EricK

The point about this hand IMO is not the point count. To make 3NT partner will need to make 9 tricks before opps make 5. They get to lead and so are already ahead in the race. I don't have much help for partner in whatever non-♠ suit he is weakest, so I think even if partner considers himself maximum there is a good chance we will go down in 3NT; and if partner considers himself minimum we are likely not making 2NT. Eric

I open 1♣ I raise ♥, rebid 1NT over 1♠, and rebid 2♣ over 1NT Eric

My usual F2F partner is an excellent player with good judgement, but does not like "science" or system discussions, and sometimes forgets conventions (either forgets that we are playing them, or if he remembers we are playing them he forgets exactly what the bids or follow-ups mean). He is especially apt to forget conventions which sound natural. To give you some idea, he would remember fourth suit forcing, but probably not 2-way checkback; he might be able to recall Muideburg 2s, but probably not Multi 2♦ (especially weak/strong versions); he wouldn't remember Raptor 1NT overcall and so on. So, I am interested in your opinions as to what system base needs fewest conventional add-ons to be competitive at a reasonably advanced level. So what would you recommend as regards e.g. 4 card or 5 card majors; weak or strong or other NT; strength of 2/1 bids; Strong club v "Natural"; style of 2-bids; etc etc Any input appreciated! Thanks Eric

And what if you switch to 4 card majors and make it inv+? Eric

I think teaching a pair of beginners Zar points (or Tysen's similar system) would be an excellent idea. However, I am not sure most beginners would have the judgement to get away with using Zar points with an unsuspecting partner. For example, I held an interesting Zar hand tonight: As dealer you have ♠KJ963 ♥76 ♦QJT542. Not playing any two suited openers. What do you do? Would you expect a beginner to be able to handle the subsequent auction opposite an unsuspecting partner? Eric

Ben, When you say "Opening light in 3rd hand", do you mean opening even lighter than you open in first and second? If so, I am not sure that it is something that Beginners, or people of a nervous disposition, ought to see B) Eric

The first thing to realise is that if you pass the hand will be passed out! What this means is that you should only open if you have a good expectation of getting a positive score. So the weaker you are, the less you should want to open. The second thing to realise is that if there is a part score battle the side with Spades will often buy the contract. So the fewer Spades you have, the less you should want to open. The third thing to realise is that you still get bonuses for bidding games! So you shouldn't be to eager to pass it out, especially if your partner requires "sound" values to open in second seat. What this amounts to (and these are only general guidelines, not absolutes) is that you shouldn't open minimum hands in 4th without Spades, and you should only open other hands in 4th without spades if there is a reasonable chance of game opposite a maximum pass for partner. Eric

On number 2, If AQxx is in dummy you can play a small card away from dummy towards hand, and then try to finesse the Q on the second round. This gives RHO an opportunity to go wrong with Kx. Eric

I think this is up to a certified director to give you a ruling. However, I believe you will be on your way to an adjusted board if you open this and then bid like you had a real openig bid afterwards. That is really sad, becasue I think any fair minded person would see that this is indeed an opening hand. Interesting. I would have have thought that as long as partner "bids like you have a real opening bid" (real according to your agreements, that is), then it would be OK. Suppose your agreements were a modified Rule of 20 :- length of 2 longest suits plus HCP in two longest suits, plus A&K HCP in short suits (i.e. normal rule of 20, but discounting Quacks in short suits). This hand fails to qualify (by a point), but I think you would be allowed to open it, as long as partner doesn't play you for this hand. Judgement can't be outlawed can it? Eric

Especially if you can write a very short explanation of the bid for the opponents. Eric

Another, more imptant reason to pass (besides avoiding ptship troubles) is that opening at the 1 level with less than 8 hcp is ILLEGAL for most tournament. Such hands can be opened only using weak openers at the 2-3 level. Stupid rule, as this hand demonstrates (hardly preemptive hand, excellent playing strength),but we have to comply with such rules. Is it opening them that is illegal, or is it agreeing to open them? I am allowed to break the agreements I have with my partner aren't I? Eric

If you can trust partner's 2♦ bid, then it looks a good double to me. You could also have doubled 3♣. Eric

easy 1H and the only choice in my humble opinion. If you always pass with this kind of hands, your partner needs to balance very aggressively and even if he balances aggressively, you still may not catch up and you may often suffer a huge penalty if you balance too aggressively. Basically, in my idea, one should never pass an offensive oriented opening hand when he has a simple overcall at one level. Is this an offensively oriented hand? It looks like a 8-loser balanced hand with some strength in RHO's suit. If partner is always going to raise to 2♥ on xxx, and to 3♥ on xxxx, then I am not sure I want to bid this one immediately. Eric

