Borderline decision with a passed hand
jonathan23
third. But other than the various flavours of Drury, they don't seem
to discuss what you should respond to a third-seat opener that may be
light.
Do you respond the same way as a passed hand that you would as an
unpassed hand? Here's an example that's kind of borderline:
Bidding style: Standard American with [too many] gadgets. You hold, in
first seat:
Jxxx
Q10x
Axx
QJx
And you pass, of course. In third seat, partner opens a 1H that could
be about a King lighter than a 1st-2nd seat opener, and this is passed
around to you. No bid you make now is absolutely forcing, and you have
been repeatedly warned about the possible weakness of your partner's
third seat openers. You play Reverse Drury, but only with four-card
support (or maybe with a singleton or void and three to an honour).
Reasonable choices in your system:
1S - technically not forcing but you can be reasonably sure would not
be passed.
1NT - possibly wrongsiding an NT contract.
2H - A point light, but this flat 10 is no better than many 9s or even
8s.
2NT - maybe systemically more correct than 1NT, but also possibly
getting you too high.
3H - definitely too high opposite a light opener.
Were you an unpassed hand, you would bid 1S over a first or second seat
opener with this hand.
Would you still do that over a third-seat opener?
Does knowing opener's minimum is lower lead you to view your choices
differently?
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa CANADA
judyorcarl
9-loser hand = single raise, opposite any position opener.
Carl
Alan Malloy
I would bid 2H whether I were a passed hand or not. This hand is pretty
awful in support of hearts (4333 shape, unsupported honors, lots of
quacks), and I have no qualms about pretending it is only 9 HCP.
To give me a problem here you'd have to change the hand a fair bit,
making it more useful for suit play, like xxxx QJxx AKx xx. Now as an
unpassed hand I would call this a limit raise without hesitation, but if
partner has opened in third seat I might give him a quiet 2H, or perhaps
try a comical 1N followed by 3H, figuring if he passes 1N he is probably
balanced with only four hearts, so it won't be such a bad place to be.
Either could work out poorly, though, and I wouldn't fault a partner for
bidding 3H anyway, unless I had a habit of opening appallingly light in
third chair (in which case it's my fault anyway!).
--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)
Raija D
"jonathan23" <camp...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:hkqfod$3q9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
If you don't have a Drury bid to describe this hand, then both 1S and 1NT
are unwise (or maybe use a stronger adjective!!!). 2NT would be sick. Do
not take the chance that partner passes 1S or 1NT when you have a good fit
for hearts. Even if you had a Drury bid available, this is about as bad a
10 count as a 10-count can be so a raise to 2H is normal.
Raija
jogs
Jxxx
Q10x
Axx
QJx
It's a piece of junk. Everyone's bidding 2H whether opener
was 1st seat or 3rd seat. 4333 ugly. 6 points in queens and
jacks. More ugliness.
Jxxx
Q10x
Axx
Kxx
Maybe someone would bite with this hand. This could be
an ugly 3-card limit raise. I would still bid 2H. Plus scores
are worth their weight in gold.
Andrew
> third. But other than the various flavours of Drury, they don't seem
> to discuss what you should respond to a third-seat opener that may be
> light.
>
> Do you respond the same way as a passed hand that you would as an
> unpassed hand? Here's an example that's kind of borderline:
>
> Bidding style: Standard American with [too many] gadgets. You hold, in
> first seat:
>
> Jxxx
> Q10x
> Axx
> QJx
>
> And you pass, of course. In third seat, partner opens a 1H that could
> be about a King lighter than a 1st-2nd seat opener, and this is passed
> around to you. No bid you make now is absolutely forcing, and you have
> been repeatedly warned about the possible weakness of your partner's
> third seat openers. You play Reverse Drury, but only with four-card
> support (or maybe with a singleton or void and three to an honour).
Drury is most useful to show a maximum hand with 3-card support. Those
are the hands where it is essential to stay low in 2M.
> Reasonable choices in your system:
>
> 1S - technically not forcing but you can be reasonably sure would not
> be passed.
Not a reasonable choice 1S is quite likely to be passed and will
usually be the wrong strain.
> 1NT - possibly wrongsiding an NT contract.
A reasonable choice. With 4-3-3-3 shape, the hand may play as well in
NT as in hearts.
