All News

Too Aggressive?

We all have, or maybe should have, unwritten rules about when to pre-empt. It is common to be “a little frisky” when the vulnerability is in our favour. However, what about when only our side is vulnerable? How good do we have to be..or how bad are we allowed to be… at that vulnerability first in hand? We are playing Teams:

 

Oh, before we go any further, what will become the most important card in this hand when the play takes place?

Nice shape but not too many hcp and an acceptable but not a great suit. That does not matter to our youngest Panellist:

Leon Meier “4: I'd consider 3 and 4. In the end I prefer 4. By opening 4 I'm hoping the opponents will play 4x.”

However, Nigel gives us a good reason to adopt the middle ground:

Nigel Kearney “3: I used to think I was an aggressive pre-emptor, but nowadays I see people doing things I wouldn't seriously consider. However, this looks fine to open 3. If you want a simple rule, apply the old rule of 2 and 3 then bid one more. (i.e. effectively you should be within three tricks of your contract when vulnerable and four not vulnerable) This hand looks to have six tricks so I'd open 3 vul and 4 non vul. The void is a bonus as well - hands with voids often end up taking an extra trick.”

Some others are also happy with the 3-level:

Andy Braithwaite “3: Easy 3 for me- no spade length and good enough suit to want to play in hearts even if there is a club fit- and good time to pre-empt in 1st seat.”

Kris Wooles “3: considering the vulnerability and the queen high suits. Pre-empts put pressure on even the best players who are forced to guess. Playing against USA many years ago I pre-empted 3 with xx,-, Qxxxxx Qxxxx no one vul. The opponents bid to 6 which I doubled and after a ruff, club return, ruff we collected +300 which was just as well as our partners bid to 6NT for minus 250.”

Michael Cornell “3: I always like to pre-empt at the 3 level with 7 and with a 7-4 still ok despite the vulnerability. I would probably do the same at equal vulnerability but would open 4 at favourable.”

Stephen Blackstock “3: 40 years ago, this would have been regarded as very aggressive, but today it's the normal, middle of the road action. Yes, I could be -800 or more in 3x, but if so, I will have company. The side suit and, especially the 10, are some protection against a tragedy. I acknowledge that it's unlikely we can keep the opponents out of a big spade fit, but occasionally this pre-empt will make life difficult.

 Furthermore, 2 or even pass are dangerous too. This hand could take a lot of tricks opposite the right dummy, so it is crucial to be in the auction and to give partner information that will help him make the right decision about whether to compete. 

Pass would be far too passive, and 2 is neither fish nor fowl. It's not high enough to inconvenience the opponents and it isn't descriptive enough alert my partner to our constructive possibilities.”

We do have some support, though, for “the poor man's pre-empt”.

 

Peter Newell “2: At most vulnerabilities, this looks like a normal 3 opening  with a reasonable 7 card suit, and with the extra shape being 7-4 and a void.  At vul  vs not, I don't like 3 much as the hand does have rather a lot of losers unless partner fits clubs. 

If we get doubled and go down that is likely to be a poor result given that 2 down is more than a non- vulnerable game.  Even undoubled we will probably drift a few down when the opposition may struggle to make part-score.  The other factor is that opposite a 3 opening (in 1^st or 2^nd seat), I would expect more and partner will quite often bid 3NT.  This will often work out poorly as it is unlikely that the hearts run. How often does partner have AKx? Partner may think Ax or Kx are pretty good holdings and unless the defence have a singleton honour, that will not be good enough. While the Q may be a side entry, often it will not be...   

So, I'm genuinely a bit torn as to what I would do, and likely would depend on the opponents and the state of the match. I would consider 2 and Pass as options. My preferred option would be 2.

I can understand reservations in 3NT. Would it really be that undisciplined to bid 4 or 4 instead of passing 3NT?

 

Bruce Anderson “2: Usually that would be a 6 card suit but given the vulnerability, I want the safety of a little more playing strength. If this is the opponents’ hand, and they may even have the values for slam, I want to take up as much of their bidding space as possible, within reason.

If partner is strong he/she will bid accordingly; then the seventh heart will hopefully compensate for a weakish suit.”

 

Indeed, this time, it was your partner you were pre-empting. If you opened 2, what would you bid when your partner bid 2? Just checking you know how forcing that bid is. For the 3 openers, they had to contend with a forcing 3 from partner…and they would not have been too optimistic about the success of the final contract.

What was the only card in the North hand that was of interest to South? Did you guess the 9?

 

 

Whether or not West scored a diamond ruff (they could do if they started with A), there were only ever three tricks for the defence, as 9 is a great card meaning there are only ever 2 diamond tricks (along with K ) on an initial non-diamond lead.

 

Leon Meier did not get his wish of defending 4x. I was though curious whether having opened 4, 4 from his partner would be to play. He said it was.

I was intrigued as to whether the Panel’s pre-emptive opening at adverse vulnerability needed to be stronger than the North hand above. Mainly, they seemed happy to take their chances.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items