[Shugart23]

I’ve gotten burned the last couple times preempting 4s playing matchpoint. I am wondering if preempting 4S or 5m is generally a bad idea and maybe it’s better just to preempt at a lower level ( say 3S or 3m) and then just keep bidding forcing them to go the 5 level or double? Interested in any comments

[DavidKok]

The general theory of when to preempt, and how high, is very interesting and underdeveloped. I've spent a bunch of time on this, writing up some of my ideas from a few years ago (which are now partially oudated). To me it is fascinating that so many people play preempts - at least at the 3-level and higher, but most people also at the 2-level - and that there is such a huge diversity in styles. In many cases what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I find it hard to reconcile so many different ideas on weak bidding styles.

As for your losses; it is possible that you picked the wrong hands to preempt with, or the wrong vulnerability or seating. It's also possible that you just got unlucky - a lot of preemptive auctions are high variance.

That being said, opening at a lower level in order to bid again later is almost universally bad with weak hands. This gives the opponents much more bidding space and an extra bidding round to coordinate their actions. I highly recommend against bidding this way. 4M is also one of the more effective preempts, so downgrading out of that is bad for multiple reasons.

[mycroft]

One thing to always remember: a preempt is a gamble. You are gambling that, based on the information from the auction so far and your hand, that the rest of the cards are placed in such a way as to get a better score by removing bidding space. Add to that, you are gambling that the opponents will do the wrong thing, if there is a right thing to do - and that can depend on the opponents.

Like any gamble, you will lose some. If you don't, You Aren't Preempting Enough. A couple of bad beats isn't enough; it should be more bad beats than good results, over a period of many attempts.

On "preempt low and hope they don't go on, then keep bidding" - works against bad players. Good players will guess righter the more space you give them; righter yet the more opportunities you give them to guess right. "Preempt immediately, as high as you're willing to go" has been the mantra for decades, because it works more often than "hope and take the push". It doesn't work all the time. It doesn't work more often in a game with a lot of weak players, because 4♠X-3 loses to 3♠X-2 every day of the week, and the ones that took the low road and got doubled (even if 4♥ is cold) played their opponents correctly. But it is still better overall.

[DavidKok]

I couldn't disagree more. It's technically a gamble in the sense that any action without perfect information is a gamble. This goes for all calls - pass, opening 1NT, or opening 3♠ - any could work out best on any particular hand.
I've had to fight a lot of uphill battles on aggressive bidding. Frequently older players would condescendingly tell me something like 'it worked this time, but you are just gambling' or 'at your current level you can get away with this, but once you reach a slightly higher level the field will punish this sort of thing'. So far it hasn't happened yet, and experts are far more aggressive than club players, but surely my old tablemates knew what they were talking about, right?

Be careful when people reduce preemptive bidding to just gambling. There is a lot of interesting insight to be had into the potential for gains and losses, the relative merits of applying pressure versus staying low, the costs of delayed action, the opportunity costs of sound preempts and the likes. Personally my gains on preemptive auctions have shot up massively over the years, after I finally started taking this topic seriously. In my experience the skill contribution is much higher than the luck contribution. I'd be cautious when people stress the luck element, and I've seen this kill a lot of opportunities to improve at preempting.

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-25, 08:03, said:

The general theory of when to preempt, and how high, is very interesting and underdeveloped. I've spent a bunch of time on this, writing up some of my ideas from a few years ago (which are now partially oudated). To me it is fascinating that so many people play preempts - at least at the 3-level and higher, but most people also at the 2-level - and that there is such a huge diversity in styles. In many cases what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and I find it hard to reconcile so many different ideas on weak bidding styles.

As for your losses; it is possible that you picked the wrong hands to preempt with, or the wrong vulnerability or seating. It's also possible that you just got unlucky - a lot of preemptive auctions are high variance.

