[inquiry]

2♠ no matter what other agreements I have, which are BTW

1) I do play 3♠ shows 4 and 0-7 (which I have), but partner opened 3rd seat and a) might not have an opening and and more importantly might not have 5♠.

2) I do play over the dble that 2♥ bid is "good raise" to 2♠ and that immediate 2♠ is just "competitive". This hand does not qualify for a good raise to 2♠

3) I do play 3♣ here as a fit jump. This hand is not up to a 3♣ bid, but the advantage of 3♣ here is it will get partner off to the best lead should we defend. The disadvantage is I play 3♣ forcing to 3♠ so we are equally likely to play the hand as to defend.. and that may not be the right thing to do.

[whereagles]

inquiry, on Mar 13 2006, 05:39 PM, said:

but the advantage of 3♣ here is it will get partner off to the best lead should we defend. The disadvantage is I play 3♣ forcing to 3♠ so we are equally likely to play the hand as to defend.. and that may not be the right thing to do.

Actually, the 3♣ bid, being very descriptive, might put some pressure on LHO to make a red-suit bid, thus relieving our side from commiting to 3♠. (We shouldn't be forced to 3♠ if LHO bids, especially with a passed hand opposite a 3rd seat opener.)

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Mar 13 2006, 12:46 PM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 13 2006, 05:39 PM, said:

but the advantage of 3♣ here is it will get partner off to the best lead should we defend. The disadvantage is I play 3♣ forcing to 3♠ so we are equally likely to play the hand as to defend.. and that may not be the right thing to do.

Actually, the 3♣ bid, being very descriptive, might put some pressure on LHO to make a red-suit bid, thus relieving our side from commiting to 3♠. (We shouldn't be forced to 3♠ if LHO bids, especially with a passed hand opposite a 3rd seat opener.)

The DISADVANTAGE of not playing it forcing to 3♠ (even by a passed hand) is this"

P-P-1S-X
3C-3H-P-P
?

Does pass show the weak hand or extras? And if it is the weak hand, then your partner is in bit of a pickle with a between hand, too weak to accept game straight away (especially if you can be this weak and this flat) but strong not to make a game try. This is where PFA (principle of fast arrival) comes in very handy, and Pass is stronger than 3♠

[whereagles]

Well, it's obvious that the PFA coupled to a force to 3♠ works better in constructive auctions. But the point is a constructive auction is probably not that high a priority after a 3rd seat opener. This motivates dropping off the PFA/3♠-force and defining 'pass' by opener as a weakish hand, willing to let opps play their 3x contract undisturbed.

[luke warm]

i don't like the shape of the hand for 3♠, but i'd bid it anyway.. mainly for the reason frances gave and because it puts them to a guess immediately

[kenrexford]

2S seems right to me -- I also will not sink partner for a light third seat opening. Plus, with Boss Trumps, I am less concerned than others with competition.

However, I love Suit/Lead here. 1NT would show either weak, long clubs, or a spade raise with a club feature. Sort of a mini-fit-showing-jump. This happens to work well for this hand.

[FrancesHinden]

whereagles, on Mar 13 2006, 07:10 PM, said:

Well, it's obvious that the PFA coupled to a force to 3♠ works better in constructive auctions. But the point is a constructive auction is probably not that high a priority after a 3rd seat opener.

This is a philosophical point perhaps worth pursuing separately.
There seem to be two ways of treating 3rd seat openers:

i) 'All bets are off' - all your bidding has to take account of the fact that partner might not have an opening bid, might not have 5 cards in his major. Priority is either to pre-empt, or to confuse.

This school (I assume) takes partner's 3rd seat opening a little more seriously when vulnerable.

ii) Treat them like any other opening bid. Not to absurdity levels (i.e. bear in mind that partner's average minimum is lower than 2nd or 4th seat) but continue to e.g. double a 1NT overcall on a 9 count, invite with a balanced 11-count etc.

I'm happy to admit I'm in this school. When partner opens 1 suit in 3rd seat, even NV, I think he has a normallish opening bid the vast majority of the time, and I don't want to warp my methods to take account of the odd time he doesn't. If he is light on high cards, I expect him to have a good suit and I'm happy raising to the limit.

As a slight side note, if partner has actually psyched (or close to it) then it is often much more effective to treat his call seriously: the opponents get more confused rather than less.

