Losers -------

      When evaluating your hand for any purpose, the traditional approach is to count your losers by always assuming LHO is on lead.  This method is known by various names, but we will call it the "Culbertson Loser Count" method. 

K x Q x x Q J 10 9 x x x x

      Using the Culbertson Loser Count, this hand will lose one Spade, two Hearts, two Diamonds and one Club.  Six losers. 

      The problem with this method is with its premise.  LHO will not be on lead for all thirteen tricks — at least, we hope LHO won't be on lead for all 13 tricks !   :)

      The Culbertson Loser Count is intended to be used in conjunction with the Rule of 1, 2 and 3. 

      I suggest, instead, the "Born Loser Count" method. 
Simply assume Partner has no HCPs and a flattish distribution, including 4 or 5 cards in your shortest suit.  In this way, the above hand will lose eight tricks. 

      The Born Loser Count is intended for use by Hemmingway Pre-emptors and by those considering a strong 2 opening bid. 

      When applying the "Born Loser Count", always assume that Partner is shortest (doubleton) in your long suit and longest (4 or 5 cards) in your short suit with a flattish hand to create a "worst case" scenario. 

      If you hold:

A K Q x x x    A Q x    x    A Q x
assume that Partner has:
x x    x x x    x x x x x    x x x
in deciding whether to open 2 or 1
With only 8 sure tricks, open 1, not 2

      The most practical and accurate Loser Count is the Fractional Loser Count, which presumes that Partner is on lead.
    Kx is 1½ losers, Qxx is 2¾ losers, etc. 

--------- The Rule of 2 and 3 ----------

      In the old days, pre-emptors adopted the style that any pre-emptive opening bid promised within two tricks of the bid if Vulnerable, within Three tricks of the bid if not Vulnerable
      Presuming that the opponents had a game, though, this meant that the pair was willing to for –500 against a non-vulnerable game that would pay only 400 or 420.  For this reason, conservative theorists abandoned this approach in favour of the Rule of 1, 2 and 3. 

------ The Rule of One, Two and Three -------

      The modern conservative approach is that, if Vulnerable versus non-vulnerable opponents, we should be with one trick of our pre-empt.  At equal vulnerability, having within two tricks of one's bid is recommended.  Only a favourable vulnerability (i.e we are not vulnerable, they are vulnerable) are we advised to have within Three tricks of our bid. 

      If playing with a new partner on OKBridge, assume this rule of 1, 2 and 3 is in effect. 

      This conservative approach accomplished one feat: it ended the popularity of Fishbein, a conventional agreement whereby doubles of pre-emptive opening bids were for Penalty

---------- Hemmingway Pre-Empts -------------

      Some players, including KALTICA and Ksired, adopt a much more aggressive approach to pre-empting.  Especially at the top levels of bridge, pre-emptors use the "52 Pickup" rule as a guideline:

Vul vs not Have within 2 tricks
Vul vs vul Have within 3 tricks
Neither vul Have within 4 tricks
Not vul vs vul Have within 5 tricks

      At first glance, the arithmetic doesn't seem to add up here.  Why are we willing to go down more than they can make for a game ? 

      The answer lies in the fact that the opponents may well have a slam.  Also, the modern style of using takeout doubles makes it difficult for opponents to double us for penalty.  And if our Partner cannot provide us with a trick, the chances of the opponents making a slam skyrockets. 

------- Question -------

      1.  What was "Fishbein"

      Answer: Fishbein was an agreement to Double all pre-emptive bids for Penalty, and use the next highest bid (e.g., 3-3) as a takeout showing the unbid suits. 
      It is not played much any more.  If, however, you see "Fishbein" on any opponent's convention card, firm up your pre-empts !   

      2.  Zia Mahmood is widely regarded as the greatest player of our time.  To which school of pre-empting does Zia ascribe ? 

      Answer: Without question, Zia is an advocate of the Hemmingway School of Thought here.  Indeed, many of the pre-empts that he has made in World Class events would make *KALTICA* cringe !   :)

      In fact, Zia once had to lay one of his Weak 2-bids down as dummy while his partner laboured in 3NT doubled.  His LHO looked askance at Zia's hand and asked:
      "Trying to revive Fishbein, are we ?" :)))

----- Weak 2-bids -------

      A  2, 2 or 2 opening bid is weak, showing a 6-card suit and 6-10 HCPs.  There are no minimum requirements regarding the suit quality.

10 9 x x x x K x x K x x x

      Many modern players will open 2.  Most
      conservative "disciplined" players won't. 

--- Responses to Weak 2-bids ---

      The acronym "RONF" (Raise Only is Non Forcing) describes the responses to any weak 2-bid.  Any 2NT or new-suit reply, then, is forcing.  Of these, all are natural except 2NT, which asks Opener
      (1) to rebid the suit if minimal (6-7 points), or
      (2) show a "feature" (Ace, King or Queen in any unbid suit) if not minimal (8-10 points).
      (3) A 3NT rebid by Opener shows a very good suit.

x x x x A K Q x x x x x x

      Over 2:2NT, rebid 3NT with good Diamonds. 

