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.
|
Unless vulnerable versus not, open 2S
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 2D, 2H, 2S or 3C 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
3C *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.
|
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 type, 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 2C 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: S- AKQxxx H- AQx D- x C- AQx assume
that Partner has: S- xx H- xxx D- xxxxx C- xxx in
deciding whether to open 2C or 1S. With only 8 sure tricks,
open 1S, not 2C.
The most practical and accurate Loser Count is the
Fractional Loser Count, which presumes that Partner is on
lead. Kx is 1-and-a-half losers, Qxx is 2 and 3/4 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. 3H-3S) 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 2D, 2H or 2S opening bid is weak, showing
a 6-card suit and 6-10 HCPs. There are no minimum
requirements regarding suit quality.
|
Many modern players will open 2S. 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 to rebid the suit if minimal (6-7 points) or
show a "feature" (Ace, King or Queen in any unbid suit)
if NOT minimal (8-10 points). A 3NT rebid by Opener
shows a very good suit.
|
Over 2D: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 7C 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.
3D 3S - Natural.
3H 4C - Cuebid, confirming HEARTS.
3H 3S - Natural, NOT a cuebid.
------- Other Pre-emptive Actions ---------
A jump overcall of an opponent's opening bid
is pre-emptive (e.g. 1C-2D or higher). If it is at
the 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. 1D-Dble-2H) or
overcalled (e.g. 1D-1H-2S or 3C) is weak. Again,
Opener can rebid as opposite a weak 2-bid opening.
Any double jump raise of Partner's suit
(e.g. 1D-any-4D or 1D-1H-any-4H) is pre-emptive.
An immediate jump overcall of RHO's MINOR
suit opening (i.e. 1C-3C or 1D-3D) is NATURAL and
pre-emptive. An immediate jump overcall of RHO's
MAJOR suit (i.e. 1H-3H or 1S-3S) 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
1C-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 1C-Dble-2H 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 3C). This is because pre-emptor
may well have to play this suit opposite a void or
singleton from Partner.
Example A: H- Q10xxxx
Example B: H- J1098xx
Example B is a FAR better candidate for a
pre-emptive bid of 2H than Example A.
----- The Brough Theory -----
"3S is more pre-emptive than 4S."
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 4S can be easily doubled
for penalty. But the opponents must be far more
careful about doubling you into game if you open
3S instead of 4S. If the opponents *do* bid on
to game (say, in 4H), your PARTNER can be "let in"
on the decision as to whether to defend 4H or
sacrifice in 4S. "Two heads are better than one!"
|
Over 4S, this LHO will have no problem
doubling for penalty and collecting a reasonable
reward. But over 3S LHO has a FAR more difficult
decision. A double will be takeout, and may land
them in 4H 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 4S 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 3H be more pre-emptive
than 4H?
Answer: Yes, but less so. A double of 4H is
"co-operative" and is OFTEN left in. Still,
though, we should prefer 3H to 4H 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? 1H or 2H with:
|
Answer: Open 1H, NOT 2H. Oddly, the "show of
strength" that 1H 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 2H 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 2S, then, showing
6 Spades and a weak hand, you should bid 3S
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 4S 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: |
 xx |
 1098xxx |
 Kxx |
 Kx |
|
2H. This may warn a strong partner NOT to
get excited without SOME modicum of Heart
support.
| HAND B: |
xx |
xx |
KQx |
QJ109xxx |
|
3C. Only 3C is recommended with a 6-card suit,
since 2C was not available as a weak 2-bid.
|
PASS! This hand has TOO MUCH DEFENCE for ANY
pre-empt. You will be able to bid the Spades
LATER. Open 2S in FOURTH seat ONLY.
2. Partner's 1H opening bid is doubled for takeout.
No one is vul. What would you bid with:
|
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: |
xxx |
x |
QJ10xxx |
xxx |
|
2D, not 3D. 2D is NOT FORCING here over a double.
Only ONE level free bids are forcing over a double.
| HAND C: |
xx |
x |
xxx |
J109xxxx |
|
3C. If partner has 3+ Clubs we may have a good
sacrifice in 5C.
3. In third suit, not vul versus vul opponents, what
would you bid after 2 passes with:
| HAND A: |
1098xxx |
xxx |
xx |
xxx |
|
Pass or open 2S, according to your style. The
opponents may well have a slam here, and a game
is a virtual certainty for them.
| HAND B: |
xx |
KQJxxxx |
xxx |
void |
|
4H. With an EIGHTH Heart you certainly won't
mind being doubled here.
| HAND C: |
xxxx |
Ax |
A10xxxx |
x |
|
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
|
The Rainbow Series, from 10:00 A.M. to 12:30 PST every weekday, is a lecture program on the SAYC system, from
Opening Bids all the way through to the conventional aspects of SAYC.
Unlike the FireSide and 5th Chair sessions mentioned above, the
Rainbow Series is a semi-private lesson program for our students.
Nevertheless, you are invited to stop by and "eavesdrop"
on the discussion from the Spectator's Loft.
If you have any questions arising from these notes,
or about the Rainbow Lesson Series, please do not hesitate
to email me at: cpw@escape.ca
|
|
|
| If your computer
has MIDI capacity, you have been listening to Led Zeppelin's "Going to California". |
