Max or not?

[mikeh]

xx

AJxxx

JTx

Kxx

 

?

The opps hold 10 great ♠s and outside values and pass throughout? Where do you (or I) find these suckers?

[gwnn]

OK so he doesn't hold xx but Tx in spades :)

 

But seriously, here's one with spade wastage:

 

Qxx

KJxxx

Kxx

xx

 

Shouldn't lose more than 1, 1, 0, 1. Shouldn't just bid game with a random 12 count opposite.

[jdonn]

Kxxx AJTxx JTx x? I didn't need to give him both red tens, but then again I didn't need to give him the king of my singleton as opposed to the ace and a mere 9 count either. In any case, I'll take my chances. Qxx KJTxx Kxx Qx is also not unreasonable. I don't claim that there are certainly more such hands than hands that would bid game and go down, but I feel it's probably true that if partner bids game it will be at worst decent. I will let partner bring his spectacular judgement into play.

[Fluffy]

I agree with those that say that this is a clear max.

I agree with those that say that raising with 3 cards is ridicoulous.

 

Doh!, didn't find anyone :)

[pclayton]

My last word on this is I don't think there's a lot of utility in over-defining actions by the 4th hand or 3rd hand. Take 1♥ - 1N - 2♥. I think you can get wrapped in thinking, "hmm, he didn't PASS originally, and he didn't open a WEAK 2 in 4th, so he *must* have exactly a 14-15 count"... I suppose, but have you discussed this with your pard?

 

My pard and I have decided that 3♣ is a min (i.e., 7 losers) and 3♦ is a max (6), no matter what the position. This hand would qualify as a max, but pard should evaluate on that basis and not get wrapped up the subtleties of opener being a 3rd or 4th chair opener. Does this mean that we wouldn't bid 3♣ as often? Sure, but its just not worth the bandwidth to differentiate this much.

 

If I recall, it was a very lucky game. He held JTx of spades, so there wasn't a lot of duplication, and we made 170 at MPs. Along with the rest of the field. We still won :)

 

We did decide that since 1x - 1y - 2y - 3z is a slam try by an unpassed hand, that it becomes a natural game try, but specifically denying 5 of the major.

[jtfanclub]

I have aces and I have a stiff, but I only have 3 trump and I have promised more than a minimum already... by raising to 2♥.

Huh.

 

I don't see how raising to 2♥ shows a non-minimum. Passing 1♥ looks to be a 0. The opponents have an easy balance, and I see no reason why they'd fail to make 2♠. Any hand not strong enough to raise to 2♥ should pass it out and go on to the next board.

 

Just my humble opinion, as always.

[helene_t]

I would not have opened this hand although I would have considered 3♣. As it is, I think it's a minimum since with a real minimum I would have passed 1♥. Now partner will expect my singleton to be in diamonds since I wouldn't have opened in 4th seat with a minimum and a singleton spades. This will may partner too optimistic since he doesn't realize that the spade values he must have are vasted. In other words, it probably doesn't matter what message I send, but at least partner can pass 3♣ if he wants.

[pclayton]

I have aces and I have a stiff, but I only have 3 trump and I have promised more than a minimum already... by raising to 2♥.

Huh.

 

I don't see how raising to 2♥ shows a non-minimum. Passing 1♥ looks to be a 0. The opponents have an easy balance, and I see no reason why they'd fail to make 2♠. Any hand not strong enough to raise to 2♥ should pass it out and go on to the next board.

 

Just my humble opinion, as always.

I disagree.

 

Pard could have tossed the deal in for no score. Why should we have to preempt two passed opponents (that sounds familiar)? Perhaps 1♥ is our best spot.

 

Would you be mad at pard for passing 1♥ with a hand like: AQxx, Qxx, Qxxxx, x? Maybe pard has already won the board by opening this.

[jtfanclub]

Would you be mad at pard for passing 1♥ with a hand like: AQxx, Qxx, Qxxxx, x? Maybe pard has already won the board by opening this.

I didn't mean to say that partner should never pass 1♥. I meant to say that 2♥ doesn't show a stronger hand than passing. I wouldn't be mad at partner for opening that crud and then backing off, but I would expect a worse result than if he'd passed.

 

Why should we have to preempt two passed opponents (that sounds familiar)?

 

Ummmm...at the one level? At MPs? Surely at some point it's worth balancing for the opponents.

 

Edited to add: I agree that partner could have dumped it for no score, so he has more than the minimum to open it 3rd hand.