--- Responding to Higher Pre-empts ----

      Any new suit in response to a pre-emptive opening bid is forcing.  4NT is Blackwood, and 5NT is a Grand Slam Force, asking Opener to bid 7 if Opener holds two of the top three honours in the promised long suit. 
      If Opener has pre-empted in a Major, any Minor suit response is a Cuebid, confirming that suit as trump. 

      3:3 – Natural. 

      3:4 – Cuebid, confirming Hearts

      3:3 – Natural, not a cuebid. 

     

------- Other Pre-emptive Actions ---------

      A jump overcall of an opponent's opening bid is pre-emptive (e.g., 1-2 or higher).  If it is atthe 2-level, Advancer replies as opposite a weak 2-bid opening (2NT asks for a feature if Overcaller is not minimal). 

      A jump in a new suit, once Partner's 1-level suit opening bid is doubled (e.g., 1-Dble-2) or overcalled (e.g., 1-1-2 or 3), is weak.  Again, Opener can rebid as opposite a weak 2-bid opening. 

      Any double jump raise of Partner's suit (e.g., 1-any-4 or 1-1-any-4) is pre-emptive. 

      An immediate jump overcall of RHO's Minor suit opening (i.e., 1-3 or 1-3) is Natural and pre-emptive.  An immediate jump overcall of RHO's Major suit (i.e., 1-3 or 1-3) usually shows a solid minor, and asks Partner to bid 3NT with a guard in the opponent's major suit. 

     

--- Question ---

      1.  Are the requirements for a weak jump over 1-Dble the same as an opening weak 2-bid ? 

      ANSWER: No.  Knowing that partner has an opener, our jump must warn of a weaker hand (0-6) than an opening weak 2-bid.  With 7-9, bid the suit simply and then rebid it as appropriate. 

      2.  Why are pre-empts opposite opening hands so weak ? 
      For example, why does 1-Dble-2 show 0-5 points ? 

      ANSWER: Any pre-empt opposite an opening bid tells Partner that game is not possible and that it might well be their hand.  This allows Partner to switch from offensive to defensive bidding mode. 

     

------- The Value of Spot Cards --------

      The texture of the long suit is a very important consideration when pre-empting.  This is especially true if bidding a six-card suit (usually at the 2-level or 3).  This is because pre-emptor may well have to play this suit opposite a void or singleton from Partner. 

      Example A: Q 10 x x x x

      Example B: J 10 9 8 x x

      Example B is a far better candidate for a pre-emptive bid of 2 than Example A. 

     

----- The Brough Theory -----

      "3 is more pre-emptive than 4."

      This theory, first promulgated by fellow "Space Cadet" teammate David "RBrough" Brough, may appear a little "zen" to many newcomers, and needs some explication. 

      An opening bid of 4 can be easily doubled for penalty.  But the opponents must be far more careful about doubling you into game, if you open 3 instead of 4.  If the opponents *do* bid on to game (say, in 4), your Partner can be "let in" on the decision as to whether to defend 4 or sacrifice in 4"Two heads are better than one !"

LHO: A Q x K Q x A Q x x Q x x

      Over 4, this LHO will have no problem doubling for penalty and collecting a reasonable reward.  But over 3, LHO has a far more difficult decision.
      A double will be takeout, and may land them in 4 on a badly splitting Heart Moysian (i.e., 4-3) fit.  3NT will be an alternative, but the flat distribution may not yield many "length" tricks for them.  And, of course, if Responder has a weak hand with the 3 missing Spades, Responder may choose to bid 4 as a sacrifice whenever that is the winning course of action. 

---- Question ----

      1.  Does the Brough Theory also apply to suits Other than Spades ?   Can 3 be more pre-emptive than 4

      Answer: Yes, but less so.  A double of 4 is "co-operative" and is often left in.  Still, though, we should prefer 3 to 4 in any close decision. 

      2.  If I have a marginal opening bid with a 6-card suit in 1st or 2nd seat, should I open at the 1-level or the 2-level ?   1 or 2 with:

A x x K Q x x x x Q x x x
      Answer: Open 1, not 2.  Oddly, the "show of strength" that 1 implies may have a much more intimidating (i.e., "pre-empting") affect on the opponents — if they turn out to have the balance of power — than a weak 2 opening bid, which may only "stampede" them into game. 

      This is a subtle variation on the Brough Theory. 

---- The Law Of Total Tricks -----

      The Law of Total Tricks states that, in Competitive and pre-emptive auctions only, the total number of tricks that the two sides can make is approximately equal to the total number of trumps that the two sides have in their longest suits. 
      Hence, if your side has a 5-4 Heart fit and they have a 5-3 Spade fit, there should be 5+4+5+3 = 17 tricks to be had. 
If they can make 8 tricks in Spades, we should be able to make 9 tricks in Hearts.

      How does this help us ?   Frankly, it doesn't.  Since we don't know how many tricks they can make, we cannot calculate how many tricks we can take. 

      That said, the LOTT is very useful as a general guideline in its simplified (some would say oversimplified) form: in competitive Or pre-emptive auctions, bid to the level of trumps your side holds.  With 9 trumps, bid to the 3-level. 