That being said, opening at a lower level in order to bid again later is almost universally bad with weak hands. This gives the opponents much more bidding space and an extra bidding round to coordinate their actions. I highly recommend against bidding this way. 4M is also one of the more effective preempts, so downgrading out of that is bad for multiple reasons.

Thanks David. I'll throw out the partnership agreement that my son and I have regarding preemptive bidding at matchpoint - not Imps. It's one that I developed with my wife years ago that has worked well (but would welcome comment or criticism or suggestion). In no particular order:

First, we do not preempt with a 4 card Major unless partner is a passed hand.

Second, we do a 'down-3-4-5' method. If we are white and they are red, down 5; if equal vulnerability, down 4, and if we are red and they are white, down 3. However, if partner is a passed hand, we reduce the number of tricks we think we will take and thus it becomes a 'down 2-3-4 method'

Partner then has a good grasp of how many tricks I think I can take without any help from him. If he has a singleton or void, he will adjust the count down by 1 and from there can make a decision what to do based upon his hand.

Third would be extremely unusual (like .1%) that we would preempt with a 5-card suit. Don't think I have ever done that

Fourth, it would be very rare that we would preempt with opening strength unless perhaps we just open a bid 4M or 5m , but I have no recent memory of doing that.

[mike777]

Mike Lawrence's books are always an excellent starting point on any bridge topic.

[bluenikki]

Shugart23, on 2025-June-25, 07:28, said:

I’ve gotten burned the last couple times preempting 4s playing matchpoint. I am wondering if preempting 4S or 5m is generally a bad idea and maybe it’s better just to preempt at a lower level ( say 3S or 3m) and then just keep bidding forcing them to go the 5 level or double? Interested in any comments

Some 45 years ago, I was advised to be very conservative pre-empting in spades in matchpoints at unfavorable vulnerability.

Not long afterward, I had a pickup game with a kid who thought he was hot stuff. Dealer on my right opened a minor. I had eight solid spades. Per the advice, I bid 2♠.

I don't remember how many doubled overtricks I scored. The kid looked at me like I was crazy.

[mikeh]

I’ve played quite a variety of approaches to preempts over the years.

My current view is that vulnerability is extremely important. Seat is the other main factor in determining how aggressive or conservative one should be.

One comment from David resonates with me, particularly in my main partnership. In that partnership, at favourable and in 1st and 3rd seat, our 3 level bids are extraordinarily weak. Had you asked me, five years ago, what do you open in first seat, white v red, with KQx x xxx 1098xxx I’d have looked at you as if you’d lost your mind. Open? Seriously?

Nowadays that’s a routine 3C opening.

Sure, we could go for a number and quite often it should get us a bad result. Know what? After literally scores of such bids, against all levels of players including strong pros and multiple internationalists, we are yet to go for a number. That isn’t to say that our results are always great. But we’re definitely net a considerable amount.


Second seat, we are much closer to a traditional view, although we have no problem with a 6 card suit in a minor. Since, in team games, we play multi with intermediate 2M, we don’t open 3M on 6 card suits except at favourable, 1st and 3rd, with hands we deem either too weak for multi (5-9) or maybe the low end of multi with a side suit….we love 6-4 hands for preempting.


Our preempts get stronger as the vulnerability changes. Red v white, we have a very traditional style.


The reality appears to be that even the really strong pairs are disadvantaged by aggressive bidding. This makes sense since those pairs will bid extremely accurately if one stays out of their auctions.

So it’s well worth sticking one’s neck out, at favourable, against good players, since passing rates to get you below average most of the time, at mps, and a possible game or slam swing at imps.

Plus….it’s fun. So long as your teammates understand. Our current most frequent teammates do raise the occasional eyebrow, but on the whole I think they enjoy the results. And at mps, you don’t have that concern.

Btw, I readily admit that our charmed life, in terms of no numbers, will come to a possibly gruesome end some day. Meanwhile, it’s fun and I can tell you that I’d hate to play against a pair that bids like we do.

