[dburn]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 4 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

4th seat is a difficult problem. At IMPS I would still pass, as my expectation is negative. At club matchpoints I have painfully learnt never, ever to pass a hand out in 4th seat, I always get a bad result.

I used to get the same bad results as Frances until I started playing with Callaghan, who explained it to me in words that even I could understand. "You should always open the bidding in fourth position", he said, "because if your opponents could make something, they would have opened the bidding in first or third position."

Determined to teach him a lesson, I opened a Precision 1♦ in fourth position on something like ♠Axx ♥KQx ♦J9xx ♣J8x, vulnerable against not at matchpoints. He responded 1NT and made an overtrick. Since then, the only potentially bad hand I can recall for the methods occurred when I opened a 4=1=4=4 eleven count in fourth position, and the next hand overcalled 4♥ (of course, he had been lurking with eight solid hearts on the first round).

"At last", I thought, "Callaghan will see the error of his ways", but of course at every other table the bidding had been 4♥ - pass - pass - double, leaving our side to choose whether to concede 690 or 800.

[mike777]

interesting very....


If partner opens light in second seat but passes I often pass with a P count of 14 (hcp and spades) in 4th seat. If partner opens sound in second seat but passes I would open very often in 4th seat.

[beatrix45]

Third seat non-vul. Planning to pass any response.

[neilkaz]

I pass in first and 2nd seat, but if PD opens I won't criticize. I open 1♣ in 3rd or 4th seat and take my chances.

I open rather aggressively and this, like most bad 12 HCP hands is a close decision for me.

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on Dec 4 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 4 2007, 05:11 PM, said:

One does not double slam bids based on high card points when it is clear that the hand has freakish distribution.

Tricks beat slams - not high card points.

A-K combos look like tricks.

I'd say that one does double 6♦, and expects a wall of -1090's.

Just last night I held:

AKxx
Txx
QJxx
Jx

And heard the opponents bid to 6♥ in an uncontested auction:

1♦ - 4NT
5♥ - 6♥

Yes, that was the auction. I did not double. 6♥ was cold without much to the play (the fact that the declarer found a way to lose 2 tricks is not relevent). The hands were:

Scoring: MP

---

This was in an ACBL matchpoint pairs game on BBO. As you can see from the bidding and the result, the level of the competition in these games is, to put it charitably, uneven.

But that is not the point. I have the AK of spades and QJxx in opener's suit. I did not double (ignorning the lead directing implications of the double). Slam was cold.

The moral is you should not double a slam just because you think you have it beat. If you don't know you have it beat, it just doesn't make much sense. Besides, at most forms of scoring, the difference between beating a slam one undoubled trick and one doubled trick is usually nothing.

[By the way, can anyone figure out which 2 tricks declarer lost?]

[Fluffy]

you have to double to protect yourself, from what you said you could bid 6♣anytime you had AKQxx and nobody would double you because they don't know where their tricks are coming from, who cares if I was cold for 6♠? I cannot double.

[hotShot]

Obviously the opening hand has to be downgraded for several reasons, but there other things to think about.

Suppose you agreed to open 12HCP, then the average strength of a first seat pass is 8 HCP. If this is followed by a pass in 2nd seat, the average 2nd seat strength is 9.33 HCP.

This is what partner should assume for his decision in 3rd seat.
So if you hold this hand in 3rd seat, you should pass because your side will have 20 HCP on average and there is no need to take a risk.

If you get this hand in 4th seat, you can see that the average strength of your side is 21.33 HCP. At MP's you will only get a decent score, if you score better than 0. So you should open in 4th seat.

What about 1st seat?
Although the hand is worth less than 12 HCP, the HCP available to the other players is 28. This means on average your partner has 9.33 this means that your side has the majority of points. Your partner in 3rd seat will make his decision assuming that opps have 4 HCP more than they actually have. If you don't open there is a good chance that partner will not be able to act. There is a 2:1 chance that your partner does not hold the ♠Q so all of his HCP will be working well most of the time.
I think it won't matter much whether you open or not.

In 2nd seat you can assume that the 2 player left share 20 HCP. So on average your side will hold 22 HCP, so you should open, because you need to act.

So a clear opening in 2nd and 4th seat, a clear pass in 3rd seat and a "does not matter much" in 1st seat.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Dec 5 2007, 08:22 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 4 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 4 2007, 05:11 PM, said:

One does not double slam bids based on high card points when it is clear that the hand has freakish distribution.

Tricks beat slams - not high card points.

A-K combos look like tricks.

I'd say that one does double 6♦, and expects a wall of -1090's.