      If your partner opens 2, then, showing 6 Spades and a weak hand, you should bid 3 with 3-card support with any hand of between Zero and 16 points (i.e., without enough to bid game on strength).  Similarly, you should jump to 4 with any hand that includes 4-card support for Opener's major. 

      Only if vulnerable versus not, should we "pull in our horns" a little and bid one trick less than our total if we lack 17+ points required to bid game "on strength"

     

--- Questions ---

      1.  Aren't there books written on LOTT

      Answer: Yes, but they are very dry and very technical.  I would not recommend them to anyone except a fellow theoretrician.  Between "Following the Law", "To Bid or Not to Bid", and "Points Schmoints", I prefer the first. 

      2.  Speaking of books, are there books written on SAYC as it is played on OKBridge ? 

      Answer: No, none on this specific ("OKB") version of Standard American.  ONEDOWN is currently working on an online version, and this Rainbow Series in its entirety may constitute such an effort.  Other than that, the only source is Frank and Anna's site — but it is from a uniquely British viewpoint.  There is also ARPAD BARNA's contribution, "SAYC revised". Both can be accessed from: http://www.okbridge.com/~jeff/conv

      3.  I have heard that Bill Root's "Common Sense Bidding" is a good book on Standard American. 
      Is it recommended ?   Are there any others that we might suggest ? 

      Answer: Root's treatise is a very good work, presenting the conservative view of Standard American bidding.  I would encourage novices to read more than one book on the subject, or none at all. 
      Learning bidding from one source is liable to give the novice the idea that there is only one way to play Standard.  This is why we encourage you to read as many such viewpoints as you can. 

      4.  Are there any writers that we might recommend ? 

      Answer: Yes.  Michael Lawrence, Frank Stewart and Albert Scheinwold are/were all fine writers.  Ron Klinger writes some nice books for beginners and intermediates, and Kelsey writes the definitive books on defence.  On the play of hand, there is no competition: Louis Watson's aptly named "Watson's Play of the Hand" has no equal. 

      In the humour field, I would recommend Victor Mollo and Frank Vine.

--- Quiz ---

      1.  In first seat, neither side vulnerable, what would you bid with:

Hand A: x x 10 9 8 x x x K x x K x

      Answer:  2.  This may warn a strong partner not to get excited without Some modicum of Heart support. 

Hand B: x x x x K Q x Q J 10 9 x x x

      Answer:  3.  Only 3 is recommended with a 6-card suit, since 2 was not available as a weak 2-bid. 

Hand C: A K Q x x x x x x x x x x

      Answer:  Pass !   This hand has too much defence for any pre-empt.  You will be able to bid the Spades Later.  Open 2 in Fourth seat only

      2.  Partner's 1 opening bid is doubled for takeout. 
      No one is vul.  What would you bid with:

Hand A: Q 9 x x x x x x x x x x x

      Answer:  Pass.  Spades rate to break badly here, and you would need far better spot cards to drive out the outstanding honours if partner has a (likely) singleton or void in Spades. 

Hand B: x x x x Q J 10 x x x x x x

      Answer:  2, not 3.  2 is not Forcing here over a double. 
      Only one level free bids are forcing over a double. 

Hand C: x x x x x x J 10 9 x x x x

      Answer:  3.  If partner has 3+ Clubs, we may have a good sacrifice in 5

      3.  In third suit, not vul versus vul opponents, what would you bid after 2 passes with:

Hand A: 10 9 8 x x x x x x x x x x x

      Answer:  Pass or open 2, according to your style.  The opponents may well have a slam here, and a game is a virtual certainty for them. 

Hand B: x x K Q J x x x x x x x void

      Answer:  4.  With an eighth Heart, you certainly won't mind being doubled here. 

Hand C: x x x x A x A 10 x x x x x

      Answer:  Pass !   Bid the Diamonds simply later.  Never pre-empt with 2 Aces !   Passing will also give partner a chance to bid Spades once LHO opens.

RAINBOW Series

Lesson #1: Opening Bids Lesson #2: Responses to Opening Bids
Lesson #3: Rebidding Strategies Lesson #4: Interference
Lesson #5: OverCalls & Takeout Doubles Lesson #6: Two-Suited Overcalls
Lesson #7: Pre-Empts Lesson #8: Competing with Doubles
Lesson #9: Lebensohl Lesson #10: Defensive Signalling
Lesson #11: Defensive Strategies Lesson #12: Declarer Play



General Rules of SAYC Bidding Fit Inspired Bids – "FIBs"
Doubles Cuebids
IMPs Versus MatchPoints Lebensohl
Hand Evaluation Defensive Signals
Jacoby Transfers Pre-Empts
Jacoby 2NT Response to 1 or 1S Michaels Cuebids
3 Types of Responding Hands Percentages in Bridge
Roman Key Card Blackwood BROZEL over their 1NT
4th Suit Force Assume Jumps Are Raises
Glossary of Terms Colin's Rules of Bridge


Valid HTML 4.0 Transitional saved from url=http://www.firesides.ca/rainbo7.htm
inserted by FC2 system