- 28 -
INTERMEDIATE-2 BRIDGE
LESSON 13
PRE-EMPTIVE BIDDING
“SUIT QUALITY TEST” AND “THE RULE OF 2*3*4”
Many duplicate players pre‑empt
the bidding with a weak 2‑, 3‑, 4‑, or 5‑level bid with
the enthusiasm of a suicidal maniac playing a game of Russian Roulette, oft
times with a pistol loaded only with "blanks". For the duplicate player, "blank
cylinders" represent probable zeros on the score recap sheet totals; and
their use denies added enjoyment to the game for both the user and his/her
partner, while enriching the opposition.
Accordingly, it is with a degree of appropriateness that
definitive methods of some fashion
and logic must be employed
so as to determine which suits are appropriate for a weak pre‑emptive
bid, and what level should
be considered as a reasonable one to place the pre‑emptive call.
Obviously, vulnerability,
sizing‑up of the opponents, fortitude or lack thereof, whether partner
has previously passed or
not, position at the table, outside Major suit holdings, and many other
factors have some relevance
in this matter; but in general, two methods are suggested as the
main
considerations which should guide one's decision in this matter They are: (1) suit quality, and
(2) The Rule of 2‑3‑4.
If these two guiding factors offer a variant preference, one should
perhaps consider some compromise (*) between their differing guidance.
A. SUIT QUALITY: ‑ The
level of any pre‑empt should not exceed the level equivalent to the suit
quality of the pre‑emptive suit holding; i.e., a bidding level equal to
the summation of the number of cards held within that suit + the number of
honors held within that same pre‑emptive suit (only Jack or above are
considered).
EXAMPLES: AKXXXX = 6 + 2 = 8 (Pre‑emptive 2‑bid is
appropriate)
AQXXXXX
= 7 + 2 = 9 (Pre‑emptive 3‑bid
is appropriate)
AKJXXXX
= 7 + 3 = 10 (Pre‑emptive 4‑bid is appropriate)
KXXXXXX
= 7 + 1 = 8 (Pre‑emptive 2‑bid
is appropriate)
10XXXXXXX = 8 + 0 = 8 (Pre‑emptive 2‑bid is
appropriate)
AKQXXX
= 6 + 3 = 9 (Pre‑emptive 3‑bid
is appropriate)
The suit
quality test can be utilized singularly as a general rule in establishing a
guideline as to the level of reasonableness of any contemplated pre-emptive
bid, and is especially useful if one desires a rigid partnership understanding
so as to only allow for “structured”
or “disciplined pre-empts”. Some players desiring to have an even more
structured framework to their pre-emptive calls insist on having two of the top
three honors in any suit holding given a pre-emptive consideration.
B. THE RULE OF 2-3-4: - When opting to pre-empt
the bidding, either by an opening pre-emptive bid or by a pre-emptive jump
overcall, it may become important for your partner to know exactly how strong
or weak your pre-empt bid was. If the
hand truly belonged to the opponents, then your partner has little interest
other than to experience, with you, the outcome of your blockage attempt upon
the opponents. If, on the other hand,
your pre-empt bid finds your partner with the balance of the missing high
cards, then it would be convenient, and indeed, extremely valuable for your
partner to know the exact strength of your pre-emptive call without first seeking further information. By such means, the partner of the
pre-emptive call can gauge whether or not a game try is even justified in
exploration before the attempt is even begun.
- 29 -
Some superficial attempts to identify the quality of
pre-emptive bids based upon the number of cards held within the suit that is bid
(at least 6 for a pre-empt at the 2-level, 7 or more at the 3-level; etc.), a
high card strength of 5-11 HCP’s for a pre-emptive 2-bid and 7-11 HCP’s for a
3-bid, or the suit-quality test as described above, are, at best, too vague in
their attempt to qualify the strength of the bid and virtually incapable of
ease of further clarification to a partner interested in pursuing a furtherance
of the pre-emptive call or a possible game attempt. Conventions like a forcing 2NT bid asking for a feature (Ace or
King) outside the pre-emptive suit, or the Ogust Convention (1-2, 1-2-3), and
its variations are better than having no standardization at all, but notice,
they are mostly effective over a pre-emptive 2-bid and not one made at a higher
bidding level; i.e., at the 3-level and beyond.
The Rule of 2-3-4
serves to present a standardization, yet aggressive unstructured method upon
which to base all pre-emptive calls, at
the 3-level or higher, and is rooted upon losing trick count coupled with a
variance based upon the relative vulnerabilities of the teams at play. It allows the partnership a standardization
basis upon which partner, who happens to have a strong hand opposite the
pre-empt by partner, can recover and better estimate the value of the combined
partnership holdings in an evaluation as to whether or not to proceed toward a
potential game or slam contract. When
contemplating a pre-emptive call, holding at least 7 pieces in the suit in
which one is prepared to pre-empt, the would-be pre-empter computes a 2-step
process in order to determine the level of his pre-empt and once computed, the
pre-emptive call can be understood by the partner as to how strong or how weak
the hand chosen for the pre-emptive bid was in all actuality; i.e., just how many
tricks the pre-emptive bidder anticipates going down in his/her sacrifice
attempt. The two steps are as follows:
1. The number of presumed
winning tricks is computed by the bidder by subtracting his losing
trick
count from 13.
2. To this number of winning
trick count, the would-be pre-empter adds either 2-3-or 4
additional tricks he/she is willing to go down based upon the
relative vulnerabilities as follows:
Notice:
This technic is fairly aggressive in that it presumes that one trick will be
found in
partner’s hand for the sacrifice to give up
fewer points than would be given up by simply
allowing the opponents to secure their
rightfully-presumed game contract.
a.
Unfavorable vulnerability - Red (V) vs. White (NV) = An anticipated 2-Trick
Set
b.
Equal vulnerability - Red (V) vs. Red (V) or White (NV) vs. White (NV)
= A 3-Trick Set
c.
Favorable vulnerability - White (NV) vs. Red (V) = A 4-Trick Set
EXAMPLES:
AJXXXXX X KXX
XX (Vul. vs. Vul.) = Pre‑empt a 3-Bid
KJXXXXXX XX AX
X (Not Vul. vs. Vul.) = Pre‑empt
a 4-Bid
AXXXXX XXX KXX A
(Vul. vs. Not Vul.) = Pre‑empt a 2-Bid
Note: Once a partnership has agreed to utilize
this method of determination for the pre‑emptive level decision‑making
process, then the partner of the pre‑emptive bid can use this information
to either (a) calculate how much additionally to further the pre‑emptive
attempt, or (b) whether or not to try for game or slam based upon his/her
losing trick count when combined with that of the pre‑emptive bidder's
presumed hand and its concomitant losing tricks based upon the Rule of 2-3-4.