[dosxtres]

void Qx AKQJxxx Jxxx

Do u open 4th seat, MP, Red vs white? pass pass pass ?


kind regards,

[Gerben42]

I open 3♦, showing this kind of hand in 4th seat. This shows a hand with great playing strength but few defense, i.e. a hand that rates to do better than a passout, but if opened on the 1-level attracts too many competing bids.

The auction "Pass Pass Pass 3♦" is a rare one, but there you have it.

[whereagles]

3NT opener.

[helene_t]

This hand doesn't satisfy the rule of 15 (HCPs+spades=15) but I would open 3♦ anyway. Opps could reach 4♠ in the reboud but even then it may fail due to bad split. At least as likely, p bids and makes 3N.

[dosxtres]

Quote

jlall:Whatever you do don't pass!

I did:(

It was MP, very short in the majors, red vs white
I thought in 3D, even 3NT, but i thought they should have something in the majors and passed...

[han]

I would open 1♦ I think. Game is too likely for 3D, but 3NT is too unlikely for 3NT.

[neilkaz]

3♦ for me, showing really good D's and a hand that expects to score better than a passout.

I don't mind a gambling 3NT, but I fear that too often the opps are cashing 5 tricks before we get in, due to PD's initial pass. 3NT is also more preemptive that 3♦ and very hard for the opps to come if if it is their hand.

Score (out of 100)

3♦ 50

3NT 40

Pass 10 (it is rather hard for passed opps to come in over 3♦ and esp. 3NT and then make the right decision)

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[pclayton]

3♦ for me. The spade void makes me want to push this hand. 3N looks reckless with 3 open suits.

Should 3♦ promise a solid suit? I wouldn't think so but its a good topic to discuss.

[helene_t]

If a weak 2♦ is available it's reasonable as playing 3♦ as a solid suit, I think. Then again, the frequency of this hand in 4th seat must be extremely low. Usually you will have something in at least one of the majors.

[mike777]

dosxtres, on Nov 2 2007, 04:12 AM, said:

void Qx AKQJxxx Jxxx

Do u open 4th seat, MP, Red vs white? pass pass pass ?


kind regards,

if partner has denied 11 hcp or some shapely ten hcp, Yes I pass, otherwise I open 2D.

[awm]

A lot of people misunderstand the "rule of 15." Really the rule should be something like:

If you are in fourth seat, and you hold a hand that would not open in 1st/2nd chair then you should open if (and only if) your points plus spades add to at least 15.

Since the hand in question would be a clear opening bid in 1st/2nd seat, you should bid something.

I know a lot of people have agreements that a "fourth seat preempt shows a good hand of some description." I think these are in general bad agreements. This is because, first, you sometimes have a "sound preempt" type hand in 4th chair and it's much better to open these at the two or three level (where opponents virtually never compete, being both passed hands) rather than open them at the one level (letting opponents find their major suit fit) or pass them out (when you could've made a partial). Second, having these special agreements force you to remember what they are (for a situation that rarely comes up) and to develop good judgement as to what you should do opposite these openings with various hands (even though the openings almost never come up). I have seen very good, very established partnerships mess this up! It's hard to know what to do opposite these types of bids from partner when they have come up maybe a couple times in your lifetime.

[pclayton]

Adam - I know you're on record as stating that you shouldn't preempt with good hands in 4th seat over the last few years, but I think this is a bad policy for two reasons:

1. You open the bidding with a preempt with many hands that most of us would throw in. If you don't have an expectation of a positive score in 4th chair, you shouldn't open.

2. You allow the opponents that own the higher ranking suit(s) to come in cheaply.

The OP hand is no different. While we have great playing strength, the relative strength of NS / EW is close and we have a big incentive to shut out their fit.

[awm]

Okay, say you open 3♦. Partner has:

AQxx KJx x xxxxx

What does he do? Pass I bet. How are your chances at 3NT?

Now say your partner has:

xxxx Kxx x AKxxx

What's he do? Pass I bet. How do you like your chances at 5m, or even maybe 6m?

My point is that it's very hard for partner to judge correctly in these auctions. Perhaps if you had really detailed agreements about what qualifies for the 3♦ opening, partner could develop some judgement about it, but the fact is that most people don't have really detailed agreements and it's not like this opening comes up a lot.

I don't imagine that most of us would have much trouble with these hands after partner opens 1♦.

I'm not advocating opening 4th chair preempts on trash. But I'm not sure it's a good strategy to pass in fourth seat with, say:

x KQJTxxx Kxx xx

I mean, partner could have Qxxxx Axx Ax xxx and you're on for game in spite of the wasted queen. Partner almost always has around 10 points on this auction if you don't have a big hand, and even a hand like Qxxxx x Qxx AQxx offers decent play for 3♥.

[pclayton]

awm, on Nov 2 2007, 11:01 AM, said:

Okay, say you open 3♦. Partner has:

AQxx KJx x xxxxx

Fair enough. I imagine you'll open 1♦. LHO may overcall 1♠ but lets say he passes. This hand bids 1♠ and pard rebids 2♦. Please don't say you are moving over 2♦ here.

Quote

Now say your partner has:

xxxx Kxx x AKxxx

What's he do? Pass I bet. How do you like your chances at 5m, or even maybe 6m?

Same idea. How is a 1♦ opening going to propel you to the proper contract? Pard bids 1♠ / 2♣ and I'll bet we stall out in a part score.

Move a few honors around in these hands, and suddenly the opponents have a real spade fit and can make 8 or 9 tricks without much problem. I'd just assume take my 110 to 150 and move onto the next board instead of finding a magical 3N or 5m.

If you are saying that you *want* to let your opponents into the auction so that we can better evaluate our fit, thats a different matter altogether.

If you want to make a 4th chair preempt promise a solid or a one-loser suit, I don't think its a bad idea at all. Thats not what your examples demonstrate however.