Being a difficult opponent is not something one sees discussed enough. I certainly used to think that making ultra aggressive bids was suicidal because, on many such hands, a double dummy view makes it ‘obvious’ that we’ll get killed. Nobody bids double dummy.

[akwoo]

mycroft, on 2025-June-25, 09:09, said:

It doesn't work more often in a game with a lot of weak players, because 4♠X-3 loses to 3♠X-2 every day of the week, and the ones that took the low road and got doubled (even if 4♥ is cold) played their opponents correctly.

OP - is this your situation?

[Shugart23]

Im not sure what you are asking. My son lives in chicago and I live in Oklahoma where the Thunder just became champs. So we play on BBO. We are playing the competitive 8 board games where I’m pretty sure the opponents have way more points than us ( I have 980 and my son has 20). We are averaging about a 52 percent on a rolling 12,average, so just slightly better than most. About once per week we will play in the 2500 South Carolina game where we have an expectation of being in the top 3 overall in our direction .There is an element of self selection on the SC games because they have a 750 game running at the same time. So in both cases, there aren’t a lot of beginners . Our premptive style described above is very aggressive and based upon the answers, I won’t be tempering my 4s preempt if that’s what our method calls for

[DavidKok]

Your preempt style is extremely conservative.

It is very common for people to call themselves 'aggressive bidders', regardless of style. It feels good to claim being active, causing problems for the opponents. Often the opportunity costs go unnoticed, and we only tally the gains and losses from action. It pains me to say but I've stopped believing all claims of being aggressive - it just means something totally different to different people.

Earlier today I held ♠Q8632, ♥96, ♦QT853, ♣T. First seat, favourable. I was playing with a former partner, but we hadn't played together in a while. I decided to pass, fearing partner might be slightly more conservative than I am. After the game partner chided me for my failure to open 2♠, and about half the field did open. I think that's a normal level of aggression here these days.

[Shugart23]

Well I definitely don’t think I’m extremely conservative. With favorable vulnerability in first or second seat, a 3x bid tells partner I think I can take 4 tricks without any help from him. So if Thats extremely conservative, what is aggressive? But, with the hand you present, I would not open but I might do a ghestem bid if it comes around and fits.

[akwoo]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-25, 17:24, said:

Earlier today I held ♠Q8632, ♥96, ♦QT853, ♣T. First seat, favourable. I was playing with a former partner, but we hadn't played together in a while. I decided to pass, fearing partner might be slightly more conservative than I am. After the game partner chided me for my failure to open 2♠, and about half the field did open. I think that's a normal level of aggression here these days.

This would be extremely aggressive and unheard of here, locally. The weaker players are too scared of going down to make this kind of preempt, and the strong players have no need to given the weaker field. (Why gamble when you can score 110/120 VPs playing conservatively?)

If I go to the nearest big city 450 km away and played in its best games, there would be players who'd make this preempt, but they'd be considered aggressive.

If I went to a bigger, stronger Regional, there would be a significant minority who would make this kind of preempt, but if a pro does it opposite a client, we'd think they're compensating for their client.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-25, 17:24, said:

Your preempt style is extremely conservative.

It is very common for people to call themselves 'aggressive bidders', regardless of style. It feels good to claim being active, causing problems for the opponents. Often the opportunity costs go unnoticed, and we only tally the gains and losses from action. It pains me to say but I've stopped believing all claims of being aggressive - it just means something totally different to different people.

Earlier today I held ♠Q8632, ♥96, ♦QT853, ♣T. First seat, favourable. I was playing with a former partner, but we hadn't played together in a while. I decided to pass, fearing partner might be slightly more conservative than I am. After the game partner chided me for my failure to open 2♠, and about half the field did open. I think that's a normal level of aggression here these days.

I’m interested: what does your convention card indicate?

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2025-June-25, 23:44, said:

I’m interested: what does your convention card indicate?

