[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2025-December-18, 11:27, said:

Finally! People told me for years "your aggressive preempts might work at the club level, but once you get to the next level they will punish you". Now the shoe is on the other foot, and I read "your aggressive preempts might be break even at the expert level, but are poor at the club level".

Thank you, I don't agree but I enjoy encountering this argument tremendously.

I can't help thinking there is a world of difference between a world class situation e.g. the Bermuda Bowl, with a decades long regular partnership that has nailed just about everything down in their system, and the low standard club I pay at where the mean NGS is around 46% (typically) and I have to play with weak pickup partners.

[P_Marlowe]

AL78, on 2025-December-19, 04:34, said:

I can't help thinking there is a world of difference between a world class situation e.g. the Bermuda Bowl, with a decades long regular partnership that has nailed just about everything down in their system, and the low standard club I pay at where the mean NGS is around 46% (typically) and I have to play with weak pickup partners.

The main problem in a pickup I see: you reg. discuss which kind of keycard ask you play,
but ommit style, agreeing on all kind of fancy stuff, that does not come up in a session,
but leaving out the bread and butter.

[mw64ahw]

Just had a Xmas 9 board bridge session with modified scoring & play and random partners on each board.

One board gave you 200 extra points if you bid and made 3♥. With an opening hand and 5♥ I bid 3♥. The ops. ended in 5♦X for -1400 ;over half my points for the evening.

There must be a learning point somewhere?

[Cyberyeti]

The important thing is to agree how aggressively you are going to preempt in each seat. To me, second seat, this is a clear 3♠, first seat as we preempt aggressively, this might be a bit good.

I can live with 1♠ or 4♠ in first and I think it's a clear 4 in 3rd.

[akwoo]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-December-19, 05:02, said:

The main problem in a pickup I see: you reg. discuss which kind of keycard ask you play,
but ommit style, agreeing on all kind of fancy stuff, that does not come up in a session,
but leaving out the bread and butter.

You can't really discuss style with weaker players because they're unaware that there is any style but their own. You ask them how strong their preempts are, and they say 'normal', which could mean anything. If they were stronger players, they might realize that other players preempt differently, but for the most part they aren't strong enough to take the opponents' bidding into account in the play.

And, if you do figure it out, you have no choice but to play their style, because they can't change.

[mike777]

Question

Second seat preemptive bids after pass by RHO,you are non vul

Solid preemptive bids or anything goes?

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2025-December-19, 16:53, said:

Question

Second seat preemptive bids after pass by RHO,you are non vul

Solid preemptive bids or anything goes?

vulnerability matters in all preemptive situations. Its nuts to be hyperaggressive red v white. And, imo, its nuts to treat second seat as anything like 1st or 3rd, even at favourable.

So 2nd seat I will be 'sound' but that doesn't mean the same thing at favourable as it does at equal, let alone unfavourable.

KQ10xxxx xx xx xx 2nd seat white, 3S KQ109xxx x xxx xx 3S 2nd seat equal KQ109xxx x xx Kxx 2nd seat unfavourable is ok.

btw, when playing with an unfamiliar partner, known to be a good player, I always ask something like: 1st seat favourable, what is the worst suit you'd have for a 3 level preempt? What is the best?

[mike777]

Ty

[DavidKok]

I disagree and think the current fashion overshoots the mark. Vulnerability and seating are some of the most important factors for preempting, but there's such a thing as overcorrection as well. My second seat and vulnerable preempts used to be sound, but as an experiment I lowered the requirements a few years ago. I've kept track of the results, to my surprise it was immensely profitable to be more aggressive.
There's still a large gap with other seats or vulnerabilities, but e.g. ♠QJxxxx, ♥x, ♦KTxx, ♣xx is a (minimum) second seat unfavourable 3♠ opening for me.

Conversely, I think people are too eager to preempt at favourable in third seat. The pendulum of 'you should adjust more for seating and vulnerability' has, in my opinion, swung too far.

[akwoo]

DavidKok, on 2025-December-19, 23:11, said:

I disagree and think the current fashion overshoots the mark. Vulnerability and seating are some of the most important factors for preempting, but there's such a thing as overcorrection as well. My second seat and vulnerable preempts used to be sound, but as an experiment I lowered the requirements a few years ago. I've kept track of the results, to my surprise it was immensely profitable to be more aggressive.
There's still a large gap with other seats or vulnerabilities, but e.g. ♠QJxxxx, ♥x, ♦KTxx, ♣xx is a (minimum) second seat unfavourable 3♠ opening for me.

Conversely, I think people are too eager to preempt at favourable in third seat. The pendulum of 'you should adjust more for seating and vulnerability' has, in my opinion, swung too far.

Can we get some idea of the strength of opposition your data is collected against? Here I think what matters is average strength, so something like an approximation of an average NGS grade would be the most useful.

"Club games" is not useful - I know a club game in Seattle that I would estimate is on average stronger than almost any tournament except national ones. Unfortunately the ACBL doesn't do NGS so I can't back my estimate.

