[VM1973]

You hold:

♠AKQJxxx
♥x
♦xxx
♣xx

White vs. Red IMPs

Your partner a BBO self-rated World Class Expert.
No previous discussion. SAYC

The auction goes:

Pass-Pass-Pass... your call.

[Hanoi5]

I'm probably not gonna be outbid if we compete so I hope I can get more info by starting low, in case it is correct to stop short of game.

[jjbrr]

Voted for Foadi

Spoiler

second choice is 1S

[nige1]

VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 16:24, said:

Your partner a BBO self-rated World Class Expert. White vs. Red IMPs. No previous discussion. SAYC You hold: ♠ AKQJxxx ♥ x ♦ xxx ♣ xx
Pass-Pass-Pass... your call.

2♠ = 10, 3♠ = 9, 4♠ = 8, 1♠ = 7. BBO "World class" tends to be even worse than BBO "Expert" Hence, in an attempt to avoid the worst outcomes, make a mild initial effort to play the hand

[aguahombre]

I doubt I am going to find out anything about partner's hand that is useful by opening 1S. But maybe partner will find the fact that I have 7 tricks for Spades useful. If opening 4S doesn't convey that information, then I don't have the tools.

[VM1973]

jjbrr, on 2011-August-03, 16:32, said:

Voted for Foadi

I am on another forum in which a person (named Foadi) is unsatisfied with all choices in all polls - even those that include none of the above, other, something else, etc. and for that reason it has become customary to include the 'foadi' option in all polls.

[VM1973]

Spoiler

---

Assess blame, if any.

[semeai]

Wow, it was an actual hand. I totally thought this poll was an attempt to catch forum members as not having Marty Bergen's one true answer from that link you posted earlier.

In any case, apparently Marty Bergen opens 3♠ in fourth seat with a 7-(321) hand with AKQJxxx of spades:

Marty Bergen said:

In fourth seat, only open three with a promising hand. After three passes, open 3♠ holding:

♠AKQJ1074 ♥7 ♦532 ♣43

As far as blame goes, the opponents can cash four tricks off the top. Why would there be blame?

As far as opening the hand goes, I can live with 1S, 2S, or 3S. It feels too strong in playing strength for 2S and just a shade weak for 3S to me. I guess that means I think 1S..2S is just right. Notice that in 4th seat, when your partner bids and rebids a major, you have the negative inference that they didn't open 2S, and so they shouldn't be minimum.

[jjbrr]

VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 17:14, said:

I am on another forum in which a person (named Foadi) is unsatisfied with all choices in all polls - even those that include none of the above, other, something else, etc. and for that reason it has become customary to include the 'foadi' option in all polls.

I see. I am on another forum in which "Bastard" is the obligatory addition to any poll, and people are free to choose that instead of one of the "normal" answers. I'm not joking.

In that sense, your forum and my forum are somewhat similar.

I propose "gwnn" become BBF's official Foadi.

VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 17:23, said:

Spoiler

---

Assess blame, if any.

Partner should bid 2H rather than 1NT.


ETA the poll addition comment was by no means an insult or directed at anyone whatsoever. Merely stating a fact about the other forum.

[quiddity]

VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 17:23, said:

Assess blame, if any.

I blame North for failing to overcall - but South has a tough problem either way. I guess if he needs to play partner for an ace it's more likely to be the diamond ace.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

p - p - p - 3NT
Why should the "gambling 3NT" be restricted to the minors ?

[Siegmund]

What really matters is that you and your partner have some agreement what 4th seat openers look right, rather than what exactly that agreement is.

In my preferred methods, this is only a 2S opener, but I know a lot of other people who would would overbid by 1 1/2 or 2 tricks and open 3 in 3rd seat.

In 1st 2nd or 3rd its good enough, or even too good, to open 4S favorable, but I think it'd be a significant error to agree to open it that way in 4th, and a much bigger error to open it that way in 4th with an unknown partner.

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-03, 17:11, said:

I doubt I am going to find out anything about partner's hand that is useful by opening 1S. But maybe partner will find the fact that I have 7 tricks for Spades useful.

I can't agree more.

aguahombre, on 2011-August-03, 17:11, said:

If opening 4S doesn't convey that information, then I don't have the tools.

This confuses me after reading the first part. What good does it make to you and your pd, him knowing that you have 7 tricks in ♠, if you are going to bid 4 regardless ? Whats wrong with 3♠ in pass out seat, which as u said involves pd who can judge better knowing what we have ? I think you have the right idea but there is inconsistency with the execution.

[gwnn]

Sorry didn't see the last line of the opening post. I think in 4th seat there's many good options, depending on the partnership. 3♠ could be best, or 1♠. In any of the first three seats it's still a 4♠ opening.

[Flameous]

I think it's good agreement for 4th seat 2/3 (and 4) openers to promise a really good suit. Not maybe quite this, but something that plays with one loser opposite singleton or something. Then you can bid 1♠+2♠ with long but not that good quality suit.
Without having this kind of agreement, I'd feel pretty much same with semeai, but when partner knows that my suit is really good, 2♠ seems the right opening. With any useful extra honor it would be three though.
It's good to note that even if I had a spade less, it would be a 2♠ opening. It's not any kind of problem cause a partner with 2 tricks can still invite over 2♠. 3♠ must be more strict.

[Cyberyeti]

Would prob open 3♠ but wouldn't have the chance, partner would have opened.

The trump switch is unbelievable, routine diamond, the pass of 2 spades is even more unbelievable. Passing 2♠ is expecting a worse hand from partner than the one you just passed. KQJ10xx, xx, Axx, Qx is plenty for 3N to be playable.

You've got to the best spot, I'd have been in 3 whether partner opened or I did.

[billw55]

After 3 passes, we can see that the missing 30 HCPs are divided nearly equally. I have 7 tricks in hand. Ergo par for the table seems to be two tricks each for the other three players. Which to me means 4♠ rates to be a minus score, and a spade partial a plus score. I choose 2♠ on the grounds that even at this level, opponents may find it hard to enter the auction due to the vulnerability.

[VM1973]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-August-03, 22:27, said:

p - p - p - 3NT
Why should the "gambling 3NT" be resticted to the minors ?

That's the kind of outside the box thinking that I can respect. Good for you.

[farrnbach]

1S ... 2S should describe the hand well, and if p has some spades + values in the minor a game may be on

4S is a pure gamble, in 1th or 3rd seat, this would be my prefered action

[billw55]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2011-August-03, 22:27, said:

p - p - p - 3NT
Why should the "gambling 3NT" be resticted to the minors ?

Because when I hold a long minor and bid it, I am often outbid in a major. Here I have no reason to think I will be outbid, in fact every reason to think I can buy this hand at almost any contract I want.

Still, agree with VM1973 about thinking out of the box. It's an interesting idea that will work sometimes. Often enough to justify the risk of going minus when a plus score is almost completely secure? I am not sure.