Do you open?

[dellache]

1NT... weak.

One of the downsides of weak NT in 4th seat seems to be that you can't play 1M anymore. You also are opening 1N less frequently.

 

Of course on the plus side sometimes you will get to play 1N when they could have found a making 2 level partscore otherwise.

I don't really open 1NT less frequently. In 4th the probabilities of the different BAL ranges (it of course depends on oppos style in 3rd -- this is probably not true against Meckwell for instance) :

12-14 : 31%

13-15 : 32%

14-16 : 31%

15-17 : 28%

 

So if you consider frequency only, it doesn't matter.

I'm not going to advocate for weak notrump in 4th (we play it any vul, any pos). We are happy with this style. You get ups and downs. 1NT is difficult to defend, and you have lot of inferences from the P-P-P sequence when you declare. Also when you play 2M in the 5cM of responder, you often make. Also sometimes 1NT is a good sac against their 2M contract (even at this vul).

 

OTOH, yes, sometimes we would love to bid 1m (P) 1M end. You cannot have your cake and eat it <_<

[skjaeran]

I'm passing more often in 4th seat than most I know, and my impression is that I'm winning on those decisions.

 

But this is an opener for me. 1♣ is clear.

[fred]

Suppose you open 1C (I would) and partner responds 1S.

 

Would you Pass or bid 1NT? Why?

 

If you said you would Pass a 1S response, would you also Pass a 1H response?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Suppose you open 1C (I would) and partner responds 1S.

 

Would you Pass or bid 1NT? Why?

 

If you said you would Pass a 1S response, would you also Pass a 1H response?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I would pass either, because I fear partner inviting game if I take another call. The main reason to bid again is it makes it more likely you can keep the opponents out for the entire auction, but I have no especially strong desire to do that since I still think we have the most strength and after I pass our hands are better described than theirs.

[Jlall]

Suppose you open 1C (I would) and partner responds 1S.

 

Would you Pass or bid 1NT? Why?

 

If you said you would Pass a 1S response, would you also Pass a 1H response?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Definitely pass 1S imo, you have good spades so a 4-3 should be fine, and there is less of a need to bid 1N in order to shut them out (compared to if we had hearts, and they might find a spade fit and be able to compete to 2S).

 

Bidding has a lot more merit over 1H since a 4-3 heart fit might suck compared to 1N, and we might let them find spades by passing, but I would still pass just to keep it low.

[gnasher]

Suppose you open 1C (I would) and partner responds 1S.

 

Would you Pass or bid 1NT? Why?

 

If you said you would Pass a 1S response, would you also Pass a 1H response?

I almost never pass partner's response with a hand that I'd have opened in first seat. I don't see why I should make it easy for them to compete, and I don't see why I should unilaterally decide what strain we're playing in. The risk of partner moving isn't that great, and if he does it doesn't have to be bad.

[fred]

Suppose you open 1C (I would) and partner responds 1S.

 

Would you Pass or bid 1NT? Why?

 

If you said you would Pass a 1S response, would you also Pass a 1H response?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Definitely pass 1S imo, you have good spades so a 4-3 should be fine, and there is less of a need to bid 1N in order to shut them out (compared to if we had hearts, and they might find a spade fit and be able to compete to 2S).

 

Bidding has a lot more merit over 1H since a 4-3 heart fit might suck compared to 1N, and we might let them find spades by passing, but I would still pass just to keep it low.

Totally reasonable answer IMO. My feelings are close to the same, but I mildly prefer to rebid 1NT over a 1H response.

 

I thought these were interesting questions to ask, because it seems weird to me that rebid considerations in an unobstructed auction when you hold a balanced 12-count should factor into the decision as to whether or not you open in 4th position.

 

But with this particular balanced 12-count I would feel rather sick about both of the only two choices in the (rather favorable) circumstance of the auction continuing 1C-P-1H-P-?.

 

A 1S response wouldn't exactly make me feel warm all over either. While passing clearly seems right on the basis of 1S rating to be a better contract than 1NT and also because Pass lets partner in on the fact that I have a crappy hand that rates to play reasonably in spades, passing could be really awful from a tactical point of view, especially at this vulnerability.