[DavidKok]

I really don't know how to answer that. Regional level, not national level, definitely not international level. Some of the examples I'm thinking of occur at the national competition level, but that's not where I currently play.

[mikeh]

I’m too stuck in my ways to really loosen up my vulnerable preempts to the extent that David doesn’t care but I’m not surprised that he’s enjoyed success doing so. My experience with 3 level favourable preempts on suits such as J10xxxx has been that, so far, nobody’s caught us speeding yet, even though they could have. People are so conditioned to playing against less silly preempts that they tend to assume that you’ve got something close to what they’d have. I suspect the same effect, if not to an even greater degree, would apply to vulnerable preempts

My concern, and only experience would show if it were a valid concern, is that word would eventually get around. Weak opps will likely still not handle it well but strong opps may start passing more…after a double And that’s when frequency of loss v size of loss becomes a factor. Maybe at mps the looser strategy would still be a winner, but I’m worried about the impact of going for a number at imps.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2025-December-20, 10:50, said:

I’m too stuck in my ways to really loosen up my vulnerable preempts to the extent that David doesn’t care but I’m not surprised that he’s enjoyed success doing so. My experience with 3 level favourable preempts on suits such as J10xxxx has been that, so far, nobody’s caught us speeding yet, even though they could have. People are so conditioned to playing against less silly preempts that they tend to assume that you’ve got something close to what they’d have. I suspect the same effect, if not to an even greater degree, would apply to vulnerable preempts

My concern, and only experience would show if it were a valid concern, is that word would eventually get around. Weak opps will likely still not handle it well but strong opps may start passing more…after a double And that’s when frequency of loss v size of loss becomes a factor. Maybe at mps the looser strategy would still be a winner, but I’m worried about the impact of going for a number at imps.

JTxxxx
Do you adjust your methods at all between club and international play?

[DavidKok]

JT-sixth is fine for a favourable 3-level preempt. At my club people are bidding it on JT-fifth, or A-sixth with an outside ace, which I think are suboptimal choices.

As for the transparency: we alert and disclose these preempts, of course. Now, there's a difference between the opponents being told and them having fully internalised the consequences of that information, but I don't have access to their inner monologue. I'm sure with time they can adjust, and a few of the stronger players here have come up and discussed the ranges of my preempts in more detail (including suggestions on how to combat it). I want to make it clear though that I think this increased aggression is profitable even if my opponents adjust their defence accordingly and find a new equilibrium. I want to avoid any implication of the form "higher aggression works against current defences, but if they learn to pass more you'll be behind".

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-December-21, 06:41, said:

JT-sixth is fine for a favourable 3-level preempt. At my club people are bidding it on JT-fifth, or A-sixth with an outside ace, which I think are suboptimal choices.

As for the transparency: we alert and disclose these preempts, of course.

Just out of interest, exactly how does partner explain your 3 level preempt, if asked?
And what does your card say about the same?


My card says something like "5-10 HCP, 7(6) cards". That is sufficiently orthodox to just announce as "weak", here.

[DavidKok]

The card says "weak, natural, 6+ cards, extremely aggressive, 0+ hcp". The alert explanation is the same except that we add that it's 'frequently six cards' depending on seating and vulnerability and that third seat preempts are 'extremely wide-ranging, up to a 13-count'.

[AL78]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-December-19, 05:02, said:

The main problem in a pickup I see: you reg. discuss which kind of keycard ask you play,
but ommit style, agreeing on all kind of fancy stuff, that does not come up in a session,
but leaving out the bread and butter.

Before the start of a club session, there is enough time to discuss the flavour of Acol (it nearly is always some form of Acol) plus the fundamental things like transfers over 1/2NT, what does 1NT - 2S mean, defences to 1NT and defensive signalling. There is little time to go through anything else hence I just largely wing it during the competitive auctions, slam bidding or competing over pre-empts. On occasions where the cards are heavily biased and partner and I have little opportunity to bid, it makes minimal difference what we have agreed since only the most fundamental stuff will come up.

[Huibertus]

mikeh, on 2025-December-18, 08:50, said:

Since that’s an automatic 4S bid these days, that in turn means that it would be an error for south to raise.

I don't have any issue with this hand being a 4♠ opening at white. Actually I like it. And I open 3!s at green on QJTXX, XX, XXX, XXX.

But that does NOT make it automatic, you can only do so after having explicitly agreed upon it with partner.

Unless a more aggressive approach has been agreed upon, this is a standard 3♠ opening, and partner should raise.

[jillybean]

Has the discussion morphed from a 1st seat to a 3rd seat opening?
4♠ is automatic in 3rd seat.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-December-22, 10:30, said:

Has the discussion morphed from a 1st seat to a 3rd seat opening?
4♠ is automatic in 3rd seat.

I'm not sure. Without the ♣A it would be nearly automatic for me, but with 9 hcp I'm not sure it's necessary. The bid of 4♠ is better only if they can make 3N or 4 of something.

I understand the idea that in 1st seat, you might have to bid 4♠ even if it might not be tactically best as the cards lie just to keep your range for 3♠ from being too wide. In 3rd seat there isn't such a consideration.