[rbforster]

How do you show a good hand in 4th position below:

(1 of a suit)-X-(XX)-?

or

(P) - P - (1 of a suit) - X
(XX)- ?

Yes, I realize 3 people have already shown good hands, but this still comes up. Usually I would think that bidding a new suit cheaply would suggest a strong preference for playing there with a weak hand, while pass suggested a more flexible weak hand (maybe 4-4 in unbid suits) and suggesting that partner (doubler) should pick a suit.

If this is correct, what are the strong options? Is it possible to suggest defending XX'ed, or are you forced to bid NT, cuebid, or pass and then bid over partner's suit choice?

Does this mean you can escape with a weak misfit after (1 of suit)-X by psyching a XX since when 4th hand is strong they're effectively forced to bid?

[awm]

A few points about this:

(1) I prefer to play pass as "I want to defend." This is apparently not standard.

(2) Cuebidding the opponents suit certainly shows a good hand.

(3) Notrump bids probably show values, although it makes some sense to use 1NT as a lebensohl like bid here too.

(4) Jumps should be preemptive.

[rbforster]

Thanks both of you for the explanations of the various bids and how you play them.

Jlall, on Apr 29 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

Obviously this isnt a great system if you have a good hand but whatever, you never do.

Well, when one of the first 3 bidders psyched (or all of them are light), you can have a good hand. In particular, my reference to the 3rd seat opener auction makes this case potentially more relevant for the opposing side to worry about.

[whereagles]

If 4th is strong, then probably 3rd psyched (not uncommon if opener is limited to, say, 11-15). In any case 4th can use the cuebid to say RHO (or LHO) is a joker.

[Mbodell]

awm, on Apr 29 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

(1) I prefer to play pass as "I want to defend." This is apparently not standard.

I agree. Most bad players (and maybe some/many good ones) play that pass after 1y-x-xx is a weak/no preference bid that then forces the x player bid their best suit. This sets up the occasion for the possibility for a psych of xx in the case where you think the auction would go 1y-x-all pass for a number when you are super weak as the opponents can no longer penalize you at the one level. Of course partner may now make a foolish double of opponents in the future, but opponents xx preventing a contract from playing in a suit doubled seems suboptimal.

[Apollo81]

awm, on Apr 29 2008, 01:20 AM, said:

(1) I prefer to play pass as "I want to defend." This is apparently not standard.

But "defend" is standard at the 1-level (I think) if you are behind their suit (e.g. after a balancing X) as long as that is consistent with your previous actions.

E.g.
(1c♣)-p-(p)-X-(XX)-p = penalty
(1♣)-p-(1♥)-p-(1♠)-p-(p)-X-(XX)-p = not penalty (penalty is not consistent with first two passes)

[kenrexford]

On this question, I have been fascinated with what I will call the Italian approach, largely because I don't understand and cannot really figure out the theory.

The "Italian approach" that I read about years ago was that the fourth seat in this sequence would bid the shortest of the three options. FOr example, after 1♣-X-XX-?, Advancer might bid 1♥ to say that his diamonds and his spades were longer than his hearts.

This struck me as odd, but intriguing, as I did not understand why this was done. As presumably intelligent theoreticians had concluded that this made sense, the preemptive effect on our escape was apparently deemed not to be a problem. I cannot figure out how or why this conclusion was reached, or what happens next, or anything else.

Does anyone know what the Heck they were thinking, and what is supposed to happen next?