 

All of this has given me some cause to think that the decision as to whether or not to open 1C is closer than I originally thought.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[aguahombre]

I have made my opinion about passing 1/1 fairly clear on at least two other threads, so even though I might have found the hand I would consider passing a 1S response, it would be too painful to do it. Die with policy, in my twilight years.

[dburn]

Suppose you open 1C (I would) and partner responds 1S.

 

Would you Pass or bid 1NT? Why?

 

If you said you would Pass a 1S response, would you also Pass a 1H response?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Would pass a response in either major. True, passing 1♥ may not work so well if the opponents [a] have and find an eight-card spade fit, or if 1♥ turns out to be a worse contract than 1NT would have done. But sometimes partner has five cards in his major (and sometimes he may suppress a weak four-card major to respond 1NT, because I might open a decent four-card major myself in fourth position).

 

Would never (well, hardly ever) rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's major having opened 1m in fourth, so with five of his major, partner can correct to two of it if he would have transferred over a weak no trump. Moreover, passing one of his major almost always shows precisely three or an awful hand with four, so if he has five hearts he does not have to pass if dealer reopens with 1♠.

 

Have monitored my results at both IMPs and matchpoints from passing out hands in fourth position: currently running at about 40% and -2.5 IMPs per board over a number of years. Indeed, only a couple of days ago I threw in ♠Q ♥Jxxx ♦AKx ♣1097xx for almost a complete bottom (partner had some junky balanced 11 with ♣KJx, the cards lay well for us and badly for them, and we could make 110 in clubs or 120 in notrump while they could make 1♠ with double-dummy play).

 

To add to my remark that a lot depends on your opponents' style, I would say that in much of Europe, dealer will not have a shapely hand with a five-card major, because he would have opened two of that major to show a weakish 5-4 or 5-5 hand type. Hence he is less likely to overcall immediately than he would be in, say, the United States.

[gnasher]

I thought these were interesting questions to ask, because it seems weird to me that rebid considerations in an unobstructed auction when you hold a balanced 12-count should factor into the decision as to whether or not you open in 4th position.

 

But with this particular balanced 12-count I would feel rather sick about both of the only two choices in the (rather favorable) circumstance of the auction continuing 1C-P-1H-P-?.

 

A 1S response wouldn't exactly make me feel warm all over either. While passing clearly seems right on the basis of 1S rating to be a better contract than 1NT and also because Pass lets partner in on the fact that I have a crappy hand that rates to play reasonably in spades, passing could be really awful from a tactical point of view, especially at this vulnerability.

 

All of this has given me some cause to think that the decision as to whether or not to open 1C is closer than I originally thought.

Do you have your cart and your horse in the right order?

 

As I understand it, your reasoning is:

- 1♣-1♥-1NT shows a better hand than this

- 1♣-1♥-pass lets the opponents in cheaply

- Either of those is bad, so maybe I shouldn't open.

 

Instead, how about this:

- I want to open this hand, because it's more likely to be our hand than not

- I don't want to bid 1♣-1♥-pass

- Therefore 1♣-1♥-1NT includes this hand, and partner should bid accordingly.

[P_Marlowe]

Why not?

 

Passing is ok, but this would be a very unusual style,but as long as it is your partnership agreement, it would be ok, but if you have to ask, it is certainly

not an agreement.

 

And I plan to make a 1NT rebid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[rhm]

TBH I think everyone goes through that phase where they start downgrading too often, especially with regards to opening with soft 12s and game forcing opposite an opener with a 12 count. You can always find negatives about a hand and focus on them.

 

When it comes down to it, you aren't going to win by downgrading often. Look for reasons not to downgrade. If you can find none, and then find many reasons to downgrade, it's probably reasonable to do so.

 

So what about this hand? We have a GOOD 5 card suit that we are going to get to open. Kx and QJx while not great are fine, the Q and J are worth more when together. A king is a good defensive value if partner starts doubling, and is a prime card. Those are lots of reasons not to downgrade.

 

Sure we have no aces, and we have a stranded jack, but in my experience winning players are not downgrading much. They're getting in there, they're getting to close contracts, and they're winning.

