Do you come in here?

[mycroft]

My biggest reason to not BIDS in an OBAR situation is "am I going to balance them (in Direct Seat) into a game they won't otherwise bid?" And with opponents that will do that, it's likely that 2♠ makes 140, and 4♠ makes 420.

 

My next biggest reason is that -200 is the Matchpoint Death Score, and a gooder field will try it more often. But I play against National level players, and even they so rarely do so that it's worth it to try more often than not. OTOH, those National level players are more likely to make 140 in 2M, so the "success rate" of pushing them to the 3 level is reduced.

 

On this hand, I've explained my reasoning of the second round calls. It hasn't changed (and as the pass-out-er, I'm guessing we're in the first situation rather than the second, and hoping).

[Gilithin]

If I am going to open very light in third seat, I would open in a suit that I would like led should partner be on lead. Jxxxx doesn't cut it.

Well I don't disagree with you on the sentiment but 1♦ is not the only option here. Some posters have suggested opening 1♠. Personally I think this is worse than 1♦ - if LHO passes then partner's most common call is probably putting us in a Burn's Law violation that we cannot escape from. But there are at least 2 other options: the safe one is 1♣. Now someone will probably point out that this does not preempt any bidding space and they would be correct. But it does tend to reduce the accuracy of the bidding anyway and the chances of this impacting us negatively are fairly small by psyche standards. The risky option that has more potential to cause chaos is opening 1NT planning to pass a 2♦ transfer. The main thing I have against either option is one that might surprise - the hand is probably too strong for a psyche. Bids like 1NT in particular tend to work better with 0-5 than 7-9. But I would strongly consider 1♣. Whether it actually gets bid though will depend on the specific system being used, the opponents and frankly just how I was feeling on the day. After all, if you always psyche with a given hand, it is not really a psyche any more but rather a CPU. So it is wise to vary your approach, not just for bridge reasons but also to stay on the right side of the law.

[Gilithin]

I think the South hand is a good example of how partnership style impacts the approach to competitive bidding. Pairs who have agreed the OBAR principle see no pressure to come in on the South hand with 4 hearts and a potential misfit as they know that partner is going to compete nearly all of the time when their fit is hearts and we have the spades. If a pair instead plays the approach where you need some values to come in, South cannot rely on a weak partner to show some life and therefore it is safest to compete now from our side and leave the rest to partner. There are pros and cons to both approaches, as well as some shades of grey in between. The important thing is that both partners are on the same page.

[mw64ahw]

an ekren opening !!!!!

south open 2♥ showing 4+♥ and 4+♠ less then NORMAL opening point count the original is 5- 10 point but 0-8 can do 2

you corect to 2 ♠ and east have nothing to say!!!

Not quite an Ekren opening (2♦), but 'Ekren' style.

[pescetom]

Third seat at green, I think you should have considered an opening but that ship has sailed. After an OBAR (opponents bid and raise) auction, it is nearly always right to come in with shortage and here you even have a maximum. Anything other than X from the North hand strikes me as a pretty extreme position. I doubt I would consider Pass a logical alternative if there was UI on the hand!

 

For the record, I polled it on that other site and got:

2♠: 1 vote (5%)

DBL: 15 votes (79%)

Pass: 3 votes (16%)

 

So it seems that Pass is a logical alternative for that group, but also that X is a preponderent choice.

[Gilithin]

For the record, I polled it on that other site and got:

Pass: 3 votes (16%)

 

So it seems that Pass is a logical alternative for that group, but also that X is a preponderent choice.

I would argue that those 3 players are clearly not my peers...but convincing the TD of that might be more difficult.

[pescetom]

I would argue that those 3 players are clearly not my peers...but convincing the TD of that might be more difficult.

The better players in that group might argue that neither of us are peers B-)

But if some actually choose an option then many more will seriously consider it.