[AL78]

♠8
♥KJ84
♦J942
♣T853

Favourable vulnerability, teams. 5 card majors, strong NT, not 2/1.

After three passes partner opens 1♠. Your call?

[pescetom]

 AL78, on 2021-April-24, 12:26, said:

After three passes partner opens 1♠. Your call?

If f2f and no qualified Director, double
Otherwise pass.

[AL78]

 pescetom, on 2021-April-24, 12:32, said:

If f2f and no qualified Director, double
Otherwise pass.

Sorry, after three passes partner opens 1♠ and RHO passes.

[Cyberyeti]

I respond 1N and pass anything partner is likely to bid except 3♥ which I raise to 4, if he rebids 3/4♠ I got this wrong (we never fake 3m bids on <4)

[nullve]

1N

[jillybean]

It's close, I'm leaning towards pass, my hand is an ugly 5 count.
PASS

[Cyberyeti]

 jillybean, on 2021-April-24, 13:35, said:

It's close, I'm leaning towards pass, my hand is an ugly 5 count.
PASS

Partner needs as little as AKxxx, AQ10xx, 3 small cards in the minors to make game playable, 1♠ might not play very well

[AL78]

I was torn between 1NT and pass, and decided to pass, knowing this could be very right or very wrong.

The full deal:

---

Nine tricks made replicated at the other table. 3NT makes double dummy thanks to a couple of finesses working, and will likely make at the table, especially if the defence try to attack clubs setting up at least one, if not two tricks for declarer. Those who would have responded 1NT would have been raised to game and done well.

[Cyberyeti]

Would not have this problem, would have a different one as E opens 2N (good 19-21) and we probably get snookered into bidding 3♣-3♠(5♠)-3N in case partner actually has 4-5♥

[morecharac]

 AL78, on 2021-April-24, 12:26, said:

After three passes partner opens 1♠. Your call?

An excellent argument for using 2M as 15+ in fourth-seat openers. I'll know opponents have most of the points and will be missing something if they let partner play, so I'll pass. Give partner a sixth ♠ and it may make and give us our only plus as declarers.

Without that gadget, a forcing 1NT seems obvious.

[mikeh]

 morecharac, on 2021-April-24, 18:20, said:

An excellent argument for using 2M as 15+ in fourth-seat openers. I'll know opponents have most of the points and will be missing something if they let partner play, so I'll pass. Give partner a sixth ♠ and it may make and give us our only plus as declarers.

Without that gadget, a forcing 1NT seems obvious.

That’s not a gadget....it’s a device for committing suicide.

[johnu]

 morecharac, on 2021-April-24, 18:20, said:

An excellent argument for using 2M as 15+ in fourth-seat openers.

Agree 100%. I always encourage my opponents to improve their bidding by adopting things like that.

[morecharac]

 mikeh, on 2021-April-24, 19:34, said:

That’s not a gadget....it’s a device for committing suicide.

How so?

I must not have collected a large enough sample size the last several years because it doesn't seem as blindingly obvious as the responses indicate.

[sfi]

It looks like you are giving up an entire level on the hands where you are most likely to need it and where the opponents are least likely to interfere. All to be able to pass in comfort with a weak hand. The expected value of this action must be hugely negative.

P.S. I'm with the passers - it's more likely we'll get overboard if I respond than find a making game. I also would have upgraded partner's hand and opened 2NT, but not doing so looks ok as well.

[DavidKok]

 morecharac, on 2021-April-24, 23:29, said:

How so?

I must not have collected a large enough sample size the last several years because it doesn't seem as blindingly obvious as the responses indicate.

I believe modern standard is that opening on the 2-level in 4th seat shows a hand that would have declined an invitational raise, so that partner may comfortably pass with some values and support. By contrast, stronger hands can make good use of extra bidding space to find the right contract, and should be opened at a lower level.

I'd have bid 1NT (NF for me), but the 1-openings in my partnership can have slightly higher upper range. Also we have some nice gadgets over 1♠-1NT so I'm not worried about being raised too high with only 5.

[mikeh]

 morecharac, on 2021-April-24, 23:29, said:

How so?

I must not have collected a large enough sample size the last several years because it doesn't seem as blindingly obvious as the responses indicate.

So 2M in 4th seat shows 15+ hcp.

How long/good is your suit.

What are you planning to do to show a second suit?

How are you planning on showing a good 18+, where after say 1S p 1N P you’d be expecting to jumpshift?

I could go on, but just these issues make it unplayable

By ‘unplayable’ I don’t mean that it won’t occasionally work well. Opening 6D on every hand will occasionally work well😛

It’s just difficult to think of a coherent bidding scheme where voluntarily depriving oneself of bidding space on good but not strong hands makes any kind of sense.

If you really want some method of distinguishing hands of say 16+ hcp from lesser openings, play a big club method. As someone who has, I warn you that big club is not a panacea. To play big club effectively, you need a LOT of specialized agreements to maximize the best aspects of the method, since the worst aspects of the method are very difficult to overcome.

[morecharac]

 DavidKok, on 2021-April-25, 03:14, said:

I believe modern standard is that opening on the 2-level in 4th seat shows a hand that would have declined an invitational raise, so that partner may comfortably pass with some values and support. By contrast, stronger hands can make good use of extra bidding space to find the right contract, and should be opened at a lower level.

I'd have bid 1NT (NF for me), but the 1-openings in my partnership can have slightly higher upper range. Also we have some nice gadgets over 1♠-1NT so I'm not worried about being raised too high with only 5.

That was a useful explanation. Thank you.

Would it be wrong to call it an inverted major?

[Cyberyeti]

 morecharac, on 2021-April-25, 09:45, said:

That was a useful explanation. Thank you.

Would it be wrong to call it an inverted major?

It's not that so much, it's just a stronger weak 2, similar type of hand but 10-14 or similar, different people play slightly different strengths.

[nige1]

AL79 'Favourable vulnerability, teams. 5 card majors, strong NT, not 2/1.
After three passes partner opens 1♠. Your call?'
+++++++++++++++++

Close and difficult decision. I rank
1. Pass = NAT
2. 1NT.

---

[nige1]

 morecharac, on 2021-April-24, 18:20, said:

An excellent argument for using 2M as 15+ in fourth-seat openers. I'll know opponents have most of the points and will be missing something if they let partner play, so I'll pass. Give partner a sixth ♠ and it may make and give us our only plus as declarers. Without that gadget, a forcing 1NT seems obvious.

In 4th seat, I like

• 2♦/2♥/2♠ = NAT 11-14 HCP. 6 cds
• 3♣/3♦/3♥/3♠ = NAT 10-14 HCP. Solid suit (may pave the way for 3N on min values)