Just last night I held:

AKxx
Txx
QJxx
Jx

And heard the opponents bid to 6♥ in an uncontested auction:

1♦ - 4NT
5♥ - 6♥

Yes, that was the auction. I did not double. 6♥ was cold without much to the play (the fact that the declarer found a way to lose 2 tricks is not relevent). The hands were:

Scoring: MP

---

This was in an ACBL matchpoint pairs game on BBO. As you can see from the bidding and the result, the level of the competition in these games is, to put it charitably, uneven.

But that is not the point. I have the AK of spades and QJxx in opener's suit. I did not double (ignorning the lead directing implications of the double). Slam was cold.

The moral is you should not double a slam just because you think you have it beat. If you don't know you have it beat, it just doesn't make much sense. Besides, at most forms of scoring, the difference between beating a slam one undoubled trick and one doubled trick is usually nothing.

[By the way, can anyone figure out which 2 tricks declarer lost?]

What?!?

I believe there to be a wild difference between these two situations.

In the posted situation, partner opened (albeit debatable obviously), but, more importantly, the next call was a leap to 6♦, a wild-ass gamble that paid.

In your example, partner has apparently passed throughout. Hence, he is likely to have 0 HCP's, as opposed to even 11 in the form of all Queens and Jacks. Plus, the opponents have both bid in a strong sequence that suggests that they have stuff. The leaping suggests a likely void, for that matter.

You might as well say that bidding 4♠ with a thirteen-count and four spades is a bad idea, despite partner opening 1♠, because the other day you bid 4♠ with the exact same hand, a disaster, after the opponent opened 1♠.

[benlessard]

Red i will pass except in 4th seat.
white i will always open.

playing weak nt & white = easy opening


Im not fond of LOB but white ill always open this 1. If partner has long S he wont be disappointed with my hand if hes is short in S i have 2 quick trick. The only problem is when he is medium S length and opps are void or stiff S.


Playing weak Nt(12-14) and being white Its doesnt make anysense to pass this hand imho.

In 4th seat its an opening if you play some method for INV hands that will enable you to stop at the 2 level. Otherwise its dangerous because partner will often put you in 2Nt or at the 3 level.

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on Dec 5 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

What?!?

I believe there to be a wild difference between these two situations.

In the posted situation, partner opened (albeit debatable obviously), but, more importantly, the next call was a leap to 6♦, a wild-ass gamble that paid.

In your example, partner has apparently passed throughout.  Hence, he is likely to have 0 HCP's, as opposed to even 11 in the form of all Queens and Jacks.  Plus, the opponents have both bid in a strong sequence that suggests that they have stuff.  The leaping suggests a likely void, for that matter.

You might as well say that bidding 4♠ with a thirteen-count and four spades is a bad idea, despite partner opening 1♠, because the other day you bid 4♠ with the exact same hand, a disaster, after the opponent opened 1♠.

Actually, Ken, I don't think the two situations are all that different.

Why do you think that you can beat a slam bid by the opponents in a leap to 6 just because partner opened in third seat and you hold an AK in a side suit? Quite frankly, the bidder could have 6 made in his own hand. In this particular case, he did not, but the contract was cold nonetheless.

Without changing one card in either first seat's hand (the hand that passed and then doubled 6♦) or third seat opener's hand, the hand that leapt to 6♦ could have held:

---
---
AKT9xxxxx
AKQT

Quite frankly, this hand looks a lot more like a leap to 6♦ than the actual hand.

How does the double look now? Making with an overtrick.

By the way, in the hand that I played in the ACBL tourney on BBO, the use of the 4NT bid strongly indiciates that the bidder does NOT have a void. Of course, inexperienced players have been known to bid Blackwood with voids, and this is just another example.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Dec 5 2007, 11:13 AM, said:

[random gibberish]

Wow. You must not double much.

"What if LHO has two voids and a running side suit where the double hook is on?"

"What if RHO accidentally passed a 20-count and my partner psyched?"

"What if I accidentally pulled out the cards from Board Two?"

If you cannot see the difference between a leap to 6♦ immediately over an opening bid by partner and a sequence where partner passes throughout but the opponents open, use Blackwood, hear an answer, and then bid slam, then I cannot help you.

But, it gets worse. You say that the person could have made slam in his own hand, which is inaccurate on any lead if his dummy does not include the club Queen or on a trump lead if the club Queen had been stiff with a stiff diamond in dummy (down two in that event).

Then you suggest the wildest hand I could imagine as a typical 6♦ bid. I'm not sure who has discussed the standard treatment for 1♣-6♦ overcalls, but that seems a bit pessimistic.