> 2H - A point light, but this flat 10 is no better than many 9s or even 8s.
A very reasonable choice. Not only are you flat but your points are
soft and almost certainly over valued. You will need partner to have
full values for his invitation to make a heart game.
> 2NT - maybe systemically more correct than 1NT, but also possibly
> getting you too high.
A terrible bid. If there is game, partner will bid again over 1NT.
1NT gives you all the
> 3H - definitely too high opposite a light opener.
Even worse than 2NT.
> Were you an unpassed hand, you would bid 1S over a first or second seat
> opener with this hand.
>
> Would you still do that over a third-seat opener?
Since I would not do that in 1st or 2nd chair, I certainly won't do it
now. In 1st or 2nd this is a 2H raise, not a 1S bid.
> Does knowing opener's minimum is lower lead you to view your choices
> differently?
It means you can not consider bids like 2NT or 3H which would endanger
your plus score. Partner will keep the bidding open if he has a foll
opening bid over your 1NT response, so there is little to fear.
Andrew
rhm
I think 1NT is clearly best.
Judgement should tell you that this hand is worth more in a notrump
than a suit contract.
But if you open light as most do in third position, this hand is
clearly not worth a 2NT response. Besides if you open a 15-17 notrump,
partner is likely to have at most 14 HCP and with a good balanced 14
HCP (including 5 hearts) he could have upgraded to a 1NT opening.
I am not worried missing a 5-3 fit in hearts since this hand has good
chances making as many (or even more) tricks in notrump than hearts
should partner be balanced and opponents do not always find the best
opening lead against notrump.
If partner rebids 2C I would risk 3H, since the hand has improved.
If partner rebids 2D I would preference to 2H.
If he rebids 2H I would raise since he must have a solid opening for
not opening with a weak two in third position.
2H tends to lock you into hearts, which I do not like with 4333
missing 3 aces and all the kings.
If opener invites with 2NT (admittedly unlikely when you routinely
open 1NT with a 5 card major) I would accept not bothering about
hearts.
Rainer Herrmann
boblipton
John, you are counting this hand like a beginner, so I am going to
assume you are one. Although the Work Count on this hand is 10 HCP,
this is a pretty ugly ten points: one quick trick, no ruffing
strength and no suit for him to set up. This hand is barely worth a
constructive raise. Bid 2 Hearts and hope that righty protects with
2 Spades.
Bob
Dave Flower
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whilst there is certainly a strong case for bidding 2H, 1NT has merit,
especially at matchpoints. I would vote
IMPs
2H 10
1NT 7
Matchpoints
1NT 10
2H 9
No other bids score above zero.
Dave Flower
Derek Broughton
I presume you meant you're a point too strong...
> 2NT - maybe systemically more correct than 1NT, but also possibly
> getting you too high.
> 3H - definitely too high opposite a light opener.
>
> Were you an unpassed hand, you would bid 1S over a first or second seat
> opener with this hand.
I see absolutely no issue with 2H (of course, I play 6-10 for a single
raise, anyway). You have every reason to adjust your hand downwards.
> Would you still do that over a third-seat opener?
Not with that hand. Just show your support.
> Does knowing opener's minimum is lower lead you to view your choices
> differently?
Yes. Partner still has the option to push on. I'd rather use the Drury on
any hand I'd offer a limit raise (which I'll certainly do with 3-card
suppor), so then 2H - or any other bid - guarantees that you don't have a
limit raise against a full-opener (which you certainly don't).
--
derek
Will in New Haven
> third. But other than the various flavours of Drury, they don't seem
> to discuss what you should respond to a third-seat opener that may be
> light.
In most cases, there isn't much to discuss. If you don't have support,
you bid a new suit and partner passes and, since he shouldn't open
light with a very short suit, you are in a reasonable spot. Or you
respond 1NT and partner passes. With a poorish fit and only fair
values, you have stayed low. It is only with a fit that you have a
problem and that is why Drury was developed. Of course, it negates the
ability to bid 2C (or 2D if you play that flavor of Drury) naturally
but people who open light a great deal don't seem to mind that.
