[mr1303]

You hold:

Scoring: MP

---

P P P 3D
P ?

You don't have solid agreements about 4th seat pre-empts, but partner usually knows what they are doing, so you expect it to be a bit stronger than a 2nd seat pre-empt, and probably high ODR.

What (if anything) do you do here?

[pclayton]

Looks like an obvious pass to me. We have about what pard is expecting. I expect a great diamond suit, but I also expect one of the black suits to be wide open, so 3N is out.

4♥ is possible but seems way off to me. Maybe pard won the board by preempting. I'm not ashamed to put this dummy down.

[hotShot]

There can be no such thing as a 4th seat preempt, other than pass. (Who do you want to preempt if everybody else claimed to be to weak to bid.) Partner thinks that there is a save place to play and expects to score better than those who pass.

If you don't have an agreement, than you should just pass. Your partner expects the strength you have and used it for his bid. He will be happy to find ♦ support.

[OrShoham]

Pass. I'm somewhat concerned about 4♠ being on for opps if partner has the reds, but they haven't made any effort to bid it so far, so not too concerned. I certainly wouldn't make a constructive bid trying to get to game.

[ArtK78]

Pass.

If game makes, pard doesn't have his bid.

A weak 2 bid in fourth seat should show a hand that is a one-bid and a simple rebid of the suit over any response.

However, a 3 bid is still a 3 bid, albeit somewhat more solid since pass is an alternative.

[mr1303]

Actually, the reason this hand came about was because of a theoretical director ruling.

The 3D opening was a mechanical error. The intended opening was 2D (multi, showing either a weak 2 in a major, or 20-22 balanced). The dealer asked about the meaning of 3D (described as 4th seat pre-emptive, i.e. minimum opening, high offense to defence ratio), whereby the 3D opener pointed out that she had intended to bid 2D. The director ruled that the 3D opening stood, and the fact that partner intended to bid 2D was UI

I held the hand in question and passed. However I wondered if there was any future of a 3H response as a forward going move (which is how the bid would have been interpreted), looking for either 3NT, 4H or 5D.

The posts look fairly comprehensive in saying that there wasn't.

Thanks all for posting.

[gnasher]

It sounds like you need a new director.

[ArtK78]

gnasher, on Jun 13 2008, 03:04 AM, said:

It sounds like you need a new director.

Why?

While the poster states that the 3♦ bid was a mechanical error, the TD apparently decided that it was not a mechanical error - hence, the call stands, and the bidder's statement that she intended to bid 2♦ Multi is clearly UI.

I am more concerned about this "theoretical director." Was the TD Albert Einstein? Or was the TD not really there? Really, the mind reels at the possibilities.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Jun 13 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

Or was the TD not really there?

Probably wasn't there. If he'd been there, he'd have been able to look at opener's hand and count how few diamonds there were.

[mr1303]

It was a local club night with a playing director who wasn't overly experienced at directing. Anyway, when I say a mechanical error, this was what my partner told me at the time.