 

So don't downgrade this 12 count with 3 spades!

Frankly I am not impressed by these arguments and I find them circular

 

For the sake of the argument let us assume we can categorize 12 HCP hands into

 

-average,

- (significantly) below average and

- (significantly) above average.

 

Now your argument goes

 

"When it comes down to it, you aren't going to win by downgrading often"

 

Why? Essentially you treat below average hands the same as average hands, but presumable you will upgrade above average hands.

What it boils down to is that you either overbid below averages or underbid average hands.

Of course you can get lucky by doing so but the odds are not with you.

 

Note, that this has nothing to do with the question whether an aggressive or conservative style is more successful or whether the hand in question should be opened or not.

It has to do whether hand evaluation is a sensible practice in the first place and whether you should correct point count or not. But if not, why upgrade then?

Something is illogical here

 

For me the above hand is clearly below average not worth its 12HCP.

The reason is simple: No first round controls and no intermediates.

 

Nevertheless I would open the bidding in 4th position, but only just and because I am aggressive in fourth position. I would not open in first or second position.

 

"Kx and QJx while not great are fine, the Q and J are worth more when together"

 

Well let us assume you have 12 HCP

 

If you give one player 3 aces and an opponent 4 kings and deal the remainder randomly, the player with the 4 Kings will not have much of a chance in the long run against the player with 3 aces .

If you give him instead of 4 kings 4 quacks (qj) it gets even worse for him.

But if you distribute 12 HCP over quacks they necessarily have to be all together.

So this "togetherness" argument tends to apply whenever you have lower honors and since you need more of them to get to the same point count people claim

He my hand is not so bad, the queens and jack work together.

Another circular argument.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Hanoi5]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sqj3hj75dk2ckq754&w=sat54hak9dt83c932&e=s976h632da9764cj8&s=sk82hqt84dqj5cat6]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

This is the complete hand. My partner didn't want to open his 12-count either so we got 0 instead of the 600 that everyone got in 3NT. How would you divide the fault here?

[nick_s]

K&R hand evaluator gives 10.3 for the N hand.

 

(http://www.jeffgoldsmith.org/cgi-bin/knr.cgi?hand=QJx+Jxx+Kx+KQxxx)

 

Personally, I'm still on the fence about whether it's a good idea to open the hand, and have enjoyed reading the comments.

 

The S hand is a clear 1NT (12-14) opener for me though.

[dellache]

Dealer: East Vul: N/S Scoring: IMP

♠ QJ3 ♥ J75 ♦ K2 ♣ KQ754 ♠ AT54 ♥ AK9 ♦ T83 ♣ 932 ♠ 976 ♥ 632 ♦ A9764 ♣ J8 ♠ K82 ♥ QT84 ♦ QJ5 ♣ AT6

 

This is the complete hand. My partner didn't want to open his 12-count either so we got 0 instead of the 600 that everyone got in 3NT. How would you divide the fault here?

I usually hate opening 12-HCP 4333 hands with 1♣, bud I would certainly have made an exception here, because of the 2 Tens and useful quacks. Even if North opens in 4th position, I don't see how you reach 3NT now, unless south goes crazy and bids 3NT himself (not really consistent with original Pass).

 

So I would give 75% blame to south, and 25% to bad luck (hand fit perfectly).

 

I would have bid 1NT(south, 12-14) 3NT.

If playing strong NT, 1♣ 2♣(F1), 2NT (nat NF) 3NT.

[andy_h]

Suppose you open 1C (I would) and partner responds 1S.

 

Would you Pass or bid 1NT? Why?

 

If you said you would Pass a 1S response, would you also Pass a 1H response?

I almost never pass partner's response with a hand that I'd have opened in first seat. I don't see why I should make it easy for them to compete, and I don't see why I should unilaterally decide what strain we're playing in. The risk of partner moving isn't that great, and if he does it doesn't have to be bad.

