[Poky]

East 100%.

If his hand isn't an opening then it isn't even a blind and aceless jump to game.
3♠ after 2♠ and everything would have been OK.

[pclayton]

I Posted this hand for several reasons.

I held the 3343 11 count. In spite of the horrible shape, the hand has good controls and great tenaces.

I sympathize with 4S, but its seems odd to blast this to game opposite a minimum balanaced hamnd after we had passed initially.

Its MPs and why should we relegate ourselves to playing in a crappy 4-3 with no ruffing value, when the hand rates to take the same or even less number of tricks in spades? Wouldnt you all agree that if 1N can me stretched to this hand type that this youd want to to rebid 1N?

Heres a minor rant. All types of 3rd seat garbage openings have become commonplace. If pard bids and the auction doesnt work out as planned, does that mean we have to play a ridiculous contract?

Another thread featured x Axx Qxxxx QJxx. When pard bids 1S over 1D, do we pass? 1S rates to be a silly contract. Rebid 2C? Then why cant the 4333 rebid 1N and a garbage 9 count be allowed to rebid. I cant see why 1D - 1S - 1N should be any stronger than 1D - 1S - 2C.

Make the hand Tx AT9 KT9X KJxx and I think all would rebid 1N.

Another possible idea is to bracket down 1N

I think the solution to these hands needs to be that certain simple rebids need wider ranges perhaps. But to totally condemn 1N seems wrong especially at Mp

[helene_t]

pclayton, on Jan 26 2007, 08:05 PM, said:

Another thread featured x Axx Qxxxx QJxx. When pard bids 1S over 1D, do we pass?

That's why I wouldn't open that hand 1♦. Maybe 2♦ if I'm really desperat (which I am quite often).

But I might op 1♦ in third seat on something like
x
Jxxx
AQJx
Qxxx

Then I've lost my bet when partner responds 1♠ and subsequently 2NT, 3♠ or even 4♠. Maybe the majority of the voters would assign the blame to me. S..t happens. Next board.

[pclayton]

I'm having problems with the Quote function, so I'll just color this.

1. I sympathize with 4S, but its seems odd to blast this to game opposite a minimum balanaced hand after we had passed initially.

Because partner's hand got better. It's certainly possible for a passed hand to bid game after finding a good fit. Think of a million balanced 12 counts with 3 spades and I'll bet that most provide good play for game (please don't start posting hands where they don't, obviously they exist).

Understood, but I think you are splitting hairs. There are also many 13 and 14 point hands where game is poor, but the 1N rebidder would accept a game invite. Just because this hand is a jack short of a 'full' opener doesn't mean that 1N is wrong, it if its correct that to rebid 1N on a 12 count. I think in practice, many that advocate a pass with the flat 11 would also pass many flat 12 and 13 point hands over 1♠.

2. Wouldnt you all agree that if 1N can me stretched to this hand type that this youd want to to rebid 1N?

No. If partner were barred from inviting ever then sure I'd like to rebid 1N, but I would be pretty unhappy if I had a 13 or 14 count and partner was barred from inviting.

On this auction, partner didn't invite, he blasted to game. If we stayed in 3♠, I wouldn't be posting this hand.

3. At matchpoints plus scores are better than minus scores. You've already done well not to pass the board out, don't go minus.

Agree; but higher plus scores are better yet. I'm not ready to throw this auction into the 'best result possible' bin, since we are in a non-competitive auction. I would venture to guess that 80% of the players in a national field open this hand in 3rd, so there isn't much sense in trying to beat the pairs at the pass-out tables, since they are few. Don't you want to beat the pairs that play in 1♠? I accept that a rebid of 1N has its risks, but so does passing 1♠.

4. Do you see the flaw in your logic? You can keep bidding with a bad hand if 1S rates to be silly, but when you have a 4333 9 count 1S doesn't rate to be silly. The only reason you would bid 2C is because of your stiff spade. Even 2N rates to be a better spot than 1S with that hand. 2C is a gamble that you'll find a better spot than 1S given that it might well be a 4-1 fit. Partner still may invite, but you'd rather play in 3C/3D/2N than in 1S. When you have a 4333 9 count theres no way you want to play some contract other than 1S so there's no need to gamble on bidding again.

