Third hand opening

[bluerib]

Sometimes, it pays to open light at third position. In the following deal, as South, I opened 1♥, then passed partner's response of 1♠. We made 1♠ for a top score, while, the opponents can even make 3NT.[hv=pc=n&s=sq92ha876dat9c432&w=sk7hqj53dj5ckq875&n=sjt63hk2dk842cj96&e=sa854ht94dq763cat&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1hp1sppp]399|300[/hv]

[mgoetze]

West has a pretty obvious balancing 2♣.

[Jinksy]

Sometimes, it pays to play against weak opponents. 1♠ looks like it would have been one off on a forcing heart defence, whereas had you passed it probably would have ended the hand.

[wank]

Sometimes, it pays to play against weak opponents. 1♠ looks like it would have been one off on a forcing heart defence, whereas had you passed it probably would have ended the hand.

 

declarer wants to be forced - he can reverse the dummy and make ak, ak, 1 spade in south and 2 ruffs in north (2 trumps in south and 1 ruff if east overruffs). the defence need to lead trumps at t1 or after the ace of clubs.

 

but yes 1 heart is a bad bid with a poor suit and so much defence and west had a clear protection.

[Finch]

I can't see how EW can make 3NT on either a spade or a diamond lead. On a club or a heart lead North seems to be squeezed on the fifth round of clubs but I haven't thought it through carefully.

 

I think I agree with the 'sometimes it pays to play against weak opponents' sentiment

[MrAce]

West has a pretty obvious balancing 2♣.

 

1 NT balancing better for me.

[rmnka447]

I also think West has to balance on this auction. South has passed the 1 ♠ response which certainly makes you suspect a "light" opener.

 

2 ♣ would be my choice. The pass of 1 ♠ certainly implies some ♠ tolerance, so letting them play 1 ♠ isn't likely to get a good result. ♣ are something I'd like to mention, at least lead directing if nothing else.

 

It's OK to open light in third seat. This time it worked out, but I agree with wank this wasn't a good hand to do it on.

[Zelandakh]

1 NT balancing better for me.

Is 1NT natural for you rather than some minor-oriented hand? I suspect most Easts would advance diamonds over 1NT, which is likely to lead to difficulties.

[MrAce]

Is 1NT natural for you rather than some minor-oriented hand? I suspect most Easts would advance diamonds over 1NT, which is likely to lead to difficulties.

 

Natural, of course. With a minor oriented hand i can bid my minor. With both minors i have an easy take out double. I do not see why any sane east will advance diamonds on natural 1 NT.

[Zelandakh]

Natural, of course. With a minor oriented hand i can bid my minor. With both minors i have an easy take out double. I do not see why any sane east will advance diamonds on natural 1 NT.

Without having discussed it, I would be more than a little worried that double would be taken as something like a 2344 12-14 count, with 1NT showing a weaker hand with 4-5ish in the minors. A natural 1NT also strikes me as rather risky given that the remaining points might be sitting 11-4-13. Naturally we can choose to run to 2♣ if a double comes but that is surely riskier than a direct 2♣ even when it is right.

[MrAce]

Without having discussed it, I would be more than a little worried that double would be taken as something like a 2344 12-14 count, with 1NT showing a weaker hand with 4-5ish in the minors. A natural 1NT also strikes me as rather risky given that the remaining points might be sitting 11-4-13. Naturally we can choose to run to 2♣ if a double comes but that is surely riskier than a direct 2♣ even when it is right.

 

 

Without having discussed? Balancing with 1 NT? I am surprised suggesting that this NT would be 5-4 minors and dbl would be only 4-4 minors, instead of a natural NT, when there is no discussion, comes from you. Why would anyone ever disable themselves from balancing with a natural NT at MP, just to make sure pd knows when he has 4-4 or 5-4 minors one day when it comes. I maybe old fashioned but sparing a NT bid in a balancing position for something other than natural seems wrong to me.

[Tramticket]

"Sometimes it pays to play against weak opponents".

 

The weaker Wests would have over-called 2C on the first round.

The stronger Wests would over-call 2C on the second round.

NOBODY is passing twice with the West cards.

[rhm]

Without having discussed it, I would be more than a little worried that double would be taken as something like a 2344 12-14 count, with 1NT showing a weaker hand with 4-5ish in the minors. A natural 1NT also strikes me as rather risky given that the remaining points might be sitting 11-4-13. Naturally we can choose to run to 2♣ if a double comes but that is surely riskier than a direct 2♣ even when it is right.

Without having discussed? Balancing with 1 NT? I am surprised suggesting that this NT would be 5-4 minors and dbl would be only 4-4 minors, instead of a natural NT, when there is no discussion, comes from you. Why would anyone ever disable themselves from balancing with a natural NT at MP, just to make sure pd knows when he has 4-4 or 5-4 minors one day when it comes. I maybe old fashioned but sparing a NT bid in a balancing position for something other than natural seems wrong to me.

This happens to players, who can never have enough agreements and conventions played.

Suddenly every bid gets suspect.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

This happens to players, who can never have enough agreements and conventions played.

Suddenly every bid gets suspect.

We are not talking about players with complicated agreements here, only extended UNT is needed. The most common way of playing that is for a 1NT or 2NT call after an initial pass to be artificial. I have plenty of sympathy with the idea that a protective 2nd round 1NT should be an exception, in the same way that a protective jump to 2NT on the first round is natural, but I would not be willing to bet the house on it when a good alternative is available.