I used to think that as well that I didn't want to make it easy for the opponents to compete, until I was that opponent and balanced into where the responder, my LHO, had a decent hand. I don't think it's explicitly "unilaterally deciding which strain we're playing in" but more towards the fact that by passing it could be our best contract and that we don't want to excite partner too much. Partner's limited so if the opps DO balance our pass would have told him some information. If they don't, I'm happy for us to be playing at the 1level than if partner had invited over 1NT.

 

But otherwise I tend to agree that I don't generally pass a hand that I'd have opened in 1st/2nd seat, with the exception that if my 3rd/4th seat openings are a bit below average than normal openings (like this one, 12 bal count with stray honours) then I'd pass if I have 3 card support.

[andy_h]

This is the complete hand. My partner didn't want to open his 12-count either so we got 0 instead of the 600 that everyone got in 3NT. How would you divide the fault here?

South has an opening for sure. By passing bal 12 counts in the 2nd seat is just giving the 3rd seat a free shot (if we pass and let LHO open at w/r, and RHO responds, we will never be in the auction again) and if you open with the South's hand you take away tremendous pressure off partner if he has a borderline opening. Or maybe he just has a 9 or 10 count and this hand gets passed out netting -3 or -4imps.

 

Besides, South has two tens and 3-4 in the majors...what's not to like?

 

Edit: Also, I would have opened with West's hand too. Then good luck to N/S getting to game after p-p-1C-p-1D-p-p and North now has a problem with 3-3majors, suspect ♦K and partner passing 2nd seat and again over East's 1♦ response.

[rhm]

I would not have taken either decision. Nor would I pass with the West hand in third position, also conservative.

I doubt that you would have reached 3NT if only North had opened the hand in fourth position.

The two tens in South hand makes pass too conservative, but neither ten was really instrumental for the success of 3NT, though the ♥10 is nice.

 

I would distribute the share 30-70 between N-S, but neither did something terrible.

It was a bit unlucky.

It is fairly rare that opponents have 4 top tricks in 3NT and no chance of developing a fifth trick in time.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[jdonn]

It is fairly rare that opponents have 4 top tricks in 3NT and no chance of developing a fifth trick in time.

Well, maybe. Suppose a spade lead. We can't play a spade (west would duck then they have 5 tricks) or a heart (west would win and duck a spade, same thing) so suppose we play on diamonds. However east counters us by ducking. If we play either major we are in the same position as before, but if we play another diamond east ducks that as well and then the opponents have 5 (well 6) tricks ready to run and we have just 8.

 

So, supposing we play 5 rounds of clubs first. This is the position after 4 rounds:

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq3hj75dk2c4&w=sat5hakdt83c&e=s97h63da976c&s=sk8hqt8dqj5c]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

On the 5th club, east and south throw hearts, and west is squeezed in a strange way. Throwing the A of spades or A or K of hearts obviously gives up. Throwing a low diamond lets us play on diamonds. Throwing a low spade lets us play on spades then diamonds. The opponents can't get anything other than their 4 top tricks.

 

But wait, if west throws a diamond and east ducks one diamond, wins the next, and plays a spade, west can keep us out of our hand as he ducks a spade. So I think (?) we can't make it on best defense.

 

In any case I agree south is more to blame. He has quite a clear opening bid! This is not 1965 any more.

[fred]

I thought these were interesting questions to ask, because it seems weird to me that rebid considerations in an unobstructed auction when you hold a balanced 12-count should factor into the decision as to whether or not you open in 4th position.

 

But with this particular balanced 12-count I would feel rather sick about both of the only two choices in the (rather favorable) circumstance of the auction continuing 1C-P-1H-P-?.

 

A 1S response wouldn't exactly make me feel warm all over either. While passing clearly seems right on the basis of 1S rating to be a better contract than 1NT and also because Pass lets partner in on the fact that I have a crappy hand that rates to play reasonably in spades, passing could be really awful from a tactical point of view, especially at this vulnerability.

 

All of this has given me some cause to think that the decision as to whether or not to open 1C is closer than I originally thought.

Do you have your cart and your horse in the right order?

 

As I understand it, your reasoning is:

- 1♣-1♥-1NT shows a better hand than this

- 1♣-1♥-pass lets the opponents in cheaply

- Either of those is bad, so maybe I shouldn't open.