[ArtK78]

Ken:

You really should read what I posted. I said that declarer COULD have slam in his own hand, but he did not in this particular case. Still, it made.

I gave you an example of a hand that would leap to 6♦ over an opponent's one bid. You don't have to like it, but it is a reasonable example.

I admit, I do not double slam bids that often. Only when I know that they are not being bid to make.

When is the last time someone leapt to slam against you over your partner's opening one bid or as an opening bid and it was meant as a sacrifice?

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Dec 5 2007, 12:56 PM, said:

When is the last time someone leapt to slam against you over your partner's opening one bid or as an opening bid and it was meant as a sacrifice?

The bid does not have to be made as a sacrifice.

Case in point -- the actual hand. The guy has two club losers to deal with, a major-suit loser, and a need for diamonds to be 2-2-2 around the world. He got a 2-2-2 diamond split, an entry in clubs, and a successful finesse against partner's club Jack.

If on this actual deal, from my position, I think we set this thing WAY more than not.

[1eyedjack]

I think in general if someone punts a slam fast, where there is bidding space available to investigate it slowly then it is likely to result from one or more of 4 features.
1) He may have a hand that lacks decent methods to investigate slam intelligently more slowly,
2) He may have a hand that fears a particular opening lead, and a slow route would telegraph the problem lead where the lead is "blind" against the punt, or
3) He may fear a sacrifice, and bidding it fast reduces their capacity to identify and evaluate their fits.
4) He may be advance-sac'ing

With the possible exception of item 4, each of these factors tends to indicate extreme distributional features in the hand of the punter. That in turn argues against counting on Aces and Kings in side suits necessarily scoring tricks in defence. If partner has shown values that increase your side's total high card values, all that that knowledge serves to indicate is that the opponent has that much more by way of distribution to compensate.

[ArtK78]

1eyedjack, on Dec 6 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

3) He may fear a sacrifice, and bidding it fast reduces their capacity to identify and evaluate their fits.

This point is probably the best reason for blasting to a slam.

Consider the hand that I suggested for a 6♦ call over 1♣. It has voids in both major suits. Certainly there is a good chance that the opponents have a very good fit in one of the majors (of course, every time I make that assumption, it turns out that my partner is 6-6 in the majors). So, even though there is a fair chance that 13 tricks are available, if one bids the hand slowly one may find the opponents can locate a good sacrifice even at the 7 level. Bidding and making 6♦ with an overtrick is better than beating 7 of a major by 3 tricks. And if the opponents choose to double 6♦, all the better.

[foo]

Fluffy, on Dec 4 2007, 03:56 AM, said:

♠AKJ ♥9752 ♦QJ ♣J973

The goal of Bridge is to score well. To do that, you have to play the odds and either try to declare or try to defend based on which is more likely to get you a better score.

This hand is a flawed 9 loser 12 count that may be worth as little as a 9 count if neither the DQ nor the DJ can take a trick. Robson and Segel would say this hand has a low ODR. IOW, it's a =defensive= hand.

I'd pass this in 1st or 2nd playing any natural system with either a weak or strong NT. Or even playing Precision.

Nor is this a good hand to open in 3rd or 4th as explained by all the reasons already mentioned by Frances.

[1eyedjack]

I don't think that opening 1NT expresses to partner any statement of your ODR. That evaluation becomes relevant later in the contested auction.
Would you decide NOT to open INT with a 14/15 point (whatever is in range) just because it has a low ODR?

[foo]

1eyedjack, on Dec 8 2007, 04:06 AM, said:

I don't think that opening 1N expresses to partner any statement of your ODR. That evaluation becomes relevant later in the contested auction.
Would you decide NOT to open INT with a 14/15 point (whatever is in range) just because it has a low ODR?

Danny Kleinman wrote an excellent book called _The NT Zone_.

In it there is a good discussion on what hands to downgrade into or below your 1N opening range. It mirrored my thoughts and experiences very well on this.

Yes, there are definitely hands I downgrade to below my 1N range as well as hands that have more HCP than my 1N range that I downgrade into 1N openings.
(There are also hands I upgrade into or out of my 1N range.)

This applies whether I am playing a strong or weak NT. It does not apply to the Kamikaze AKA "mini" NT.

Hands with higher than expected loser count for their HCP;
or lower than expected Quick Tricks / Controls for the HCP;
or that have flawed holdings like K, QJ, Qx, Jxx;
or that have too many points in short suits rather than long suits (AK_xxxxxx_QJx_QJx)
simply do not rate to be as useful for declaring as their HCP would usually imply.