Open 1D or pass in 4th hand?

[jtfanclub]

Their expected number of ♠'s is 10/3. ♥'s 10/3. ♦'s 9/3. ♣'s 10/3.

IOW, a flat hand like yours.

That simply isn't correct. The fact that your hand is flat does not mean that your partner's hand will be flat. It increases the odds, but only slightly.

[pclayton]

Foo, I'm sorry but you have lost any remaining credibility you had with me. You constantly challenge the better players with minority viewpoints in a vain attempt to appear intelligent. Frankly I think you are just contrarian by nature, and I'd like to believe you really wouldn't take a lot of the actions you espouse at the table.

 

You are correct, BBF is a teaching site. I hope the newer players recognize that you aren't teaching anything useful and that they should disregard your posts.

 

If you want to float some ideas that aren't mainstream as 'something to consider', I want to encourage that. But to blather on how opening this is unsound, when so many great players are saying it isn't is ludicrous.

[jdonn]

Foo, free advice. You bring this on yourself by responding to EVERY POST that disagrees with yours! If you want to avoid this sort of treatment, my recomendation is you post your opinion once, then only post again in the thread if:

 

- Someone quotes your post or otherwise directly replies to it.

- Someone asks you a question.

- You have a NEW and UNRELATED point to make based on someone elses post.

 

I mean look at mine as an example, I just post my opinion, not in relation to anything you said, and you feel the need to dispute it despite your opinion having been stated several times already, and in doing so you offer nothing new except some passing comment implying only those crazy juniors would be brash enough to open a balanced 12 count. You quit doing that sort of thing and I guarantee everyone's problems with you will go away...

[han]

Opening a balanced 12-count in 4th seat is a mine field waiting to explode! :blink:

[foo]

josh, han, etc

 

This is =IMPs= folks, not MPs.

 

You can not both tell people that it is normal to open hands like JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx in 1st or 2nd and at the same time tell them it is "wtp" to open in 4th with hands like the OP Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx and in good conscience call it good Bridge advice.

 

If GOP's initial pass denies hands as weak as JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx WTH do you think they rate to have over there?

 

IMPs is not about "playing the odds" to play partscores. That's =MPs=. IMPs is about long term expectations and about not missing games or slams.

 

There is just about zero chance that a pair playing the sort of Light Initial Action you folks advocate as "normal" is going to miss a game or slam by passing out Qxx=Axx=AQxx=xxx in 4th.

 

OTOH, there is a fairly decent chance that a 1♦ opening could get you into trouble. IOW, I disagree with Trinidad's expectation analysis.

 

I'm trying to put together some decent results to shed some more objective light on the topic.

 

As for the Ad Hominem stuff, this is not a popularity contest. I really do not give a darn about the mutual admiration society in some cliques around here. I care about giving developing players good advice and learning things myself.

 

All anyone is going to learn from advice as aggressive as what I'm objecting to is how to get bad results in IMP events and how to lose a lot of $$$ when playing for stakes.

 

As I said, stiffen up the requirements for 1st and 2nd openings by enough and I have no problem with calling the OP hand a 4th seat opening playing NA Standard or 2/1 GF. But not for the style that is being advocated as mainstream around here by many.

[Codo]

As for the Ad Hominem stuff, this is not a popularity contest. I really do not give a darn about the mutual admiration society in some cliques around here. I care about giving developing players good advice and learning things myself.

I am surely not in a "clique" with Josh or Han.

 

But if you care about giving "good device", you better stop posting, because your devices are no good at all.

 

There is nothing wrong in having a different point of view, but it should be a sane view.

 

Look for example at Ken Rexfords advices: They are more often then not far away from the mainstream.

But he is a very respected member of this community, even if many people often disagree with his ideas.

 

But there is a difference in the way he puts his idea and the way you try it.

And there is a difference in the value of the advices too. His advices have a big value, even if you don't share his views.

 

In the given hand it is simply more often wrong to pass this hand then to open it. (No question that this is a close descission, but still ALL open it.) . At least all bridge players opens it, just a lone wolf in the dark still howls.

 

You don´t just win imps for slams and games. I will win 3 imps any time I make my 2 Heart on the given hand and you pass it out.

