weak two in fourth seat

[dfm]

On Thursday night I opened 2H in fourth seat with

74
AKJ875
63
K32

Question 1: Do you think this is a normal fourth-seat 2H bid?

My LHO asked partner what my bid showed. He said that in general we play weak twos as 6-11 HCP (which is true); that we hadn't discussed what they should look like in fourth seat (which is also true); but that I am presumably at the top end of the 6-11 range or perhaps a little above it (which is what I intended, although maybe partner should have stopped after "we haven't discussed").

After the hand, RHO suggested that now we've discussed this, if our agreement is that I might be above 11 HCP in fourth seat, then we should note that on our convention card. In other words, we should write "10-14 in 4th seat" (or whatever range we agree) next to where we have "6 to 11" marked. I can't recall ever noticing this sort of annotation on an opponent's convention card.

Question 2: (a) Do you agree that this understanding needs to be marked on the card? (b) Do you think people who have this understanding generally do mark it on their cards?

Question 3: What's your preferred agreement for a fourth-seat weak two, and how (if at all) do you describe it on your convention card?

In case it makes a difference, I'm in ACBL-land.

And FWIW, RHO's suggestion was very polite and clearly intended to be helpful.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <00978391-f4b8-4c8f...@googlegroups.com>,

dfm <daniel....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday night I opened 2H in fourth seat with
>
> 74
> AKJ875
> 63
> K32
>
> Question 1: Do you think this is a normal fourth-seat 2H bid?

Yes.

>
> My LHO asked partner what my bid showed. He said that in general we play weak
> twos as 6-11 HCP (which is true); that we hadn't discussed what they should
> look like in fourth seat (which is also true); but that I am presumably at
> the top end of the 6-11 range or perhaps a little above it (which is what I
> intended, although maybe partner should have stopped after "we haven't
> discussed").
>
> After the hand, RHO suggested that now we've discussed this, if our agreement
> is that I might be above 11 HCP in fourth seat, then we should note that on
> our convention card. In other words, we should write "10-14 in 4th seat" (or
> whatever range we agree) next to where we have "6 to 11" marked. I can't
> recall ever noticing this sort of annotation on an opponent's convention
> card.
>
> Question 2: (a) Do you agree that this understanding needs to be marked on
> the card? (b) Do you think people who have this understanding generally do
> mark it on their cards?

I've never heard of anyone writing this. It's "just bridge". It makes
no sense to make a weak bid when you can just pass the hand out.

>
> Question 3: What's your preferred agreement for a fourth-seat weak two, and
> how (if at all) do you describe it on your convention card?



>
> In case it makes a difference, I'm in ACBL-land.
>
> And FWIW, RHO's suggestion was very polite and clearly intended to be
> helpful.

What do they have written on their card?

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[paul...@infi.net]

I write "4th seat: 9-12" on my card, on the description line. I did dome research a year or two ago and found most recommendations were somewhere in the 8-14 range, or essentially whatever you thought would net a plus score. Many at the club, however, think it shows 14-17, or 18-20, or something, quite a different agreement altogether. I have read Mike Lawrence recommends a fairly strong treatment, but I haven't found a direct quote from him on the subject. Anyway, I started writing that on my cards since at least one of my partners assumed a stronger range.

[dfm]

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:04:29 PM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> What do they have written on their card?

Good question! Unfortunately I didn't think to look.

[Lorne Anderson]

There is no point bidding in 4th seat unless you expect to make the
final contract so I think this is rock bottom for 2H. As far as I know
nobody expects the 4th seat range to be what is on the card for seats
1-3 but it does no harm to put in a second range - say 11-15 or so.

[paul...@infi.net]

How about a sim? Try 84 AQ10753 K96 74, other three hands restricted to less than 12 hcp and no six+ card suit. I predict 2H makes well above 50% of the time and no contract above 2H averages a plus score for the enemy. Two spades will probably average better than 50% when they have a fit, but they won't always have a fit.

[jogs]

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:48:09 PM UTC-7,

>
> How about a sim? Try 84 AQ10753 K96 74, other three hands restricted to less than 12 hcp and no six+ card suit. I predict 2H makes well above 50% of the time and no contract above 2H averages a plus score for the enemy. Two spades will probably average better than 50% when they have a fit, but they won't always have a fit.

Pass guarantees a zero raw score. The question is: will 2H result in a plus score more often than a minus score? This would not be an easy simulation to construct.

[KWSchneider]

On 16 Jul 2016 04:34 PM ,dfm <daniel....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday night I opened 2H in fourth seat with
>
> 74
> AKJ875
> 63
> K32
>
> Question 1: Do you think this is a normal fourth-seat 2H bid?

