[jdonn]

I bid 3NT because passing this hand was so terrible to me that I refuse to take the low road later unless I'm sure it's right, which I'm not.

[P_Marlowe]

NickRW, on Sep 24 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

<snip>
These days I am back to playing Acol - but still passing a lot of crappy 12s like this one - and I am still a long way from convinced that this is poor strategy - but I have to admit that I only play this way with partners who see eye to eye.
<snip>

Does this affect the actions your partners
take in 4th seat?

I snipped away your hand, do you open this
hand in the same partnership you pass hands
with crappy 12s?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[NickRW]

P_Marlowe, on Sep 25 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

Does this affect the actions your partners take in 4th seat?

Not particularly. Like a lot of other people I like to see spades in a borderline 4th seat hand - or at least a few spades and lots of hearts.

Quote

I snipped away your hand, do you open this
hand in the same partnership you pass hands
with crappy 12s?

With kind regards
Marlowe

Yeah. A lot of people have great faith in HCP and not so much in distribution - which is reflected in their attitude to opening. I have the reverse philosphy.

Partly this is born out of my past system choices - partly out of analysis of a database of DD results. I found that two shapeless, intermediateless 12 counts don't provide good play for game - so no imperative to open them - while two hands like the one I quoted (with reasonable fit) often do - but you won't find the fit (if it exists) by not bidding of course.

Nick

P.S. Later edit. I said above, "but you won't find the fit (if it exists) by not bidding of course." If you take this attitude to opening, you have to be really quite aware of potential misfits and ready to stop - thus systems that are full of forcing sequences are, to my mind, not a good fit with this. It does go quite well with a limit system like Acol - it would probably also go well with something like Magic Diamond or similar system with a number of opening ranges built in.

[NickRW]

Apollo81, on Sep 25 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

10-10, nice.

I ran a sim on this. It is genuinely very close indeed. It really all depends on exactly what assumptions you have about the strength (or lack of it) that partners 4th seat opening shows. If partner will be really quite sound only having (apparently) clubs, the lowest ranked suit, for a 4th seat opener, then game is just worth bidding. If partner is even slightly lower than that, then you're better off out of it.

Nick

[lilboyman]

If our agreement is to pass a hand such as this in first or second seat, then I would expect my partner to protect with very little in 3rd or 4th seat. In 4th seat I would expect a "rule of 15" up to a full opener. My double of 2 Ds is a discovery mechanism promising a near opener and the balance of power if partner has at least 12 HCP. Partner can pass, if our side has 23 HCP, bid on with a game going hand or pull to 3C with a weaker hand. Accordingly, I think I pass with this hand.

[Apollo81]

At the table, the player who held the OP hand had the additional unauthorized information that opener thought his 2♣ response showed 6-10 points (which was their agreement). That player thought 3NT was clear anyway and bid it. Neither contract legitimately makes, but 3NT has chances on the wrong lead+continuation. Opener had a 4423 11-count. All players involved were A/E.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Sep 26 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

All players involved were A/E.

I disagree. I thought you said one of them passed this hand in second seat.

[han]

And took advantage of the UI. And the other removed a penalty double to his 3-card suit instead of bidding 2NT. At this point it should have been clear that partner intended 2C as inverted.