[skjaeran]

IMPs is not about "playing the odds" to play partscores. That's =MPs=. IMPs is about long term expectations and about not missing games or slams.

Excuse me, but you're not entirely correct here.

 

If you sit down and do a proper analysis of IMP games, I'm pretty sure you'll find out that those teams that consistently do best at the partscore level are those teams who overall do well.

 

It's true you can't compare MP and IMP here. But if you consistently manage to go plus on the partscore deals, you're going to be a huge winner overall. Dont' care if your score is +90, +110, +120 or whatever, +50 is also a good score compared to -110. If you can score +110 in a 3m contract you don't care at all if +120 or +140 is possible. If your teammates have a plus score, you win the board with 4-6 IMPs.

 

Because of frequency, you'll add up enough IMPs at the partscore level to be able to stand missing a very tough slam. Almost anyone can bid the games you should reach at IMPs, and most of the slams.

 

The OP hand is mainly about competing for the partscore. Game is just possible, but not a big issue when deciding to open the hand or pass.

[foo]

IMPs is not about "playing the odds" to play partscores.  That's =MPs=.  IMPs is about long term expectations and about not missing games or slams.

Excuse me, but you're not entirely correct here.

 

If you sit down and do a proper analysis of IMP games, I'm pretty sure you'll find out that those teams that consistently do best at the partscore level are those teams who overall do well.

 

It's true you can't compare MP and IMP here. But if you consistently manage to go plus on the partscore deals, you're going to be a huge winner overall. Dont' care if your score is +90, +110, +120 or whatever, +50 is also a good score compared to -110. If you can score +110 in a 3m contract you don't care at all if +120 or +140 is possible. If your teammates have a plus score, you win the board with 4-6 IMPs.

 

Because of frequency, you'll add up enough IMPs at the partscore level to be able to stand missing a very tough slam. Almost anyone can bid the games you should reach at IMPs, and most of the slams.

 

The OP hand is mainly about competing for the partscore. Game is just possible, but not a big issue when deciding to open the hand or pass.

If you consider JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx a "normal" opening bid in 1st or 2nd as many advocate around here, your pard rates to have real garbage in their hand when they pass in 1st or 2nd, and therefore opening 8 loser 4333 12 counts in 4th rates to go minus often enough and by large enough margins that the overall long term expectation is negative.

 

That makes it bad IMPs strategy to open the OP hand under such circumstances.

 

The OP board had a single dummy expectation of ~6.9 tricks with ♥'s as trump.

IOW, you did not rate to make even 2♥

The OP went down in 1N.

 

I'm fairly sure that if you play an initial action style as aggressive as that many around here advocate and consider 8+ loser 4333 12 counts in 4th normal openings your long term IMP expectation is negative.

 

I am trying to put together some math + a sim to prove it.

[jdonn]

If you consider JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx a "normal" opening bid in 1st or 2nd as many advocate around here....

FOO!!!!! You have given the same example hand in just about every post. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! You are just repeating the exact same post over, and over, and over, and over. If you have nothing new to post then don't post! This ad hominim stuff is baloney, you bring this on yourself.

 

Now on top of that, NO ONE has advocated opening the hand in your example. It is an example I used in a different thread about whether to open JT KQJxx KJxx xx. My point was essentially that the hand in the thread is a lot better than other hands of the same shape and strength, such as [the one you keep using]. I never said I would open it, so your "many" is "me" and your "advocate" is "doesn't advocate". Other than that, the post you have made many times already is very convincing. Pleeeeease learn how to post or don't post.

[foo]

Bullshit. You called JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx a reasonable opening.

TBF, You also called JT=KQJxx=KJxx=xx a better opening.

 

Both are basically Light Initial Action openings that are aggressive even by Rule of 20 standards.

 

But nonetheless, you and others are advocating them as "normal".

The above also conform to the opening standards given by the OP.

 

Fine. A tad too rich for my taste, but style can vary.

 

My problem is that anyone in the fan club you and others have gone out of your way to create around here is going to read =all= your posts and assume the aggregate represents your overall systemic advice.

 

...and openings such as above do not belong in the same style as 4th seat openings on 8+ loser 12 count 4333's.

