[CSGibson]

If the opponents open a precision 2♣, do you play 3M overcalls as preemptive, or do you treat the 2♣ call like it were weak and play 3M as more playing strength than 2M, but less than 4M? What do you think is theoretically best treatment?

[Free]

I play 3M as preemptive because 2♣ shows opening strength (usually), but I have no idea if it's the theoretically best treatment.

[chasetb]

Here's what I play, as taken from Eric Kokish:
X = T/O
2x = NAT
2NT = NAT (3♣ = Stayman; 3Red=xfer; 3♠=Diamonds; 4♣=Gerber; 4Red=Texas)
3♣* = H+S
3x = Strong
3NT = Tricks (TFR advances)
4♣* = D+H, FG
4♦* = D+S, FG
4M = Strong
4NT = Blackwood, aces

[CSGibson]

To spark this a little more:

One of the reasons that people abandon preempts over preempts is because the opener's hand is so well defined that it is unlikely that their partner will make the wrong guess. This lowers the overall expected effectiveness of a preempt significantly, and, in combination with other factors, making constructive jump overcalls of preempts long term winners. In this case, however, I'm not sure that the 2C opener is defined enough to abandon the idea of preempting entirely.

I've searched the internet, and, as far as I can tell, this is a largely untouched topic of conversation.


My partner and I had the following sequence come up:

(2♣*)-4♥-(P) to me, holding

---

I decided to punt with an ambiguous 5♥, though I think 4N as keycard might be a long-term winner (how can partner bid 4♥ with 2 losing clubs, and missing the AK of both side suits?), and partner made the "wrong" decision from there. A big reason for the loss, though, was a lack of intelligent agreements as to the meaning of 4♥.

[gnasher]

I think your overcalls should be as over a one-level opening, so 2M is just a two-level overcall, 3M is preemptive, and 4M is whatever you were dealt.

I don't actually play that with anyone, though - all my partnerships treat the 2♣ opening as though it were a weak two.

[jallerton]

It's better to play jump overcalls as constructive here for several reasons.

Opener's hand is much better defined (in terms of both distribution and strength) compared with a standard 3+ 1♣ opening bid, for example. Therefore Responder will already have a reasonable idea of what the best contract ins likely to be for his side, and hence pre-empting will have less to gain. Also, Responder will be better placed to judge when to defend.

The 2♣ opening has taken out a whole level of our constructive bidding. If RHO opens 1♣, you can usually get away with making a simple overcall on some fairly strong one-suited hands, especially at the 1-level. Partner needs less to keep the bidding open: [(2♣)-2♠-(P)-2NT has a higher minimum than [(1♣)-1♠-(P)-1NT] and the opponents are more likely to come to the rescue. It's useful to be able to bid 3♠ over a 2 ♣ opening to invite partner to bid game on some hands where he would routinely pass a 2♠ overcall.

[helene_t]

if 2c is a sixcard suit it is probably better to play strong jumps . if it is oldfashioned probably better to play weak. fwiw i play weak with everyone i have discussed it with

[rhm]

 CSGibson, on 2013-June-05, 13:12, said:

To spark this a little more:

One of the reasons that people abandon preempts over preempts is because the opener's hand is so well defined that it is unlikely that their partner will make the wrong guess. This lowers the overall expected effectiveness of a preempt significantly, and, in combination with other factors, making constructive jump overcalls of preempts long term winners. In this case, however, I'm not sure that the 2C opener is defined enough to abandon the idea of preempting entirely.

I do not think your premise is correct.
The major reason people abandon preempts over preempts is, if an opponents announces a weak hand your chances holding a strong hand goes up. But room for maneuvering has been cramped.
You must have ways describing strong hands or you will make opponents preempt even more effective and you will loose even more games and slams.
That is why people do not preempt over a preempt. They cannot afford it.

If an opponent announces values for an opening bid your chances of holding a strong hand and having game or slam go down.
In other words if opponents are in an obstructive mode you go in constructive mode and vice verse.
This is simply a matter of probabilities and frequencies.

Preempts are most effective when opponents had no chance to exchange information. The best time to preempt is when you are the dealer.
Your preempts should be more sound when opponents have exchanged information already. There is a diminishing return on a higher investment (risk of getting caught).
Yet this does not stop people from preempting. (In the early days of weak jump overcalls these bids were often attacked for these reasons)

Whether you should play weak or strong jump overcalls over a precision 2♣ can be argued, because these bids are somewhat in between, neither fish nor fowl.
2♣ is not a standard weak preempt, but it does have a medium long suit and is severely limited in strength.
Like Fantunes two bids these bids are difficult to handle for both sides.
But preempts make little sense over bids announcing real weakness by an opponent outside of his preempt suit.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

deleted

[PhilKing]

There is a good case for playing weak jumps after (2♣)-Pass-(2♦).

Whilst responder may be scrambling, he usually has the goods and need to find out about opener's shape. An example:

♠AKJ982
♥JT4
♦9753
♣-

Balicki bid 3♠ against Meckwell. The 13 imps he gained may be more down to the fact that his counterpart overcalled 2♠ and ended up defending 3NTXX up one.

[CSGibson]

 rhm, on 2013-June-06, 02:27, said:

I do not think your premise is correct.
...

Did you not see that I said "ONE of the reasons" and not "The major reason" or "the only reason"?

[rhm]

 CSGibson, on 2013-June-06, 07:36, said:

Did you not see that I said "ONE of the reasons" and not "The major reason" or "the only reason"?

I did and I gave a detailed answer.
Maybe I should have said that I do not think that to be a deciding factor instead of saying I consider the premise to be wrong.

Rainer Herrmann

[CSGibson]

 rhm, on 2013-June-07, 04:55, said:

I did and I gave a detailed answer.
Maybe I should have said that I do not think that to be a deciding factor instead of saying I consider the premise to be wrong.

Rainer Herrmann

And I should have really said that I appreciated your detailed answer instead of getting defensive about wording I disagreed with, sorry Rainer.

[FrancesHinden]

 PhilKing, on 2013-June-06, 03:12, said:

There is a good case for playing weak jumps after (2♣)-Pass-(2♦).

Whilst responder may be scrambling, he usually has the goods and need to find out about opener's shape. An example:

♠AKJ982
♥JT4
♦9753
♣-

Balicki bid 3♠ against Meckwell. The 13 imps he gained may be more down to the fact that his counterpart overcalled 2♠ and ended up defending 3NTXX up one.

You can get away with making your jumps pretty random after this start to the auction.

A bit like 2D (multi) P 2NT ("strong" enquiry) or 2M P 2NT. You want to pre-empt if responder has a good hand, but you want to bid constructively if he's having a laugh. Usually if you just look at your hand and bid your long suit at a level that makes sense to you, nothing much will go wrong.

[straube]

I don't know, but I'd guess that strong jumps are better against 2m that promises 6+. We play thrump doubles (against 3D, 3H, and 3S) so that 2C (3H) dbl puts us in a game force and asks for a stopper. I don't see 3H putting that much pressure on us. OTOH, we're occasionally tempted to open light. For example, if we have Axx x xxx KQTxxx this is outside our 10-15 range but 2C is attractive. In third seat even lighter for many strong clubbers and we specifically play wide ranging and possibly very weak twos in third seat...so I would think that jump overcalls as strong is more useful to your side as constructive than harmful to our side as obstructive.