[Tramticket]

---

Are you opening in 4th seat?
(Basic system = weak NT, four-card majors. Please indicate if this affects your decision).

[The_Badger]

Tramticket, on 2017-October-10, 05:47, said:

---

Are you opening in 4th seat?
(Basic system = weak NT, four-card majors. Please indicate if this affects your decision).

Two ways of looking at this. 1) It is permissible to pass with a minimum opening hand in 4th position if you feel the opponents are likely to get involved and outbid you. 2) A 3 level opening in 4th with at least a good six card suit and around 10-13 points is acceptable too.

Given that both North and South haven't said anything on the first round of bidding, they would have to be brave to come in with a Dbl. to balance, and it's less likely that South will do so as he's probably a balanced hand as he's hasn't opened light in 3rd.

What you don't want here is to make it easy for opponents to compete at the one level by opening 1♣. With 7 guaranteed tricks, I favour opening 3♣ at both pairs and teams. The hand has a little more offensive strength with its 7 card suit, but still lacks defensive strength elsewhere.

Partner would have to turn up with some perfect cards for 3NT to be in the picture, so opening 3♣ is where I'm at. Hope to gain a few IMP/MPs with a part score.

[rmnka447]

3 ♣.

I agree with much of what Badger says.

If the hand were simply a preempt - x xx xxx KQJ10xxx or similar, I'd just pass. The remaining points average out to about 11.33 HCP per hand. That almost has to be the case with no one opening with shortness in ♣ and major length somewhere implied from your distribution.

But with the actual hand, the missing points average out to about 9.66 points per hand which is about 2 points less per hand. That should be enough to make it difficult to compete over 3 ♣ even though the distributional situation is the same. Even with nothing in partner's hand (which really can't be the case with 3 passes) your hand looks to be worth at least 7 tricks which limits the risk of the 3 ♣ bid. So, this looks like the perfect situation to bid what you've got, a distributional hand where 3 ♣ seems a reasonable spot. With a stronger hand where game is reasonably likely with partner holding a max pass or near it, you would open 1 ♣.

[Tramticket]

Thanks all. Bidding 3♣ looks to be the clear winner.

The hand was discussed in a UK magazine, which also advocated bidding 3♣. I must admit that my reaction had been that this should bean easy pass as our opponents seem to have about half the deck and are highly likely to have a big spade fit. I feared that they will find their 3♠ (or worse 4♠) contract if given the chance. But I guess I am underestimating the difficulty for either opponent to compete at the three level opposite a passed partner.

[msjennifer]

Assuming that these days practically all 11pointers are opened there should be no more than 20 points with the opponents.If either of them had a six carder major one would have heard a weak 2S/H opening.There are some more aspects about their not in the bidding.My partner must be haviing 9/10 points and if they are something like Axxx,xxx,J10xx,Ax even 3 NT May be on.I do not care if the opponents who could not assemble a bid on the first round ,will venture to compete at a 3 level.I certainly do not mind losing a board and if I did mind then II would Pass this hand.

[NickRW]

IMO, though rare, if you don't open this 3♣ in 4th, then you may as well redefine your 4th seat pre-empts to show some sort of Acol 2 or other strong hand (because you surely must never be using the pre-emptive meaning)

[PhilG007]

Tramticket, on 2017-October-10, 05:47, said:

---

Are you opening in 4th seat?
(Basic system = weak NT, four-card majors. Please indicate if this affects your decision).

I've been in this situation many times.
1Club at both formats is quite sufficient in the meantime. Remember 3 players have already passed so what's the rush(?!)
If 3 clubs is meant to be a pre-empt its ridiculous...there's no one left to pre-empt(!) It should also be borne in mind
that partner could be sitting with a yarborough which means you still only have 11 points.It's not yet time to get excited (!) 1 club as a 'feeler' bid is the correct and sensible approach.

[Tramticket]

PhilG007, on 2017-October-11, 08:17, said:

partner could be sitting with a yarborough

This is nonsense of course. But you know that!

[PhilG007]

Tramticket, on 2017-October-11, 08:36, said:

This is nonsense of course. But you know that!

Actually,no I didn't Common sense often masquerades as 'nonsense' Its just a question of what you believe in.

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2017-October-11, 13:37, said:

Actually,no I didn't Common sense often masquerades as 'nonsense' Its just a question of what you believe in.

I will offer you a challenge. Construct 4 reasonable hands where we hold the 13 cards in the OP, partner has a Yarborough and both opponents might have passed. Show us what you believe in!

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-11, 14:26, said:

I will offer you a challenge. Construct 4 reasonable hands where we hold the 13 cards in the OP, partner has a Yarborough and both opponents might have passed. Show us what you believe in!

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-11, 14:26, said:

I will offer you a challenge. Construct 4 reasonable hands where we hold the 13 cards in the OP, partner has a Yarborough and both opponents might have passed. Show us what you believe in!

I said COULD have a yarborough but more likely he could have maybe 8-10 points with no clubs Something like this:-

---

[Tramticket]

PhilG007, on 2017-October-11, 15:07, said:

I said COULD have a yarborough but more likely he could have maybe 8-10 points with no clubs Something like this:-

---

We'll take this hand as your acknowledgment that you CANNOT construct a hand where partner might hold a Yarborough. Yes, of course 8-10 points or thereabouts is the expectation.

The dismal misfit that you have constructed is surely an argument for passing rather than bidding 1♣. On this hand, the opponents are likely to make eight tricks in their 4-4 spade fit if you open 1♣.

I can imagine many hands where the winning action is to pass. I am now persuaded that opening 3♣ will often be the winning choice. It seems to me that opening 1♣ will almost never be right - it is simply an invitation for the opponents to compete in a major.

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2017-October-11, 15:07, said:

I said COULD have a yarborough

If (s)he COULD have a Yarborough then show us the hands. I submit to you that this is actually IMPOSSIBLE assuming rational bidding - please prove me wrong.

[NickRW]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-12, 02:47, said:

If (s)he COULD have a Yarborough then show us the hands. I submit to you that this is actually IMPOSSIBLE assuming rational bidding - please prove me wrong.

Without in any way wishing to deflect your indignant wrath, in the very unlikely event that a) p does have a near yarb' and b) that opps have probably not one but two aces/kings hidden behind small cards, 3♣ is still not a bad opening. (And better than 1♣, albeit not as good as a clairvoyant pass)

[GrahamJson]

This seems to me to be a very close call. On balance partner is likely to have a slightly better than average hand, as RHO will strain to open in third position with borderline values, whereas second position openings tend to be sounder. This factor argues in favour of action. However the risk/reward ratio suggests going quietly, as the best outcome is probably 3C making whereas the worst is that oppo find a major fit and make game. Given that oppo will know that the strength is fairly evenly divided they can come in over 3C more readily than they would over a first or second position pre-empt.

An opening of 1C is surely wrong, and does not meet the usual rule of thumb; add up your points and your spades, then open if the total is 14 or more. 3C is a better bet, but probably only at pairs, where plus 110 could be a great score. I think at teams you should pass as the risk of -420, although perhaps not great, is significant.