I think you start with a faulty premise; when you open this 1=3=5=4 (whereas I passed this creepshow ). You want to 'gamble' to find a better fit over 1♠ and I want to 'gamble' over 1♠ to get to a better scoring contract. You accept getting to 2N / 3♣ / 3♦ is an acceptable risk, but why should my passing 1♠ on the 3343 be so automatic when the risk is the same; that partner will continue to play you for a full opener? Being +80 when the field is +90 / +120 is the same average minus board as being -50 or -100 or -110 when the field is passing the board out. Frankly, I'd rather be getting a little overboard on my 11 versus your 9.

By the way, I think that at IMPs, much of your reasoning makes sense, since you are simply trying to land in a playable contract, and preserve a plus position.

[Echognome]

I just want to add that when you open, you must have a bidding plan. If you open your 4333 with scattered values (which I think can be as risky as passing), then surely your plan was to pass partner's response wasn't it? What's to say that you wouldn't have got to 2♠ by passing. Maybe responder opens in 4th seat, partner overcalls 1♠ and you get to 2♠ anyway. Look, I'm certainly all for opening light in 3rd seat, but not without a plan.

If you open a crappy 1=3=5=4 hand, then surely your bidding plan was to pass 1♥ (or if you are frisky, raise to 2♥). Your plan over 1♠ or 1NT must be to bid 2♣ and hope you end in a good contract. Else why did you open it? I think it's silly with a marginal hand to open and then after partner bids what you expected he might bid say "Oh. Now I have a bidding problem."

[kenrexford]

Gotta agree with PClayton. I've seen too many of these three-small passes result in -50/-100 when 1NT makes, I suppose.

I'm not all that upset with possible auctions after 1NT, either. Often, partner will pass, and it will be right. Often, partner will convert us to 2♦, and if so that will be right.

With a style that opens any balanced hand that would invite opposite a third-seat 1bid...1NT, I fear no raise to 2NT.

So, any hand worth of another call will feature long spades OR a spade-club canape OR a spade-diamond two-suiter. I only might worry about long spades.

But, I have spade support for any "long spades" hand. So, again no problem.

Except, perhaps the 6421 player (the actual hand). Opposite that, I'll expect that partner will bid 2♣ (like he did), and I can bid 2♠ (like I did). Now, if that one bad situation occurs, I'll expect partner to explain himself by bidding 3♥, or possibly 3♣ (3♦ being out -- would fit-jump). This will induce a sign-off at 3♠.

The question is not whether I want to play 1♠ or 3♠. The question is whether I am willing to play 3♠ on occasion and gain by occasionally playing a superior 1NT, 2♦, or even 3♣.

HUGE BTW:

I assume that P-P-1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT-P-2♠ is to play, and that ...2♥ shows 5-4. Does P-P-1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT-P-2♣ show Game Invitational values, or can it show simply 5♠/4♦ or 5♠/4♥ and weak? If it must be Game Invitational, or at least constructive, then shouldn't Opener bid 3♠ with a maximum? Is 3♠ possible with a fitting maximum? It seems that the partnership agreement might be such that Opener's 2♠ call showed a weak hand, something like the hand described. This would "solve" the problem, it seems.

[Halo]

I would always (100% of the time) bid 1NT on this hand, for all the reasons given by pclayton. Bad games are the soul of IMPs but not MP. The spade hand doesn't have to stretch so far.

[HeartA]

I am on Justin's side.

[Winstonm]

West gets my blame - if red at imps, there is something to be said for 4S, but a MPs it is a stretch.

The other problem is that an invitational raise (?) to 3S was available, and the hand cannot justify a game contract opposite the wrong minimum.

[Winstonm]

HeartA, on Jan 27 2007, 03:21 AM, said:

I am on Justin's side.

I am, too, because if you are not on his side he will wear your ass out until you can con him into re-directing his diatribes onto MikeH.