[gurgistan]

There is a rule of 2, 3 and 4 established by Ely Culbertson for making opening pre-empts.

However, it seems to give different opening bids to normal methods: caveat, as I understand it.

For example, holding SAKQJxx Hxxx Dxx Cxx you have a 7 loser hand. With favourable vulnerabilty Culbertson's rule seems to suggest it can be opened 4S! Whereas, normal methods have us opening 2S as you would expect.

What am I failing to understand? Or is it just a case of a different standard produces a different result?

[hrothgar]

You might want to revisit your information regarding standard bidding...

I'd be shocked to see people opening 2♠ with the hand in question

[JLOGIC]

I think 2S r/w is fine, and otherwise 1S. In general the rule of 2/3/4 is not very good though imo, it is too aggressive w/r and too conservative r/w

[whereagles]

You're failing to understand that those "rules" are only guidelines and that judgement (i.e. common sense) always comes first.

A preempt is a hand that has high offense, low defense. I.e. makes a lot of tricks on offense (as declarer) and close to none on defense (as defender). It is a bid to be made at the right time, not when "rule of 2,3,4" says so.

Your particular hand, AKQJxx and a 6322 may open 2 or 3 spades depending on situation. Example: in 1st or 2nd seat you'll normally open 2♠ because you have a decent chance to score 2 tricks on defense. No need to raise the preempt level, especially if your 3 card suit is hearts.

In 3rd seat at NV vs V you might want to try 3♠, even more if you're 6133 or so. Opening 4♠ is a bit of a gamble in any seat/vuln: if pard comes up with 2 aces, you're going 2 down vs nothing. Not a good score.

So, as you see, it's really more of a judgement call than some "rule". Forget those rules... read Robson/Segal's book chapter three. They write it far better than me

[kenberg]

"different standards produce different results" is probably as good a summary as any. Some people claim a hand can be too good for 2♠ and too weak for 1♠. I generally bite the bullet and do one or the other in such cases. Here, I would be far more worries that 2♠, opened in first or second position, would lead to a missed game our way than that 1♠ would get us too high. So 1♠ is my usual choice. The exception, as Justin noted, would be red against white. Partner still would not expect exactly this, but at least he would expect some good values so the chance of missing a game our way is reduced. If partner bids and inquiring 2NT over my 2♠ I bid 3NT.

In third position we probably don't have a game so opening 2♠ seems right. 3♠ doesn't appeal to me although it might work out. In fourth position partner must have something unless the opponents are sleeping, and 2♠ should get us to a makable partscore. It will be tough for two passed hands to now come in and find their fit even if they have one, so 2♠ stands a good chance of being the final contract.

So we all have our own approaches and yes, they lead to different results. But I don't know many devotees of the 2-3-4 rule. Time marches on.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 The rule 2 / 3 / 4 usually leads to fairly agressive preempts.

#2 If you apply the LTC without any add. corrective measure,the LTC
will lead to fairly agressive preempts, counting Qxx as 2 loosers only
is just a case in point.

#1 + #2 => the resulting preempt can be hyper agressive preempts.
This is all ok, as long as partner knowes this, and acts accordingly.

#3 Also keep in mind, putting maximal pressure on the the opponents is
good, but there is a point, if you reach this point, they will only have
one option left, going for blood.
An effective preempt will make them guess, do we get our money from playing
or should we go for blood - sometimes they will guess wrong.

#4 The rule 2 / 3 / 4 also does not take position into account, only
vulnerability.


Now to the hand in question

The hand has 6 playing tricks, which is not the same as 7 loosers, although
it adds up in the current scenario, 6+7 = 13.

Most would consider this an opening hand, i.e. 1S.

If they have opened, you can make a simple overcall or a preempt, but because
of #3 the limit for the preempt should be 3S.
If you bid 4S - they will usually take the money, and -4X is more than their
game, and you will only be plus, if they have a making slam, i.e. our side does
not have 2 cashing spades, and since you only have 6 spades, 2 cashing spades is
not unlikely.

What to choose simple overcall, a preempt (2S or 3S) is purly a tactical decision,
also taking into account, if p is a passed hand or not, see #4, in the latter case
a simple overcall is usually better than a preempt, since you still need to take
into account, that your side has game, otherwise 3S is a good bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I like the 2 / 3 / 4 rule, I also use the LTC for determining the high
of the preempt.

[gwnn]

I like the gwnn method (adapted from the famous Bowles method): gwnn looks at the hand and if he thinks it's worth opening on the 2 level, it's a 2 level opening.

[P_Marlowe]

gwnn, on 2011-April-18, 08:39, said:

I like the gwnn method (adapted from the Bowles method): gwnn looks at the hand and if he thinks it's worth opening on the 2 level, it's a 2 level opening.

This reminds me of a nice article from Harrison Gray - "They bid on inspection".

The statement is cited in chapter 6
http://www.harlowbri....uk/winning.pdf

I originally read the statement in an newspaper column from Harrison Gray,
Gray introduced the LTC, his old columns got collected in book, that got republished
in the 90s.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Of course the point is, how to you decide, that a given hand is worth that and
that.

[kevperk]

Another thing about the "Rule of 2,3,& 4". I always heard of it as being a check after the decision is made to preempt and a level is being contemplated. A hand less than an opening, with little defense, good offense, and a long suit, is usually considered a preempt of 2 with 6 cards, 3 with 7, etc. The "rule" is applied, and if off, one reconsiders opening higher, lower, or not at all.

[nigel_k]

It's an approximation and obviously won't be as good as using your judgment. But it is not too far wrong on the given hand to open 2♠ if red and 3♠ if equal. 4♠ green would be a bit much though.

[mikestar13]

Has no one on this thread some knowledge of bridge history? The rule of 2/3/4 postdates Culbertson's rule of 2 and 3. The latter, which was old news when he published his Blue Book in 1930, suggested overbidding the playing strength of the hand by 2 tricks vulnerable and 3 tricks vulnerable with no consideration of the opponents' vulnerability.

[Siegmund]

I am surprised Culbertson was as aggressive as 2-3-and-4. (The "and 4" part is a duplicate-only thing party bridge folk usually can't stomach.)

Provided you don't have any other serious flaws for a preempt (like having 2 defensive winners) I quite like the rule of 2, 3, and 4. Helps if your partner knows you are doing it, of course.

As for AKQJxx xxx xx xx, there is some worry about the 2-defensive-tricks aspect. With KQJxxxx xxx x xx, I'd be quite disappointed in any partner who DIDNT open 4S favorable.

[Zelandakh]

Siegmund, on 2011-April-18, 19:33, said:

I am surprised Culbertson was as aggressive as 2-3-and-4. (The "and 4" part is a duplicate-only thing party bridge folk usually can't stomach.)

He was not. Culbertson espoused the Rule of 2 and 3 which is also known as the Rule of 500; that is, it is ok to go down 500 when the opponents are likely to be making game. Culbertson did not invent this rule, he merely gave it a catchy title that stuck and had much more publicity than anyone else at the time.

Of the 2 hands posted the first is 6322 and therefore not a great shape for a preempt - 1S seems normal unless playing intermediate 2s...I have opened/overcalled hands like this 4S 3rd seat often enough - it helps alot to know your opponents a little here. As a purely theoretical excercise with unknown opps I would expect 1S to be the modal action at 1st seat favourable, 2nd seat after an opening 3S but with a larger standard deviation.