 

Instead, how about this:

- I want to open this hand, because it's more likely to be our hand than not

- I don't want to bid 1♣-1♥-pass

- Therefore 1♣-1♥-1NT includes this hand, and partner should bid accordingly.

Not sure about the proper ordering of carts and horses here, but I don't think you characterized my reasoning correctly (perhaps intentionally in the interest of streamlining it and perhaps I did not do a good job of explaining my reasoning). More important, I disagree with this:

 

- I want to open this hand, because it's more likely to be our hand than not

 

First of all, it doesn't matter if it is our hand or not unless you actually end up getting a plus score. The concept of "our hand" relates to double dummy. How the bidding and play actually go does not.

 

Also, as DBurn correctly points out, the magnitudes of the possible plus (or minus) scores you actually achieve and the relative frequency of various outcomes that lead to these scores is important at IMPs.

 

The "magnitude" aspect may not count for much here (since large plus or minus scores are unlikely) so, in practice, a pure frequency analysis of plus vs. minus may well lead to a good approximation of the winning action with this particular hand. But regardless, DBurn's point is certainly true and this notion is not captured in your reason for why you should open.

 

The right reason to open (ignoring considerations like "state of the match") is that, by doing so, you guesstimate you IMP expectation to be positive.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hatchett]

It is fairly rare that opponents have 4 top tricks in 3NT and no chance of developing a fifth trick in time.

 

 

And indeed this hand is no expection, since a ♠ lead beats 3NT

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sqj3hj75dk2ckq754&w=sat54hak9dt83c932&e=s976h632da9764cj8&s=sk82hqt84dqj5cat6]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

This is the complete hand. My partner didn't want to open his 12-count either so we got 0 instead of the 600 that everyone got in 3NT. How would you divide the fault here?

Clearly you have an agreement for opening only sound hands in 1st and 2nd chair so your partner is at fault as he must act to protect your holding.

[gnasher]

Not sure about the proper ordering of carts and horses here, but I don't think you characterized my reasoning correctly ...

OK, but my point was this:

 

We start by thinking "If we can get to a sensible partscore and play there, it's probably right to open this. However, 1♣-1♥-pass has too great a risk of the opponents outbidding us."

 

From there, as I understand it, you reason "1♣-1♥-1NT is an overbid, so I should consider not opening."

 

Instead, I think one's reasoning should be "1♣-1♥-1NT is the best way for us to meet the objective of playing in a sensible partscore, so unless there's a good reason not to, we should agree that 1♣-1♥-1NT includes hands like this."

[billw55]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sqj3hj75dk2ckq754&w=sat54hak9dt83c932&e=s976h632da9764cj8&s=sk82hqt84dqj5cat6]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

This is the complete hand. My partner didn't want to open his 12-count either so we got 0 instead of the 600 that everyone got in 3NT. How would you divide the fault here?

Two tens and two 8s are worth at least one point, south should definitely open.

[Jlall]

Now your argument goes

 

"When it comes down to it, you aren't going to win by downgrading often"

 

Why?

This seems obvious to me. There is an aspect of bridge that is not bidding, it is called card play. If you are in close contracts all the time then if you have an edge in the card play you will be doing well on those. This is even true if *gasp* double dummy you have a slightly negative expectation in these contracts. There will also be more decisions in the bidding to make, if you create competitive auctions and have superior competitive judgement you will be winning.

 

If you are downgrading often, you are taking yourself out of these situations. Passing with 12 counts (like partner did on this hand), and just looking for reasons to downgrade in general, is not winning bridge. You don't apply pressure in either the bidding or the cardplay if you do it.

 

Look at this hand, both guys passed with 12 counts and there they are. IMO it is not a winning style to look for reasons to downgrade, and nobody who I would consider a winning player downgrades very often, if ever. I mean I'm still waiting for the day meckstroth looks at a 14 count and doesn't open a 14-16 NT because it's too soft. It's never gonna happen. "Winning" bridge to me is applying pressure, and being better than your opponents on the close and marginal hands that can go either way.

 

I know there are many smart people like you who do not understand why one would upgrade more than they downgrade, but there is a reason why this is universal among good players.