>
> Do you respond the same way as a passed hand that you would as an
> unpassed hand? Here's an example that's kind of borderline:
I do but I don't play systemic light openers in third. I open the same
hands, with a few exceptions, in all seats.
>
> Bidding style: Standard American with [too many] gadgets. You hold, in
> first seat:
>
> Jxxx
> Q10x
> Axx
> QJx
>
> And you pass, of course.
I open 1NT if not vul but I'm not playing Standard American.
In third seat, partner opens a 1H that could
> be about a King lighter than a 1st-2nd seat opener, and this is passed
> around to you. No bid you make now is absolutely forcing, and you have
> been repeatedly warned about the possible weakness of your partner's
> third seat openers.
Then I don't play with him. I don't need protecting and I find
frequent light third-seat openers annoying.
You play Reverse Drury, but only with four-card
> support (or maybe with a singleton or void and three to an honour).
>
> Reasonable choices in your system:
>
> 1S - technically not forcing but you can be reasonably sure would not
> be passed.
But partner SHOULD pass if he has opened light. Unless he has mastered
the technique of the "clearly reluctant" 1NT rebid (or you have an
agreement that a 1NT rebid is always sub-minimum) he has to pass with
a sub-minimum. If he isn't ready to pass 1S he shouldn't open light.
But my partners and I can't resist a hand like XX - KQTX - AXX - XXXX
and we pass a 1S response. So I don't think that's a good idea,
infrequent as those light third bids are.
> 1NT - possibly wrongsiding an NT contract.
Why? Only if Diamonds is the critical suit is this wrongsiding NT. And
1NT, planning to advance to 3H if partner rebids is _exactly_ the
right bid if the hand seems too good for a direct 2H. I like 1NT
because it is probably the right contract if partner opened light on a
four-bagger and it might not be bad if he has five.
> 2H - A point light, but this flat 10 is no better than many 9s or even
> 8s.
You mean a point heavy. And it is but the choice is between 1NT and 2H
and I don't see much in it either way.
> 2NT - maybe systemically more correct than 1NT, but also possibly
> getting you too high.
> 3H - definitely too high opposite a light opener.
>
> Were you an unpassed hand, you would bid 1S over a first or second seat
> opener with this hand.
>
> Would you still do that over a third-seat opener?
No. While it risks missing the superior fit, I would not risk playing
a 4-3 or 4-2 Spade fit. Actually, I might but we open light so
infrequently that I often ignore the possibility.
>
> Does knowing opener's minimum is lower lead you to view your choices
> differently?
Yes, if we are playing systemic light third as opposed to rare
irresistable lead-directors, I avoid responding 1S and choose between
1NT and 2H.
--
Will in New Haven
jonathan23
As I noted in my OP, "this flat 10 is no better than many 9s or even
8s". I did bid 2H as you said but that was considered the "wrong
thing" at the time and I wasn't clear how I could have done better,
except maybe by bidding 1NT which ended up making 2 at a couple of
tables. The hard part of the decision for me was between 1NT and 2H -
the other bids I mentioned were nominally on the table but very
unattractive. I chose 2H because (a) it supported with support
without risking overstating my hand, and (b) I was concerned that if I
bid NT when my partner wasn't promising much defense (maybe no aces)
we could end up going down when the opps have one or more long suits
and enough quick tricks to win the winner-development race.
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa Canada
jonathan23
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:02 pm, "jonathan23" <campb...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > Some of the beginners' books I have say you can open a little light in
> > third. But other than the various flavours of Drury, they don't seem
> > to discuss what you should respond to a third-seat opener that may be
> > light.
>
> In most cases, there isn't much to discuss. If you don't have support,
> you bid a new suit and partner passes and, since he shouldn't open
> light with a very short suit, you are in a reasonable spot. Or you
> respond 1NT and partner passes. With a poorish fit and only fair
> values, you have stayed low. It is only with a fit that you have a
> problem and that is why Drury was developed. Of course, it negates the
> ability to bid 2C (or 2D if you play that flavor of Drury) naturally
> but people who open light a great deal don't seem to mind that.
I think you've pointed out something very valuable in terms of opener
being comfortable passing any response. It can't be said enough when
opening really light, possibly almost defenceless hands. I think
that's probably why I choose not to systemically open much lighter in
third.
