From my reading of bridge literature (books / articles) the consensus would seem to be that preempts are becoming more common - and that means that the parameters for what constitutes a preempt must have broadened. I've seen a couple of authors (Cohen is one) who state the evidence is people do well from preempts. However, I've seen other bridge experts (I think Gittleman is one) who've said the reverse - that their results have improved since making their preempts more disciplined.

 

I still use the rule of 2 for vulnerable preempts. I tend not to use the rule of 3 non-vul/vul especially in matchpoints.

 

I think the most important thing is to settle on a style and stick to. The style of course may vary according to the vulnerabilty and the scoring method. Most bad scores I've seen from preempts fall into 3 categories

 

As to some specific questions and comments in this thread.

 

1. There are a number of players who open at the 4 level with close to an opening hand - sometimes even a very strong hand. The only time I think anyone should do this is in the 4th seat. Opening this way has nothing to do with preempting...it is mostly about lack of bridge knowledge.

 

2. 4 level openings in a minor or major, if done on the right hands, are very good bids which on average get very good results. Go through any weeks hands and you will see lots of 4 level opening on hands which are appropriate and in general they score very well.