All News

Times change.

Many many years ago, one only pre-empted with two of the top three honours, maybe even three of the top four, in the suit one has opened. The same applied for a Weak 2. That made bidding and defending a lot easier for their partner and for the opposition as well. Such bids would have been used quite sparingly. 

So, I suspect had today’s problem been posed in 1935 or 1963, the answers may well have been rather different. We just do not care anymore. Especially at favourable vulnerability, if we can count to 6 cards or 7 (or for some brave souls even 5 cards), we are there at the 2 or 3 levels with a bid. Suit quality has taken a back seat, certainly when we are “green”. Let’s see whether times have changed.

 

We are playing Teams.

Michael Ware “3: I agree I am too “good” for 3 at these colours, position, but opening 4 just gives them an easy 500+ most of the time.”

“Too good”. That really says it all! Michael does have plenty of company:

Wayne Burrows “3: I cannot think of anything more creative.”

Peter Newell “3: probably at all vulnerabilities except vul vs not.  3 was opened at our table and it didn't work out well for us as I led a spade (after a slow 3NT bid) and not a heart. Yes, it is ugly with such a bad suit, but more often than not, it will make it harder for the opponents than partner. It is a difficult hand to evaluate as its trick taking potential is strongly dependant on the number of trumps partner has and of course heart and club cards...a more "normal" pre-empt would generally have doubletons requiring aces and kings in partner’s hand to be useful whereas here queens and even the J are useful.”

Stephen Blackstock “3: Of course this is technically unsound - poor trumps, a side ace, and good support for two other strains. This opening will not help partner in a constructive auction. 

Nevertheless, this is the best and perhaps only chance to make life difficult for the opponents. It is 2/1 to make life hard for them rather than partner. A few decades ago no expert would pre-empt with this hand. Now it is a middle of the road action. Of the alternatives, pass gives them a free ride and 2 is poor. It doesn't impede them as much,  has the same constructive issues as 3, and adds the extra problem that partner will never play a weak two bid for a seven card suit.”

 

and fine with this bid when not vulnerable is:

Nigel Kearney “3: (or 2 if vulnerable). Pre-empting makes life hard for opponents more often than for partner, so I want to do that as often as possible. There is no exact rule about how high to pre-empt but as a rough approximation, you can take the old rule of two and three and bid one more than that. Here I expect to make five tricks (four spades and a heart) so I can contract for eight tricks if vulnerable or nine tricks if not vulnerable. Things like poor suit quality and outside aces are slight drawbacks but not that big a deal to me.”

The “poor man’s pre-empt” did get a mention:

Anthony Ker “2: 3 seemed overkill with such a poor suit and pass pusillanimous. We can still get to hearts over 2 and it is one level lower if things turn nasty.”

and what about the “pusillanimous pass”?

Andy Braithwaite “Pass: Vulnerability and position are good but our suit being poor and our holding 3 hearts to the ace are both bad so I pass.”

Bruce Anderson “Pass: I am passing rather than telling partner, who may be very strong, that I have a suit worth bidding pre-emptively.

It is Teams and I  do not want to pre-empt partner, particularly holding an ace and a hand that may play very well in either hearts or clubs.

 

If I am forced to bid, I open 3, hoping the hand belongs to our opponents; that bid takes up a lot of their bidding space.”

No compulsion, Bruce, but there are two opponents and only one partner to pre-empt. If partner does wheel out Key Card, then it is unlikely your ace will be bad news, just not perhaps where expected.

 

This board comes from the recent Wellington Regional Teams last weekend and Michael Ware’s team was up against the team that included Leon Meier. Michael and Leon were in the same seat:

Leon Meier “4/3: I held this hand in the Teams match, and with Michael Ware at the other table, I thought surely he'd open 4 so I did but I would ordinarily open 3.”

Well, it rarely pays to glance across to the opposing table. Michael did open 3 and his prediction above became very true.

 

 

That 3NT bid could have been very much stronger than 15 hcp. At some tables, East raised to 4NT, invitational. West turned their partner down very quickly!

Yet, whether they were defending 3NT or 4NT, the fate of either came down to the opening lead. Were South the sort who needed some decent honours in the spade suit for 3, then North could do the decent thing and lead one. Glenn Coutts was on lead to 4NT and quickly moved his spade away from the opening lead position. He chose a low club rather than a heart so that the declarer was able to make 10 tricks quite comfortably.  

Meanwhile, Leon suffered in 4. As Michael predicted, Leon was three down doubled (Q lead), -500 though the “suffering” did not last too long as his team gained 4 imps. (+630 v - 500). Surely, Leon's partner was impressed that he only lost 3 trump tricks! 

So, you can argue as to whether we are better or worse off now for pre-empting on a hand like South’s. Usually, the more pressure one can put on one’s opponents, the better it is. West’s 3NT over the pre-empt is not mandatory though with a double spade stop, does seem the right action.

Perhaps, the board is more about the opening lead to 3NT/4NT. With an outside ace and a fair five-card suit, that seems as good a bet as partner’s suit, especially since one has a singleton spade.

Whether or not South opened at the 2 or 3 level or did not open at all, North-South should record a plus score from defeating either 3NT or 5D. At most tables, this just did not happen.

Richard Solomon

Go Back View All News Items