Do you need more to "pre-empt" with a major, than a minor suit?

Question

When I pre-empt at say, the three level, I am doing so with a "lopsided" hand that has relatively few points and is long in one suit (and short in two or three others). Under the circumstances, if the remaining high card points and "lengths" are distributed evenly between my partner and two opponents, I expect that my opponents will be able to make ten tricks in their longest suit.

If I pre-empt with a minor suit, there are two chances out of three that my opponents' "longest" suit will be a major, for which ten tricks represents game. If I pre-empt with a major, the chances are only one out of three that my opponents have a major suit game.

If my partner has the three to four defensive tricks needed to defeat a ten-trick contract, I'll (probably) make my bid. If partner has "no defense," the opponents may make a slam.

So I don't mind going down one trick, or even two doubled, (except when vulnerable versus not), if my opponents' ten tricks represent game most of the time. But I do, if those ten tricks represent game only a minority of the time.

Are there any systems or experts that say that you need "more" (either tricks or points) to preempt with a major than a minor suit, because you need to go down "less?"

Answer 1

Your statistical analysis is completely wrong: As a preempter, your shortness in unbid major(s) increases the likelihood of opponents having an eight-card major fit. This fit doesn't have to be their longest suit, and the hand will often play for more tricks if it isn't. As a matter of systemic agreement the opponents will often choose to play in an eight-card major fit regardless of other hand features, unless a running side suit with stoppers has been identified.

So no, no-one suggests that you need more to pre-empt in a major than in a minor (at the three level). That 3-level pre-empts in a major may typically be made on stronger hands than in a minor is because the top=end of minor preempts tend to open a Gambling 3NT instead.

Answer 2

No, not really. When you preempt, you're trying to make it more difficult for your opponents to make a decision. Opponents have game in a suit less frequently when your suit is a major instead of a minor, but eg when you bid 3S, one of the opponents is going to have to make an immediate decision about the viability of 3NT (what do you do in second seat holding a 14-count with Axx in spades?). Major-suit preempts take away more bidding room, so even as opponents will have fewer games, they'll have a harder time diagnosing the fact.

Answer 3

There is something to be said for demanding a better quality suit for pre-empting in a minor in front of partner, only so that, with a good hand, partner is better judged to place the contract in 3NT. With a major partner is more likely to place the contract in 4 of your major.

If partner has, say, Kx in your minor and enough outside, he might be able to rely on running your minor for tricks.

So this actually goes against your theory of needing less.

If you are pre-empting in 3rd seat there is a case for being a lot more flexible, regardless of what your suit is. In particular, if you have a "weak 2" in a minor you cannot open at a level of 2 you might open it at a level of 3 non-vulnerable 3rd in hand and hope to get away with it.