Natural weak 2, extremely aggressive, frequently a five card suit.

akwoo, on 2025-June-25, 22:03, said:

This would be extremely aggressive and unheard of here, locally. The weaker players are too scared of going down to make this kind of preempt, and the strong players have no need to given the weaker field. (Why gamble when you can score 110/120 VPs playing conservatively?)

If I go to the nearest big city 450 km away and played in its best games, there would be players who'd make this preempt, but they'd be considered aggressive.

If I went to a bigger, stronger Regional, there would be a significant minority who would make this kind of preempt, but if a pro does it opposite a client, we'd think they're compensating for their client.

The Dutch are generally known for being aggressive bidders, and the strong players more so than the rest of us.

I quoted the hand both because it was very current, I held it only a few hours ago, and to illustrate the range of the meaning of the word "aggressive". I genuinely consider some styles that people self-describe as aggressive actually quite conservative.
I'm not trying to argue you should open this hand. In fact, without discussion with your partner, you definitely shouldn't. Instead I wanted to give a quick real life example as a yardstick.
And do recall that I did not open this hand (though I wanted to, but I was unsure of our partnership understanding), which is what sparked discussion.

I stand by my assessment that the rule of 3, 4, 5 is extremely conservative these days, especially with additional restrictions imposed. Such a style may or may not be what you're aiming for in your preempts. I hope mikeh's 3♣ opening and my example showcase that, if you want, there's room left to consider bidding more.
Regardless of the above, it may also be interesting to consider preempting on different hands. Not increasing the level of aggression, but instead optimising for something other than 'own tricks taken'.

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-26, 00:00, said:

Natural weak 2, extremely aggressive, frequently a five card suit.

The Dutch are generally known for being aggressive bidders, and the strong players more so than the rest of us.

I quoted the hand both because it was very current, I held it only a few hours ago, and to illustrate the range of the meaning of the word "aggressive". I genuinely consider some styles that people self-describe as aggressive actually quite conservative.
I'm not trying to argue you should open this hand. In fact, without discussion with your partner, you definitely shouldn't. Instead I wanted to give a quick real life example as a yardstick.
And do recall that I did not open this hand (though I wanted to, but I was unsure of our partnership understanding), which is what sparked discussion.

I stand by my assessment that the rule of 3, 4, 5 is extremely conservative these days, especially with additional restrictions imposed. Such a style may or may not be what you're aiming for in your preempts. I hope mikeh's 3♣ opening and my example showcase that, if you want, there's room left to consider bidding more.
Regardless of the above, it may also be interesting to consider preempting on different hands. Not increasing the level of aggression, but instead optimising for something other than 'own tricks taken'.

Tbh it really doesn't make any difference to me what label my style is called - very conservative or mildly aggressive or whatever. And you may be right that I am missing some profitable opportunities to preempt that you might find that I might not ...e.g I won't preempt with a 5-card suit unless its possibly 5-5 in the minors where I might open 2NT (although our agreement is this bid has opening strength). On the other hand, I like the algorithm where my partner can make a reasonable decision as to whether to increase my preempt for a game or make a sacrifice.

Looking at Mikeh's 3C opening, that's a hand I very likely will open 3C as well. I see 4 winners (plus 5) = 9 total

If we look at the hand you describe as one that might be opened 2 Spades, I'm sure there are much solid, yet preemptive hands that you also would open 2S. So, with such a wide variance as to what a 2S bid could mean, I think you put your partner at more of a disadvantage than I do with my partner as to what action they should take on their bid


I do appreciate the dialog and input and as to my original question I'll continue to open 4S preemptively, rather than tempering per the consensus

[blackshoe]

I can be aggressive. When I am, my partners usually call it "stupid". :-)

[jillybean]

You are not the only one getting burned, here's a hand I picked up today.

---

[helene_t]

4♠. I am prepared to get burned

[P_Marlowe]

4S

And for sure, I prefer we played IMPs, at MP -500 beats all their games.