 

Now since you seem to think there's not enough information being posted here; how about you give your expert advice as to just how sound 1st and 2nd seat passes have to be to make a 4th seat IMP opening on 8+ losers 12 count 4333's a good proposition?

 

I'll even start you off. How about if an opening promises 12+ HCP, 2+ QT, and 7- losers, then the OP 4th hand is an automatic opening?

 

Or do you feel it safe to be even more aggressive? If so, by how much? Rule of 20 including 2+ QT? Something else as criteria?

[jdonn]

Bullshit.  You called JT=QJxxx=KJxx=Kx a reasonable opening.

I see nothing wrong with opening the south hand. All the honors are in the long suits. It's a better hand than JT QJxxx KJxx Kx or something.

That is the one and only time I mentioned that hand. I never said I would open it, in fact I quite clearly implied that I wouldn't, and indeed I wouldn't. It has since been mentioned on the forums probably about 8 more times, all by you, all lying about what I said about it to begin with. Care to continue to make a jackass of yourself? Are you seriously trying to argue with me about what I said, which is there for everyone to see you are completely wrong?

 

There is no fan club by the way. As far as I know the fan club consists of everyone but you on the forums wanting you to leave.

[han]

Glad to see that you are enjoying yourself Josh.

[jmc]

Partner and I play precision with a 10-13 NT and open all 11's plus Rule of 20 hands. I have been happily passing out 4th seat 12 counts under these conditions for the last 3 years. We are way ahead in the mp area.

[foo]

Partner and I play precision with a 10-13 NT and open all 11's plus Rule of 20 hands. I have been happily passing out 4th seat 12 counts under these conditions for the last 3 years. We are way ahead in the mp area.

This I 100% believe.

[foo]

Josh and others advocating 8+ loser 4333 12 counts as "wtp" 3rd and 4th seat openings:

 

How about you give your expert advice as to just how sound 1st and 2nd seat passes have to be to make a 4th seat IMP opening on 8+ losers 12 count 4333's a good proposition?

 

I'll even start you off. How about if a 1st oir 2nd seat opening promises 12+ HCP, 2+ QT, and 7- losers, then the OP 4th hand is an automatic opening?

 

Or do you feel it safe to be even more aggressive? If so, by how much? Rule of 20 including 2+ QT? Something else as criteria?

 

..and please feel free to note if there is a difference IYHO as to standards here @ IMPs vs @ MPs.

[effervesce]

Josh and others advocating 8+ loser 4333 12 counts as "wtp" 3rd and 4th seat openings:

 

How about you give your expert advice as to just how sound 1st and 2nd seat passes have to be to make a 4th seat IMP opening on 8+ losers 12 count 4333's a good proposition?

 

I'll even start you off. How about if a 1st oir 2nd seat opening promises 12+ HCP, 2+ QT, and 7- losers, then the OP 4th hand is an automatic opening?

 

Or do you feel it safe to be even more aggressive? If so, by how much? Rule of 20 including 2+ QT? Something else as criteria?

 

..and please feel free to note if there is a difference IYHO as to standards here @ IMPs vs @ MPs.

Points schmoints, losers schumoozers. How many losers does Axx Axx Axx Axxx have? 8 losers? I'm sure you agree that this hand is worth an opening bid.

 

What about AKQJxx xx xxx xx? Worth an opening bid in 4th seat? Yes, because you expect to go plus whenever you open the hand.

 

If you don't have any bidding judgement and want a 'rule' because you dont know how to evaluate your hand otherwise, how about the rule of 15? Add HCP plus the number of spades. 15 or more = open.

[skjaeran]

Josh and others advocating 8+ loser 4333 12 counts as "wtp" 3rd and 4th seat openings:

Why are you adding in 3rd seat here? The thread discuss 4th seat only.

 

3rd seat and 4th seat are very different positions with totally different tactics.

[Trinidad]

Partner and I play precision with a 10-13 NT and open all 11's plus Rule of 20 hands.  I have been happily passing out 4th seat 12 counts under these conditions for the last 3 years.  We are way ahead in the mp area.

This I 100% believe.

This I believe too. However, it has very little to do with the discussion at hand. The original poster plays conservative 2nd seat openings. He wrote:

Partner will open most 12 pts and some 11 pts with 5 card Major.

This opening is about 2HCP more conservative than jmc's who plays a 10-13 NT in 2nd seat.

