Source: EBU summer-meeting-2015
Pre-empting Today Part I by Brian Senior
Responding to Pre-empts
If we are to pre-empt so much more aggressively than in the past, we should look at our responsive methods. They are all left over from the time when pre-empts were more constructive and so are designed to allow intelligent exploration on the basis that partner has a good long suit but usually no side suit.
If we play constructive weak twos, as mentioned above, we should employ very different methods in response to those required if we play a loose, wide-ranging style with frequent five-card openings. There are partnerships who play 2M – 2NT as asking for a shortage. That is only a good method if we assume that the opener’s suit will usually become trumps. If that suit could be K10xxx, I think we need a method that helps us to explore alternative denominations rather than show shortages. With most people, I have always played that a two-level response to a weak two bid was constructive but non-forcing, while a three-level bid in a new suit was forcing. Playing a wide-ranging style, it surely makes more sense for all simple new suit responses to be non-forcing, with only 2NT or a jump as forces.
Because my partner’s weak two opening may be anything from a five-card suit and 3 HCP up to a six-card suit and 10 HCP, I play a method where the responses to the 2NT inquiry are split into three ranges instead of the usual two. I’ll give brief details of that scheme at the end of the article. An alternative might be to have one response to show a five-card suit, say 2M – 2NT – 3
with a 3
inquiry at responder’s next turn, one to show a minimum with six cards, presumably 3, and the rest a maximum with six cards, splitting into only two ranges, but at least getting the important information about opener’s suit length across. If, on the other hand, the weak twos are constructive, with the bad ones going via a multi, you will need a very different style of responses to the 2NT inquiry, one which enables not just game but slam exploration by the responder.
Those who play constructive weak two openings alongside a multi have the option of including a strong option in the multi or playing it as always weak – just a bad weak two bid in a major. Most of us have defences to the multi which assume that we will get a second chance to come in after the opener has unwound and told us which suit he holds. Imagine, however, if the opposition play a trash, or weak only, multi. When they are non-vulnerable, responder can start passing his partner’s 2 opening not only when looking at a long diamond suit, but also on other weak hands – who cares if I go five down at 50 a time in 2 if the opposition have game on? And suddenly our defence to the multi doesn’t look quite as effective as we don’t even know which major opener holds. If we have to double 2 in pass-out seat, how strong are we? Is it take-out of diamonds or just a hand that intended to make a take-out double of one of the majors? Or are we reopening in case partner has a strong hand and was waiting to make a take-out double at his second turn? Fortunately, not many people are doing this very often, but it is only a matter of time before more start to do so.
Having suggested that we should play all new-suit responses to a weak two bid as non-forcing, what about bidding after partner’s three-level pre-empt? Traditionally, a new suit response has been natural and forcing. Perhaps we should have just one forcing artificial response and the rest be constructive but only invitational. For example, partner opens 3 and we might play a 3 response as artificial, maybe asking initially for a three-card major, with 3 – 3
/
constructive but non-forcing. Of course, fitting everything in gets a little more difficult as the opening bid gets higher up the order of suits. Facing a 3 opener, you might have to have everything forcing to game, perhaps with 4 an artificial slam try for spades, with 4/ natural? Another idea which has been with us for a very long time is the meaning of a bid in a third suit by the preemptor after a new suit response. Traditionally, a bid like 3 – 3 – 3 has shown a spade control in a hand too good for a simple raise to 4. But if we are going to open pre-empts on moderate six-card suits with a possible side suit, perhaps 3 in the auction above should be at least semi-natural. For example:
Instead of the traditional meaning, shown in example (i), perhaps the 3 bid should show either example (ii) or example (iii), depending on which hand-type you might open with 3. This gives up on an occasional heart slam (unless you are willing to go past game yourself), but may help to get to the right denomination more often.
Pre-empting is fun. It is great to watch your opponents squirm. It is also effective. If you are willing to accept the odd disaster, I am convinced that a looser pre-emptive style will pay big dividends in the long term.