Hi Bobby,
A few questions on Best Foot Forward's query and whether to open 4th in hand. What should the meanings of "weak" 2 and 3 bids be in 4th e.g. is there any case for playing an old fashioned strong 2 in that position, and treating an opening bid of 3 as showing a hand not stong enough for a jump rebid but with a good 6+ card suit and sound values?
Also, would your decision to open be different if the black suits were reveresed? Both opponents have stayed silent, so I'd consider passing the hand given out in 4th and definitely would do so with shorter spades – either the opponents have them or the hand isn't fitting well if partner has. Isn't there a "rule of 14" for this position – add HCP to number of spades in any marginal cases?
Regards,
Iain

Dear Mr Wolff and David W.,
I posted my response on yesterday’s blog – just to say I stand corrected.
Michael

hi Bobby

on a very obvious play, i.e., declarer had the rest of the tricks, and all knew it, he pulls the wrong card from hand,

and gives the hand.

What are the rules? Can opponents give a replay to declarer or must they accept the gift?

Thanks

Best always

Good morning Mr Wolff
Further to Best Foot Forward’s Question and your response:
Opening that hand at the one level, even with the good minimum rebid available, would seem quite aggressive to most non-expert / Club players. Would it be accurate to conclude that your approach combines “firing the first shot” and being “not-easily-predictable” to keep the opponents guessing; and that it would require you and Partner to be in an unwritten natural rhythym and in-sync?

Here’s another one about minimum standards for an opening one bid, but with a flat hand. Matchpoints, both VUL, second seat after Dealer’s pass:

S Q84 H QJ74 D Q103 C AJ9

This was from a local typical Club game. Post-game seminar revealed that a large majority would open this hand.
Your thoughts?

Hi Iain,

Please accept a conglomerated but numerical answer to your general subject:

1. Radically changing 4th suit openings to fit the different circumstances of no other opening bids present, but different opponents to evaluate, conservative or aggressive, vitally aware of the differences in game played, matchpoints, IMPs, or rubber bridge or not, my answer would be very vague, indicating that while results may well be different, either eliminating competition by so doing, but getting one trick too high as against to sometimes stealing a hand as opposed to allowing those dastardly opponents to exercise their rules given right to compete forces me to declare, too close to call (the cowards way out).

However the artificiality of the change would force a decline to do it under the same guise as above, not enough to gain aka just too complicated to worry about.

Since I was born and lived my life as a huge optimist, I would never pass your example hand out. 1 heart in 1st and 2nd seat, 2 hearts in the other two. The rule of 14 for opening the bidding feels like a logical extension of what is at least close to accurate, but in spite of that, and whatever my number adds to (perhaps not having enough spades would rule out an opening) my ingrained optimism would cancel out all other barometers (not making it right for all).

Finally, my expressions of confidence does not in any way, gauge my deep down relative indecision of what is right or wrong. Rather it is only my personal choice and thus, worth exemplifying sometimes unintended irritating manner to others who become misled.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your reply and always remember the good someone (you in this case) does when you enable a subject, this one complicated, to be brought up for discussion.

How better a way to move forward than to, after analyzing a difficult declarer play hand, begin to understand how entries or lack of them, (on this hand) prevent arriving at the winning graceful solution. And bridge has almost an infinite number of those very challenging conundrums.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for politely bringing up a question for the ages, especially while playing our beloved game.

In spite of infinite excuses for answers, of course, your simple explanation is totally clear and my opinion leaves it up to the opponents as to what to do. Obviously they can cave and be thought of as superior sportsmen or women by so doing.

Naturally the stakes of the game, whether monetary or not, or whether at a World Championship or merely a home rubber bridge game with nothing of value the gain, it should be left up to the individuals on whether or not to take advantage of the brain slip which occurred.

No doubt that setting trick belongs to the defense, but whether they accept it or not is up to them. Excuses such as to not take it, would not be fair to my teammates or whatever else one may think of is only giving oneself an excuse for being greedy and of little value, but even when faced with it, which all of us (who have played forever) have encountered more than once, there is no right or wrong answer.

In case anyone is interested I have done both, but please do not ask me why, since it probably only has to do with my mood at that moment and nothing more profound.

Hi Clarksburg,

Opening the bidding, at least according to me has much to recommend it. Yes, I would open 1 heart intending to suggest a good suit to eventually settle in, if, in fact we have a decent fit (Kx or even Jx a minimum). We also by virtue of a 6 card suit have fewer losers outside to worry about covering and a singleton to boot, just in case of a heart fit or, of course a long suit by partner who will be satisfied with 3 card support.

Throw in lead directing in case the opponents outbid us and you’ve got my entire argument.

However with that balanced 12 count with many quacks (queens & jacks) my answer is no although since very good players world wide are now opening very light (even balanced 11 counts) I would probably be in a minority if compared with the world’s elite as to the advantages inherent in striking the first positive blow in a bidding war.

No doubt, Charlie Goren, (or in actuality Milton Work) who invented the 4-3-2-1 point count overvalued the quacks while also undervaluing the aces and kings (probably should be A=4 1/2, K=3 1/4 Q=2, J=7/8) but if done how could that be commercialized and sold to the (at that time) fast growing bridge playing public?

Since Goren’s idea immediately made the game extremely popular who can quarrel with those results, but in reality one who aspires to be good in bridge cannot pretend that wrong is right.

I’ve perhaps not rendered a total majority view, but, if so, it is not because I have not tried.

And finally, yes I would open that hand 1 club if playing against Casper Milk Toasts as opponents, since the scoring rules usually, but not always, seem to favor the big bidders.

I think the admin of this website is really working hard for his web page, for the reason that
here every stuff is quality based material.