<SNIP>
> In third seat, partner opens a 1H that could
>
> > be about a King lighter than a 1st-2nd seat opener, and this is passed
> > around to you. No bid you make now is absolutely forcing, and you have
> > been repeatedly warned about the possible weakness of your partner's
> > third seat openers.
>
> Then I don't play with him. I don't need protecting and I find
> frequent light third-seat openers annoying.
Definitely food for thought.
> But partner SHOULD pass if he has opened light. Unless he has mastered
> the technique of the "clearly reluctant" 1NT rebid (or you have an
> agreement that a 1NT rebid is always sub-minimum) he has to pass with
> a sub-minimum. If he isn't ready to pass 1S he shouldn't open light.
> But my partners and I can't resist a hand like XX - KQTX - AXX - XXXX
> and we pass a 1S response. So I don't think that's a good idea,
> infrequent as those light third bids are.
>
> > 1NT - possibly wrongsiding an NT contract.
>
> Why? Only if Diamonds is the critical suit is this wrongsiding NT. And
> 1NT, planning to advance to 3H if partner rebids is _exactly_ the
> right bid if the hand seems too good for a direct 2H. I like 1NT
> because it is probably the right contract if partner opened light on a
> four-bagger and it might not be bad if he has five.
You're right about that, and I didn't express it well enough. I
suppose my fear was that if partner had opened a weak aceless 10-point
hand the opps would have a good chance to take a few quick tricks
_and_ find and develop their long suit, so hoping to outscore a likely
reasonable 2H by making the eighth trick in notrump might be overly
optimistic.
>
> > 2H - A point light, but this flat 10 is no better than many 9s or even
> > 8s.
>
> You mean a point heavy. And it is but the choice is between 1NT and 2H
> and I don't see much in it either way.
Right again. I knew that I had to keep the auction open in case my
partner really did have something, but I figured that partner would
have to have enough to act over either 1NT or 2H for it to be going
anyplace with what I had to offer. Deciding between 1NT and 2H was
where I was most worried about going wrong. It turned out afterward
that you could make eight tricks in either hearts or notrump so as it
turned out I chose the wrong strain this time but I still have no idea
if I went with the percentages in the long run. I guess my decision
cost about three matchpoints this time. I'm think the situation could
come up often enough that I could try to figure out if it gains or
loses, if the disagreement over the response wasn't an issue.
Thanks for the insight.
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa Canada
boblipton
While there is certainly something to be said for bidding 1NT, I think
that in the long run you are best off supporting with support. And
the fact that, with this hand, 1NT seems to have worked out better is
a datum and not conclusive. Arguing about this hand or t'other hand
won't really gain you anything except the insight that every system
has its flaws, and some hands don't fit. Give partner the 16-point
hand with a 5-4 in the reds and you're in game after the heart
raise. Bid 1NT and then what do you do after 1H-1NT-2D?
Bidding is about what errors you prefer to make. Don't sweat this
one. You made a reasonable decision and it didn't work out. Next
time it will.
Bob
Will in New Haven
You bid 3H, which is why the 1NT response is problematical. The hand
just isn't all that good. If partner is going to pass either
response, I like 1NT. You can't bid 2H over a rebid after responding
1NT. That would be a serious underbid.
>
> Bidding is about what errors you prefer to make. Don't sweat this
> one. You made a reasonable decision and it didn't work out. Next
> time it will.
I don't think 1NT or 2H is an error.
boblipton
wrote:
I don't think either is wrong either, except in the result-merchant-
whose-fault-is-it-we-didn't-get-to-the-top-spot sense of the word that
so many people seem to use. I just think that it's a good idea to
show partner support immediately which should give him a better idea
of how to continue if he holds a real opener -- just because partner
opens in third seat doesn't meant that he is spoofing.
Bob
Raija D
You made a reasonable choice. Next time 1NT makes 1 or goes down, and 2H
makes. I would almost think that this hand was the exception where 1NT
scored same tricks as 2H.
rhm
The real question is how much support is 4333 with 3 card support?.
Loser count will tell you that you have a lot of loser relative to
your HCP in such a case.
True you have an 8 card fit , but that's it, no ruffing value and a
fit helps your notrump tricks as well.
In essence you are raising with hearts being your shortest suit.
Rainer Herrmann