Fourth seat strategy

[brianshark]

Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJ is a poor shapely 11 count. xx AQJxxx x Axx is a nice shapely 11 count. There's a difference.

 

And good players who pass hands that should be opened risk missing the partial and no amount of brilliant defence will avoid the bottom they are going to get. Good players who play worse bridge because they are playing against bad players become less-good players themselves.

[Guest Jlall]

There has been so much wrong/inaccurate stuff posted on this thread, but this one really stands out:

 

Good players who play worse bridge because they are playing against bad players become less-good players themselves.

 

If you think that "good bridge" is some kind of constant thing that does not change based on the level of your opponents you are really wrong. To me good bridge is making the decisions that rate to get you the best possible result every time you have a choice to make. Which actions rate to get you the best possible result are definitely dependant on a lot of things that go beyond form of scoring and vulnerability.

 

This must be obviously evident for something like a 4th seat bidding problem where opening is a statement that "we rate to go plus on this board." Surely the skill level of your opponents and their ability to guage a competitive auction and their ability to defend or declare correctly relative to your ability must be factored into whether you rate to go plus.

[Trinidad]

I fully agree with Justin. I hate passing deals out when playing against palooka's. If I pass it out, I expect an average (may be slightly higher because one of the palooka's may have evaluated the hand wrong). If the hand is played, I expect a good result. Just how good depends on how good I am and how poor the palooka's are (+ the usual factors like luck, etc).

 

If you want to score, it is worth taking a small risk to force the board to be played. This would be bad bridge against "normal" opponents, and very bad bridge against better opponents, but it is good bridge against palooka's. This is particularly true if you have a way to warn partner that you have less than he would expect (e.g. if you can pass his natural response which normally would be practically forcing). After all, if you can warn partner, you are reducing the risk.

 

On this particular hand, I would probably open 1NT (12-14) against "the worst pair in the room", certainly if I would be playing with Gerben.

 

Rik

[han]

On this particular hand, I would probably open 1NT (12-14) against "the worst pair in the room", certainly if I would be playing with Gerben.

Since he will be dummy?

[Gerben42]

I'm already a dummy anyway. If partner is declarer, that would make me double dummy.

[helene_t]

I think Trinidad was reffering to ur superior notrump structure, Gerben.

[Codo]

I'm already a dummy anyway. If partner is declarer, that would make me double dummy.

...at least we now know who was the dummiest player at the table.

 

What did your opponent do at the table with the 11 HCP hand against you? :)

[brianshark]

There has been so much wrong/inaccurate stuff posted on this thread, but this one really stands out:

 

Good players who play worse bridge because they are playing against bad players become less-good players themselves.

 

If you think that "good bridge" is some kind of constant thing that does not change based on the level of your opponents you are really wrong. To me good bridge is making the decisions that rate to get you the best possible result every time you have a choice to make. Which actions rate to get you the best possible result are definitely dependant on a lot of things that go beyond form of scoring and vulnerability.

 

This must be obviously evident for something like a 4th seat bidding problem where opening is a statement that "we rate to go plus on this board." Surely the skill level of your opponents and their ability to guage a competitive auction and their ability to defend or declare correctly relative to your ability must be factored into whether you rate to go plus.

Statements such as: "The opps are so bad that this game is now greater than 50% (or whatever your cut-off is) therefore we should bid it" <- I agree

 

Statements such as: "Even though bidding game is the percentage call, our opps at the other table are so bad, they probably won't find it therefore we don't need to risk bidding it" <- I disagree

[bill1157]

"Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJ is a poor shapely 11 count. xx AQJxxx x Axx is a nice shapely 11 count. There's a difference."

 

are you saying you would not open the first hand?

[TimG]

Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJ is a poor shapely 11 count. xx AQJxxx x Axx is a nice shapely 11 count. There's a difference.

Both hands have only 12 cards.

[Guest Jlall]

There has been so much wrong/inaccurate stuff posted on this thread, but this one really stands out:

 

Good players who play worse bridge because they are playing against bad players become less-good players themselves.

 

If you think that "good bridge" is some kind of constant thing that does not change based on the level of your opponents you are really wrong. To me good bridge is making the decisions that rate to get you the best possible result every time you have a choice to make. Which actions rate to get you the best possible result are definitely dependant on a lot of things that go beyond form of scoring and vulnerability.

 

This must be obviously evident for something like a 4th seat bidding problem where opening is a statement that "we rate to go plus on this board." Surely the skill level of your opponents and their ability to guage a competitive auction and their ability to defend or declare correctly relative to your ability must be factored into whether you rate to go plus.

Statements such as: "The opps are so bad that this game is now greater than 50% (or whatever your cut-off is) therefore we should bid it" <- I agree

 

Statements such as: "Even though bidding game is the percentage call, our opps at the other table are so bad, they probably won't find it therefore we don't need to risk bidding it" <- I disagree

OK I also agree. Did not mean the second statement.

[brianshark]

I didn't think you did. I was just clarifying where I stood. I felt I went a bit astray earlier.

 

Regarding the example hands, they originally had 11 cards each! But I thought I addedd a third club and a third spade to each. :)

 

I would open xxx AQJxxx x Axx and I would probably pass Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJx. I might open the second but for sure the first hand is better, and I can think of much more extreme examples.

[bill1157]

I didn't think you did. I was just clarifying where I stood. I felt I went a bit astray earlier.

 

Regarding the example hands, they originally had 11 cards each! But I thought I addedd a third club and a third spade to each. :)

 

I would open xxx AQJxxx x Axx and I would probably pass Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJx. I might open the second but for sure the first hand is better, and I can think of much more extreme examples.

"I would open xxx AQJxxx x Axx and I would probably pass Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJx. I might open the second but for sure the first hand is better, and I can think of much more extreme examples."

 

Yes an extreme example would probably be the hand that originated the whole discussion. If that can be opened 4th seat, i cant see the problem with opening Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJx in any other seat!