sceptic Posted February 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2007 they made +3 if I remember correctly (due to one of my stunning leads I expect) , this is what prompted my post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Third seat not-vulnerable can produce some interesting bids. All these below are in 3rd seat not-vulnerable. Netherlands in the 2005 Worlds vs vulnerable: [hv=d=n&v=e&s=s83hakt852dqj3ct3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]3♥ In the US 2004 Team Trials, Welland had this vs vulnerable:[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s83hakt852dqj3ct3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]3♦ This is Fantoni in the 2006 Worlds vs not-vulnerable:[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s83hakt852dqj3ct3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]3♠ Dating back a bit, here’s Huang in the 1996 Semi-Finals vs vulnerable:[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s83hakt852dqj3ct3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]3♣ Now these are long events. In 12 board IMP Pairs events you will even see some really swingy stuff, especially by players trying to catch up (nothing to lose). Also heavy preempts below game are usually in a minor, since less chance of missing game opposite passed hand values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceptic Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I am curious Glen, how did each of these actually work on the day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 All are in 3rd seat not-vulnerable. Netherlands in the 2005 Worlds vs vulnerable: [hv=d=n&v=e&s=s83hakt852dqj3ct3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]3♥ Netherlands was against USA 1. De Wijs’s 3♥ opening saw Hamman overcalling 4NT for the minors, and Soloway bid 5♣ down 2, -200. At the other table, Meckstroth opened 1♦, raised Rodwell’s 1♥ to 2, and Rodwell bid 4. Down 1, -50. So 6 Imps to Netherlands. See board 18 in:2005 Worlds --- --- In the US 2004 Team Trials, Welland had this vs vulnerable:[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s83hakt852dqj3ct3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]3♦ After Welland’s 3♦, and 3♥ overcall by Ekeblad, Fallenius jumped to 5♦ with 3-2-5-3, got doubled and Welland went for -1100. At the other table, it was only a 2♦ opening, which got bumped to 4♦ over the ♥ overcall and NS ended in 4♥ making 6 (cold on the layout of 2-2 trumps, and 3-3 spades with finesse on). So 9 IMPs to Ekeblad. See board 18 (again!) in:2004 US Team Trials --- --- This is Fantoni in the 2006 Worlds vs not-vulnerable:[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s83hakt852dqj3ct3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]3♠ After Fantoni’s 3♠, Schwartz doubled and Willenken bid 3NT, down 3, -150. At the other table El Ahmadi opened 1♠, ended in 2♠, +140. No swing. See board 11 in:2006 Worlds --- --- Dating back a bit, here’s Huang in the 1996 Semi-Finals vs vulnerable:[hv=d=n&v=e&s=s83hakt852dqj3ct3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]3♣ 3♣ went around to RHO (Mouiel) who doubled, passed out for down 1, -100. At the other table a 1♣ opening found the 5-4 ♦ fit, so then Mari-Bompis drove the hands to 5♦, down 3. 2 IMPs for Taipei. This is board 60 of the semi-finals, in one of the biggest books ever published on the World Championships. So in general it seems somewhat random effects. To see the largest range of bids, check out expert four-of-a-major openings in 3rd seat white vs red. Top of the range is 9 tricks or so, while bottom is any excuse. My study of preempts opposite passed hands show that a heavy preempt can be successful if it immediately puts the partnership in its most likely landing spot if partner has about 9 HCP and a flat hand. Given this, I don’t think the Welland bid was doing this with 3♦ so I don’t recommend the heavy three-level preempt with five cards, though I do have admiration for the imagination to make this call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 My study of preempts opposite passed hands show that a heavy preempt can be successful if it immediately puts the partnership in its most likely landing spot if partner has about 9 HCP and a flat hand. Given this, I don’t think the Welland bid was doing this with 3♦ so I don’t recommend the heavy three-level preempt with five cards, though I do have admiration for the imagination to make this call. Sometimes it isn't imagination, but the system, that forces you to open 3♦. Welland would probably have preferred a 2♦ opener, but that might have meant something other than diamonds. by the way.. heavy preempting in 3rd seat is a matter of judgement, not rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 The Welland-Fallenius 2004 cc says the 2♦ in 3rd/4th is a weak two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.