[Fluffy]

If partner was in first or second position, I would feel too strong for 3♠. But here partner might be a little weaker, so constructive raise is not that appealing.
I would bid 3♠ if they compete and wouldn't accept any invitation. All in all I think 3♠ is tactically better here.

[kenrexford]

I recently had a similar problem occur. Philosophy of third-seat openings is critical -- here is why (IMO). Suppose Opener would make a lead-directive semi-preempt on something like AKQx-xxx-xxx-xxx. In that event, Responder cannot logically hang hi with a 4S sacrifice, right?

Well, that puts the burden on Opener, with the right hand for a sacrifice, to make that decision. If Opener has something more like AJxxxx-x-Qxxx-Ax, 4S after 4H seems right.

Thus, when assessing the 3S call, it makes sense to be much more conscious about defensive values than usual. AJ10x is a great defensive holding, potentially. This may well produce two defensive tricks. Hence, in my style for third-seat openings, I do not want to hang partner for a 4S call.

[mike777]

are lead directing opening bids on 4333 with 9 hcp in third seat winning bridge?
I thought bids made for the main purpose of lead directing to be vastly overrated but willing to listen.....

[FrancesHinden]

I'd often open AKQx xxx xxx xxx 2S in 3rd seat at favourable. But it's partly a matter of partnership style. I also think that against good opponents pre-empting is better, because it takes more room away. Against weaker opponents 1-level openings can work well because they get more confused about what strength they have.

[whereagles]

mike777, on Mar 13 2006, 06:44 PM, said:

are lead directing opening bids on 4333 with 9 hcp in third seat winning bridge?

Definitely.

[luke warm]

whereagles, on Mar 13 2006, 02:06 PM, said:

mike777, on Mar 13 2006, 06:44 PM, said:

are lead directing opening bids on 4333 with 9 hcp in third seat winning  bridge?

Definitely.

well luckily we can now prove or disprove that statement, or at least given the millions of hands available thru bridgebrowser... then it won't be simply a matter of opinion, tho i suppose that even if facts point one way there might be those whose opinions won't be changed

[inquiry]

I examined one of the larger BBO databases (23,593,094 hand plays) with

AKJx or AKQx of spades and open 3rd seat
AKJx occurred (with opening bid) 27 times (-0.24 imps, 65.88% MP)
AKQx occurred (with opening bid) 29 times (-2.42 imps, 34.46%)
No one opened 2♠ on the 4 card suit.

Add a fifth spade and Lots of people open (again 8 or 9 points, AKJxx or AKQxx of spades). Now you had instead of less than 56 opening bids third seat, there was 454 such opening bids,

AKJxx occured 343 times, for average -0.41 imps but plis 56.77% matchpoints
AKQxx occured 43 times for +0.47 imps, and only 49.49%

On these same hands, 2♠ was opened
273 times with AKJxx, averaging +0.99 imps, and 49.24%
131 times with AKQxx, averaging -0.07 imps and 52.48%

This is such a specific requirement, I guess looking at all databases will be required to make a serious conclusion.

Ben

[Kalvan14]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 13 2006, 09:16 AM, said:

Kalvan14, on Mar 13 2006, 02:45 AM, said:

I'm quite happy to see another position in this thread. I'd the fear that everyone would back 3♠

Still, it is a 3rd-hand opening, NV vs vul: who guarantees that it is a true opening bid, and that there are 5 spades?

If you don't bid 3S because you are catering for partner not having an opening bid, perhaps you should alert partner's 1S bid.

I would bid 3S. Seems to about down the middle for the call.

But I did bid 3♠. My comment was related to the apparent unanimity of the first posters. IMHO, at this vulnerability and keeping in mind the 3rd-seat opening, but without hanging ourselves to cater for a pard's psyche, 3♠ is still the most descriptive and the most pre-emptive bid.

We play picture bidding (from passed hand), but with better distribution (5-4) and stronger values (at least one more Q in the blacks)

[Kalvan14]

The results obtained from the data base must be taken into consideration, but without forgetting that the sample is very limited. I find it quite funny that you get better results opening with AKJx(x) rather than with AKQx(x)

[joshs]

For good or for ill, I didn't Q for the BR finals because of a similar hand, where I bid 3S and partner took a save in 5S over 5H because it was mps, and he had a very distributional hand (thought it was -300 against 650) with little defense. I still don't know what's right. I know I am "suppossed to" bid only 2S on this and then pass throughout, (unless partner invites me back in) but I still am not sure what is right....