[CSGibson]

Recently playing online I was dealt this hand first seat:

---

and I chose to preempt it 2 diamonds. Afterwards my pickup partner chastised me for preempting with a void. My question is a multi part:

1) Do you consider yourself an aggressive preemptor (mostly to get context)

2) Would you preempt the hand?

3) What is your rationale?


To start it off, I am an aggressive preemptor, I did preempt (the only question being whether to preempt at the 2 or 3 level), and I believe that preempting this hand first and third seat is a no brainer, because I have 10 minor suit cards, a decent preempt suit, and I will be preempting more opponents than partners, but I would be less willing to preempt 2nd seat.

[jdonn]

1) Not really, I preempt on some shapely hands with worse suits than others, but also often pass on balanced hands that others preempt on and rarely preempt in a 5 card suit.

2) Yes, usually 2.

3) I love having a void to preempt. It adds a lot to playing strength, the opponents often have a fit in that suit so you want to take up their space, and it increases both the frequency with which you can preempt and the difficulty in the opponents counting your hand.

I sort of agree with your points in the original post, but I would always preempt in 2nd seat with this too.

[gwnn]

1) yes
2) yeaah 3♦ baby
3) (sorry this will not be a mathematical point) the amount of deviance from a "textbook" 3♦ bid is small enough so if we're misleading partner we're not misleading him (in case he's got the Hand) as much as the nuisance we're causing Leftie (if he's got the Hand).

[andy_h]

1) sometimes, but it's vul/seat position based.
2) yeah
3) It's definitely a nice hand and good shape. only small thing worries me is the 3 small hearts which gives us enormous power combined with the void if a heart fit exists. Though it's not such a big deal.

[TheoKole]

I agree with you on all points.

1) Yes, I am an agressive preemptor.

2) Yes I would preempt with this hand. 3 ♦ whether playing Multi or not.

3) My reasons for preempting are the same as yours.

Cheers, Theo

[Codo]

1. I am a normal preemptor if normal includes that this is a good hand for 3 ♦.
At white/red this is the best pd may expect for my bid. If this is agreesive, Iam aggreisve, but I think this is right down the middle.

2. 1.-3.seat any vul. 3 ♦, happy pass in 4. seat

3. In the last century they told you that you need a stopper in all suits to open 1 NT. They played strong two openings. Stayman was the High End convention.
And they "never" doubled for take out with a void. And some never preempted with a void.

This was a boring time where you had the hands you bid and opps allowed you frequently to use your undisturbed bidding till you reached the best contract.

History. These times are gone.

Like Justin I would love to have a side void (or two) for my preempt. My best premepts are in spades with three side voids, but they are quite rare.

Okay this did not answer the question you asked, so: This hand simply fits in the guidelines for a weak three my pd and me are playing . With this shape, this suit quality and this overall strength I have to open 3 Diamond or else my pd will play me for a different hand in the later bidding/play.

[dake50]

I tag 80% oppts have 8+S, 26% 8+H, 20% both majors; 90% they have game values in 1st seat.
3D to hope for mis-bid: they land in wrong suit. Or over/under-bid. Each of those 3 errors has good chances.

2nd seat, the upside for their error goes down(one will know passed pard means no slam) so all our marbles are in their mis-bid. Pass and surprise in defending.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 yes, in my regular partnership we follow
(hyper) agressive rules to determine how
high we preempt with a given hand
#2 yes, 3D, unless red vs green in which case
2D, green vs. red our rules would allow
4D, but we want to survive and a 4D opener
with a 6 card suit is completly anti field
#3 I have a good suit, and the preempt allows
me to tell my partner exactly what I have

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Gerben42]

I would open 3♦ too not vulnerable, 2♦ vulnerable and would not consider myself an overly agressive preemptor. On the other hand there are so many conservative preemptors, maybe I am agressive, but then I don't know what to call those who ARE agressive preemptors!

In my opinion you can have 1 flaw for a preempt.

A void is a flaw.
A bad suit is a flaw.
A side suit Ace or tripleton Kxx or better is a flaw.
A side 4-card major is a flaw.
A good side 4-card major is 2 flaws.

So change the hand to

♠ -
♥ xxxx
♦ AQ98xx
♣ xxx

and I would pass.

[keylime]

For me, 2♦ red/white, otherwise 3♦ - and I'd expect Larry to reciprocate.

My views about preemption are simple: bad 4 card majors are ok, a void is ok, seat position and colors are key. Most importantly, you're trying to barricade the opps.

[Apollo81]

I consider myself aggressive on weak twos, but not on higher level preempts. I would open this 3♦ at favorable 1st/3rd and 2♦ otherwise.

If you pass on this sort of hand you are letting your opponents off way too easy.

[whereagles]

Gerben42, on Nov 13 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

In my opinion you can have 1 flaw for a preempt.

A void is a flaw.
A bad suit is a flaw.
A side suit Ace or tripleton Kxx or better is a flaw.
A side 4-card major is a flaw.
A good side 4-card major is 2 flaws.

The "1 flaw" theory is kinda outdated. People have since understood preempting is a judgement thing, not one of applying rules blindly. In this case opps rate to have spades and that's a HUGE green light preempting. It doesn't matter whether you have a void or side suit or whatever.

By the way, the 3rd thing in your list isn't really a big flaw. It's much worse a flaw if it's like Qxx or Jxx. Also, one can argue that a 6-4 shape cancels one flaw.

[jtfanclub]

Gerben42, on Nov 13 2007, 10:19 AM, said:

A void is a flaw.

I always considered a void an asset for pre-emtping. After all, part of the point of a pre-empt is to tell partner what you've got, and hopefully that warning will keep partner from bidding too many spades. Seems to me that I saw one hand where the traveler was all in spades...when dealer pre-empted, the opponents found their 4-4 spade fit, when dealer passed, his partner opened 1 spade and they ended up in two!

Anyhow, what is the argument in favor of calling a void a flaw for a pre-empt?

[han]

I don't agree that a void is a flaw.

[whereagles]

If I recall correctly, "void is a flaw" came originally from the fact voids make it harder for pard to correctly gauge games/slams/sacrifices.

But of course, times have changed... now a major suit void is argueably considered a plus, not a minus.

[pclayton]

A long time ago, a void was considered a flaw for some reason. Preempts were sounder and frequently the hand belonged to the preempting side. As a result, an undisclosed void made hand evaluation more difficult.

Now, my preempts, while descriptive, are purely a defensive bid. A void just adds to the playing strength which can result in preempting one level higher.

I have no qualms with preempting the OP hand with 3♦ at most colors and scoring.

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Nov 13 2007, 05:04 PM, said:

Jlall, on Nov 13 2007, 01:54 AM, said:

2D is quite conservative in my opinion, I would open 3D. I consider myself an aggressive preemptor.

Musta been in an agressive mood yesterday, pretty sure I'd only open 3D NV and 2D vul.

Agree.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Nov 13 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

I don't agree that a void is a flaw.

Also, I disagree that ♥xxxx is a flaw when we have a spade void. (With reversed majors I would understand the flaw.)