I've been practicing with my mentor the negative fourhanded game, as I call it. It's where you count on your opponents getting you out of bad contracts. For example: Your partner opens 1D, promising 4+ and 11-15 hcp. You have: S: J8765 H: A65 D: J2 C: J765 If you bid, your partner's going to get excited. If you pass, 1D can't be a good board. Well, it can't be in 2 handed. In four handed, odds are the opponents aren't going to let you play there, and you'll get a chance to describe this hand exactly. Another example is having 2m over 1M be non-forcing. You can often pass this even with a misfit, counting on the opponents to pull you out. With: S: AK876 H: -- D: AT87 C: A654 If your partner opens 2♥ and you pass, that IMO is a negative four-hand. If you've ever passed 1NT hoping the opponents would double so you could scramble, you might be playing negative four-hand. :blink: If you play this sort of thing by agreement, you ought to let the opps know that you do. That may make it less effective. Eric

Precision doesn't open 1♣ as frequently as 2/1 does, and it cetainly doesn't open Pass as often, so its mean opening would, I think, be higher than 2/1. Anyway, 1♣ systems aren't necessarily 2-handed (although they have a lot of 2 handed sequences ready to use if opps don't intervene). My point about the mean opening wasn't that higher mean openings make better systems, but that given two systems which work approximately equally well in purely constructive auctions, the one with the higher mean opening may be more suited to the 4-handed game. But as others have pointed out, there is much more to it than this simplistic analysis. Eric

But surely, if you had agreed to play Flannery (let's say your partner had bribed you sufficiently), then you would want as many hands as possible like this to turn up, and as few as possible which would have been handled by your preferred 2♦ methods! So this is a great Flannery hand. Or do you believe that Flannery is a losing proposition even on "Flannery hands"? Eric

I have voted for 3NT. Pass looks wrong sitting under the 2♥ bidder. The ♠ are very weak, and it would be perverse to insist on them as trumps (especially if partner could be eg 3-1-5-4). Eric

No! I am Eric Kehr, an average bridge player who has never been mistaken for an expert before!

The chance that this will translate bridge terms correctly is fairly negligible IMO Eric

An interesting measure of a system is the mean opneing. If you assign 0 to pass, 1 to 1♣, 2 to 1♦, 3 to 1♥ etc, and work out the expected value of the opening bid then it is generally the case that 4-handed systems will have a higher value than 2-handed systems. Eric

The key point about this thread is not whether a game makes. A hand was posted here and we were asked what we would bid. We naturally assumed that partner's bid was sensible. Based on that assumption it is an interesting hand, albeit one with a fairly clearcut answer. I, for one, felt somewhat annoyed when I saw partner's actual hand. There is almost no point in asking questions of the form "You are bidding opposite a lunatic. What do you do in this position?" Because the answer is always "Take a complete guess, and hope I get lucky". Eric

There's (much) more to 5 level bidding than LOTT! But if my partner made an "incorrect" bid because he felt that against these opponents in this situation it would lead to a better result, then of course I wouldn't treat it as a mistake (unless he has grossly misread the opposition or the situation!) This is not really a 2-handed/4-handed question, though. I think 4 handed play is more concerned with preparing to deal with any opposition, not with the particualr pyschology of the current opposition (which is another important skill). Eric

You seem to be under the impression that once the partnership has agreed the major then they are committed to playing in the major. Pairs who raise on 3 frequently do not labour under this misapprehension. If we are headed for game there is still time to see whether NT or opener's minor (or even the other major!) are better places to play. And if the hand is a part score, 2M is not only a reasonable contract, it is often the best contract even on a 4-3 fit. Eric

I play a weak NT, which obviously affects which hands will raise on a 3 card suit. 1) Nearly every minimum hand with 3 card support will raise. Because of weak NT, it will nearly always have a singleton except... 2)...if there is a six card minor! I will often raise on the 3 card suit, but if the suit is xxx, and the minor is strong then I will probably rebid the minor - especially if there is no singleton. 3) A belated support of opener's minor shows exactly 4 of the major, genuine support (usually 5+) and is a non-forcing game try. 4) 2NT again promises exactly 4 of the major, and ask for clarification - minimum bids will confirm 3 card support, higher bids promise 4 5) Invitational, 6 card suit, probably no help in opener's minor (with a semblance of a double fit, there is no point in inviting) 6) A strong NT type will rebid 1NT. A new suit (non-reverse) is nearly forcing and we will do that on most unbalanced non-minima. Eric

It is precisely because you are in a GF auction that you can afford to have different sequences for minimum hands and hands with extras. You have already clarified that you are going to game, so you now have to find a strain and determine whether to look for slam. Raising on all hands with support helps in the search for the strain, but does not help answer the game/slam question. If 3NT is one of the target contracts - and it usually is when there is no major suit fit - it is important for at least one of the players to have shown extras by the time the bidding has reached the 3 level. Eric