 

To compensate for that, I have made the original hand about 2 HCPs stronger to get: Qxx=AQx=AQxx=xxx (or Kxx=AJx=AQxx=xxx or Qxx=Axx=AKxx=Jxx). I would be amazed if jmc would pass in fourth seat with that hand.

 

Rik

[foo]

The original poster plays conservative 2nd seat openings. He wrote:

Partner will open most 12 pts and some 11 pts with 5 card Major.

This opening is about 2HCP more conservative than jmc's who plays a 10-13 NT in 2nd seat.

 

To compensate for that, I have made the original hand about 2 HCPs stronger to get: Qxx=AQx=AQxx=xxx (or Kxx=AJx=AQxx=xxx or Qxx=Axx=AKxx=Jxx). I would be amazed if jmc would pass in fourth seat with that hand.

 

Rik

Wow. Opening most 12 counts and some 11 counts is considered "conservative" in 2nd seat now.

 

You do realize this is basically a Major suit biased Rule of 20?

12HCP + 44 in two longest suits => open.

11HCP + 5cM + 4card => open.

Now we do not know what "most 12" and "some 11" mean, but there are notably no opening requirements regarding Controls or Quick Tricks in the OP.

 

I also would be amazed if anyone playing a Natural system would pass a 14 count with A's in in any seat. So let's agree they are not germane to this discussion?

 

4333's have the lowest trick taking potential of any hand type in Bridge.

This argues for caution when dealing with them.

 

Bridge remains the game of Shape and Controls (A's and K's) regardless of whatever fad is presently in vogue. ...and when you do not have any shape, you need more hard values.

 

Given that OP looks to rarely be passing a 12 count and only ~50% of the 11 counts, we should probably assume

1= they have 11- if flat

2= they have 10- if long in the Majors and 11- if short in the Majors.

3= they rate strongly to be short in the Majors.

 

For all practical intent and purpose, we can stop worrying about missing a Game if holding a flat 12 or 13 count here.

 

That leaves the partscore battle. Logic says we should not open if

a= They rate to own the hand or

 

b= They rate to be able to outcompete us on boards that are "in the LOTT zone".

(boards where the HCP are split 20-20 or no worse than ~22-18)

 

If we are holding a 4333 12 count under these circumstances, I think we rate to have less HCP than Them and to have less Major suit cards than Them.

 

...and that means the best chance for a good score is to pass the hand out.

[Guest Jlall]

so many words...

[georgeac]

i would also open this hand in any seat as well. i am also a junior :)

[ArtK78]

So much discussion of a hand that is, essentially, a borderline pass or opening bid in 4th seat.

 

If your partnership opens more frequently than average in 2nd seat, then this is a wtp pass.

 

If your partnership opens less frequently than average in 2nd seat, then this is a wtp opening bid.

 

If your partnership opens about average in second seat, then this is borderline.

 

As for the rest of the discussion, perhaps a new thread can be opened up titled "Why I hate Foo" or "Why Foo hates you."

[neilkaz]

So much discussion of a hand that is, essentially, a borderline pass or opening bid in 4th seat.

 

If your partnership opens more frequently than average in 2nd seat, then this is a wtp pass.

 

If your partnership opens less frequently than average in 2nd seat, then this is a wtp opening bid.

 

If your partnership opens about average in second seat, then this is borderline.

 

As for the rest of the discussion, perhaps a new thread can be opened up titled "Why I hate Foo" or "Why Foo hates you."

Spot on, Art.

 

I'll chime in and say that while I hate 4333 I lean toward opening (average 2nd seat openings from PD) due to 2.5 QT, a comfortable pass of anything PD bids, and the desire for a ♦ lead if we defend.

[fromageGB]

A new point , if I may.

 

One consideration is does the partnership have a weak 2 agreement that will open a major or a multi with a 5 card suit? If it does, then that seriously moves this borderline 4th seat hand towards a pass. This is one of the hidden benefits of weak2s, they make other decisions easier. My partnerships bid 2M on a 5 card suit 8-11 and a multi 2D with 6 cards 6-10, so for me this is a pass out hand.

 

(Incidentally, on the given partner's hand, those Jacks would be downgraded to result in a pass.)