[Hanoi5]

Red vs White, Teams.

Pa-Pa-1♣-1♦
1♠-Pa-2♠-X
3♠

What would you play 3♠ as? Is there any difference if you've agreed to try-bids or not? Would a different Vulnerability prompt a different meaning?

What about:

1♠-Pa-2♠-X
3♠

What is it in this case?

[JLOGIC]

I play it as a preempt in all cases. You have a ton of game tries available, including XX if you just want a general one (or 2N or even a 3D cuebid in the 2nd one). It seems extraneous and not that useful to have 3S be a game try here.

[CSGibson]

Currently I play those as trump-suit game tries. I'm not sold on the method, however, as I've regretted not playing 123 stop on more than 1 occasion.

[Siegmund]

Put me down for preemptive.

In spades, itd be somewhat less clear without the double... but after a double, can't see it as anything other than "they pushed me to 3, but I wont let them say what suit they like."

[Free]

I play them both as preemptive. Like Justin said, we have a ton of game tries available. Also it makes a lot of sense to use this preemptively because opps are intervening. You don't have to give anything up, so clear preempt imo.

[the hog]

With the x pre emptive; without the x a game try.

[whereagles]

 CSGibson, on 2012-February-29, 22:04, said:

Currently I play those as trump-suit game tries. I'm not sold on the method, however, as I've regretted not playing 123 stop on more than 1 occasion.

Some theoreticians oppose 123-stop, at least in the case of spades. The argument is you can always outbid opps at the level you were willing to play anyway.

There certainly is a point to this, but in practice it's a thing a bit in unlucky expert style.

[Phil]

Reraises are preemptive in competition.

[P_Marlowe]

3S is to play.

If responder wants to invite, he has the options to bid 2NT, 3C, 3D, 3H.

I prefer the wording "to play" instead of "preemptive".
"preemtive" sounds like weakness, which may or may not be the case.
Responder knowes, he is facing a min. opener, so vs. a min opener, he may
not have any interests in game, but he may still believe, that he bids 3S
to make.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[S2000magic]

I gotta agree: I'd use 3♠ competitively (not as a game try) here. There are other (and better) invitations; you don't need 3♠ to invite game.

[nigel_k]

I would play it as not invitational. But I have always played 1-2-3 stop and the arguments against it just don't seem that strong to me, though obviously there are very good players who disagree.

[ggwhiz]

 P_Marlowe, on 2012-March-01, 09:22, said:

I prefer the wording "to play" instead of "preemptive".

I agree with this and alert it as denying game interest. It should usually have a 6 bagger but could be weak OR put the hammer down if opps bid on and pick the wrong strain.

[Nabooba]

I really dislike 1-2-3 stop. Half the time you are one level higher and the opponents would not have bid anyway. In this case - competition - I do play this as pre emptive.

[dbsboy]

I play both as preemptive. For the second case, 3♠ would be inviting only without any interference. I don't think we end up half the times one level higher when we play 1-2-3 stop, that probably means we are using this too much. Often when I bid 1♠-2♠-3♠, we might make or go set 1 when opponents actually have 4♥.

[gnasher]

 P_Marlowe, on 2012-March-01, 09:22, said:

I prefer the wording "to play" instead of "preemptive".
"preemtive" sounds like weakness

I know it's often interpreted that way, but "preemptive" actually means only that we're doing it in order to make it harder for the opponents to so something - it doesn't imply weakness. If, for example, an army launches a "preemptive attack", that's not a sign of weakness, it's just a matter of tactics.

[P_Marlowe]

 gnasher, on 2012-March-02, 03:39, said:

I know it's often interpreted that way, but "preemptive" actually means only that we're doing it in order to make it harder for the opponents to so something - it doesn't imply weakness. If, for example, an army launches a "preemptive attack", that's not a sign of weakness, it's just a matter of tactics.

I agree, but if you say "it's often interpreted that way", than you also agree, that "to play"
is less prone to be interpretated wrongly. This is only relevant for lesser experienced players.

"Preemptiv" in German is also a foreign word, and certain players use this only together with
preempt openings, are with weak jump overcall, I can use native words for "to play".

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Zelandakh]

 P_Marlowe, on 2012-March-02, 04:08, said:

"Preemptiv" in German is also a foreign word, and certain players use this only together with
preempt openings, are with weak jump overcall, I can use native words for "to play".

I have actually never heard anyone say "Preemptiv" in Germany, usually "Sperrgebot" or "Sperreröffnung", or simply "schwach" (ie weak). For me the difference between weak and preemptive is exactly as gnasher describes, if I raise a 1♥ opening to 3♥ after a 1♠ overcall then this is weak (and also preemptive) since it is limited in terms of strength. But if I overcall 4♠ in third or fourth seat then this can be quite strong and so is only preemptive (weak would be MI). I disagree that "to play" is less prone to misinterpretation - a sequence such as 1M - 4M is to play in both Precision and Standard by your definition but giving the same description to both would certainly be MI.

[benlessard]

I believe the proper term is competitive. It implies raising the bar withouth inviting to game.

[kriegel]

I play both of these as competitive, preemptive, to play, whatever. Also, I play that
1♠ - (X) - 2♠ - (P)
3♠
is preemptive too; it's a competitive auction, so it's not invitational. I've never played 1-2-3 stop, but I know the theory and am interested in them.

[benlessard]

I believe the proper term is competitive. It implies raising the bar witouth inviting to game.