Perfect for 4th seat - could even have been stronger. The bid is made to make, not to pre-empt...

>
> My LHO asked partner what my bid showed. He said that in general we play we=
> ak twos as 6-11 HCP (which is true); that we hadn't discussed what they sho=
> uld look like in fourth seat (which is also true); but that I am presumably=
> at the top end of the 6-11 range or perhaps a little above it (which is wh=
> at I intended, although maybe partner should have stopped after "we haven't=
> discussed").

No need to discuss - it makes NO bridge sense to open in 4th seat with a pre-empt - you are not pre-empting a passout.

>
> After the hand, RHO suggested that now we've discussed this, if our agreeme=
> nt is that I might be above 11 HCP in fourth seat, then we should note that=
> on our convention card. In other words, we should write "10-14 in 4th seat=
> " (or whatever range we agree) next to where we have "6 to 11" marked. I ca=
> n't recall ever noticing this sort of annotation on an opponent's conventio=
> n card.

RHO should learn how to play bridge, since he seems to be suggesting that he would pre-empt in 4th seat.

>
> Question 2: (a) Do you agree that this understanding needs to be marked on =
> the card? (b) Do you think people who have this understanding generally do =

> mark it on their cards?

No - it's bridge.

>
> Question 3: What's your preferred agreement for a fourth-seat weak two, and=

> how (if at all) do you describe it on your convention card?
>
> In case it makes a difference, I'm in ACBL-land.
>

> And FWIW, RHO's suggestion was very polite and clearly intended to be helpf=
> ul.

RHO is probably not very experienced. This whole line of questioning indicates that.

Kurt


--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[paul...@infi.net]

Over at Bridgewinners, someone reported that Lawrence suggests approximately 11-13 in his book on passed hand bidding. So at this point every source I can find agrees that 11 or 12 is within the expected range. Surely a decent 10 with spades qualifies; I believe a good 9 with 2 spades and 6 hearts works, but I wouldn't be shocked if a simulation said otherwise. 10-13 seems to be pretty much a consensus range.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

In most cases, including this one, when someone says something is just bridge, that is merely a way to avoid informing opponents of an agreement.

Carl

[Barry Margolin]

In article <bbdc0f04-d077-41e5...@googlegroups.com>,

Since I also said this was "just bridge", I guess I have to disagree.
Some things really do just come out of normal bridge logic.

Of course, the precise range could be a partnership agreement, but the
fact that this shouldn't be preemptive is just bridge.

[judyo...@gmail.com]

Partnership experience is agreement even if it is commonsense. As you know.

Carl

[Steve Willner]

On 2016-07-16 4:34 PM, dfm wrote:
> On Thursday night I opened 2H in fourth seat with 74 AKJ875 63 K32
> Question 1: Do you think this is a normal fourth-seat 2H bid?

Minimum but normal.

> Question 2: (a) Do you agree that this understanding needs to be
> marked on the card? (b) Do you think people who have this
> understanding generally do mark it on their cards?

I've never seen anything special marked.

> Question 3: What's your preferred agreement for a fourth-seat weak
> two,

Minimum is the weakest hand you are willing to open in fourth seat. As
others have mentioned, you only want to open in fourth if you expect a
plus score, and that depends on how sound or light you open in second.
Maximum is something like the maximum for 1M-1NT-2M in other seats.
(You can use that latter sequence for something special if you like.)
For the obvious reason, spades can be a touch lighter than other suits.

> and how (if at all) do you describe it on your convention card?

I consider my regular system card to be very good, and it has nothing
about fourth-seat weak twos. The bid is rare. My partner and I can
describe our agreement if asked.

[Travis Crump]

But this doesn't come up often enough to be partnership experience. And
it really doesn't come up if you don't realize it isn't a preempt. If
you are holding a 6-7 point weak two in fourth seat it is pretty much
impossible for the first three hands to pass unless everyone is playing
really sound openings.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <nmkeee$fnu$1...@dont-email.me>,

I think his point is that it doesn't have to actually come up. If the
partners are familiar with "expert standard", and make use of it in
areas that we haven't specifically discussed, then our understandings of
what that includes are implicit agreements.

But where does "expert standard" come from? Much of it is just bridge
logic!

For instance, how strong does your hand have to be to invite game in NT?
Well, "everyone" knows that it takes about 22 HCP to be safe in 2NT with
no fit, and about 25 HCP for 3NT. Unless your partnership is
particularly aggressive or conservative in its bidding, all you need to
know is what strength partner has shown in his bidding -- anyone at the
table should then be able to figure out your approximate strength with
simple arithmetic from those well known numbers.