[paulsim]

hi all

MP All red, various scenarious



1.- South is maximun. Double would be a clear cut action?

---

2.- South is still maximun HCP but Q♣ is a dubious value

---

2.1 Still worth a double?
2.2 What about if East overcalls 2♣ instead of balancing?
Now Q♣ value is almost nothing. Pass? still double? other?


3.- What to do in south now, with 3 seat opening?

---

Opener can be light now because of third seat opening

3.1. pass, double or anything else?
3.2. Change the Q♣ with Q♦: would you choose another different call because no wasted values?

Ty all
Kind Regards,

Paul_S

[DavidKok]

I'd double on the first hand (but it's close) but not the other two. I'd much rather have aces and kings than all these queens, and I would also prefer to have values outside partner's length (where the slow values are less likely to get ruffed). The ♣Q isn't just wasted, it is worth negative points (because it means partner's values in the other suits won't be supported by our values, and the opponents likely have some compensation for bidding with a weaker suit).
At IMPs I wouldn't double in any of the three scenarios.

As an aside I think 'third seat openings can be weaker' is really not all it's cracked up to be. Half the time you put partner, not the opponents, in an uncomfortable spot with a (say) 8-11 count and no real clue what to do. Even Drury can't fix everything. If you want to stretch in third seat I'd recommend discussing the responses with a maximum passed hand in detail, especially in competition.

[Cyberyeti]

Also what system are you playing, do any raises go thru 1N ? Is 2♠ ever 4 cards ? Strong NT ? If weak do you open 1N with 5332s.

[AL78]

I would pass on all three hands. Qxxx in two suits looks icky unless partner has AK or maybe KT with them. I'd normally want a fourth spade to bid on and here I don't think I have anything extra to justify freely bidding, and if partner has a good hand for their actions so far they may be able to compete further.

[jillybean]

I too would pass on all 3 hands. My spade support KQx is great but the rest of my hand is very weak. Partner can't move over a simple raise, don't hang him.

[mikeh]

I play (as do most) a lot of low level doubles a ‘do something intelligent’ or as takeout, but this is a sequence in which I’d play double as penalty, so it’s an easy pass in all three scenarios.

[Gilithin]

mikeh, on 2023-May-08, 09:20, said:

I play (as do most) a lot of low level doubles a ‘do something intelligent’ or as takeout, but this is a sequence in which I’d play double as penalty, so it’s an easy pass in all three scenarios.

Indeed! This is perhaps a good moment to ask the OP what he thinks a Double actually means here.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2023-May-08, 04:31, said:

I'd double on the first hand (but it's close) but not the other two. I'd much rather have aces and kings than all these queens, and I would also prefer to have values outside partner's length (where the slow values are less likely to get ruffed). The ♣Q isn't just wasted, it is worth negative points (because it means partner's values in the other suits won't be supported by our values, and the opponents likely have some compensation for bidding with a weaker suit).
At IMPs I wouldn't double in any of the three scenarios.

As an aside I think 'third seat openings can be weaker' is really not all it's cracked up to be. Half the time you put partner, not the opponents, in an uncomfortable spot with a (say) 8-11 count and no real clue what to do. Even Drury can't fix everything. If you want to stretch in third seat I'd recommend discussing the responses with a maximum passed hand in detail, especially in competition.

In my regular partnerships we open almost all 11 counts in first or second seat and many 10 counts if with a 5 card major…and in one, we open 10-13 1N nv.

This has a number of effects.

One is that third seat needn’t stretch too much to open, since partner is limited (we still open the same style in third seat)

Second is that responder won’t often be caught with your problem hand of 10-11 hcp, since he’d likely have opened.

Third is that you (on balance) create problems for the opps in terms of their constructive bidding. Virtually all partnerships have better methods in uncontested auctions than they have after an opp opens

Fourth is that responder, after a first or second seat opening, can’t force to game on random, mis-fitting 13 counts, unless it’s a good 13 count.

Fifth is that, if the opps do own the hand and win the auction, our bidding makes it easier for them to play the hand. So light openings do have sometimes significant downsides.

As for drury…there’s drury and then there’s drury. Standard drury is a bit like standard jacoby 2N over 1M. It’s better than nothing but it’s not very good. Most serious partnerships will use something better. In my main partnership we have multiple pages of notes for both our forcing major suit raise and drury…plus notes on responder’s actions with values but no fit.

What does P (P) 1S (P) 2N mean, as one example. Playing it as a no-fit balanced 10-11 count is horrendous but I suspect many players don’t have a better idea (I think it can usefully be played either as both minors, 5-5 or better, or a single minor where opener can bid 3C pass or correct or 3D, saying he loves clubs, or some other bid with unusual or strong hands).

Sorry to go off topic but I thought your points were well made for most, while wanting to suggest that it’s possible to avoid/minimize these issues in a regular partnership.

[the hog]

Pass all 3 hands.

[DavidKok]

I like systemically opening aggressively, and if your system supports opening most(/all) 11-counts I think that's an advantage. I think the main downside in standard is your point number 4 - your constructive auctions will suffer a bit holding (say) a sound 18-count opposite a nice 12-count, where because of the lower limit on the opening it's not as easy for responder to force to game. Pretty much all of these can be fixed with good partnership agreements. It's exactly the "Rule of 20 openers in first and second, rule of 15 in fourth, in third I will open an 8-count 4cM and get angry when you raise me past the PAR" style that causes troubles.

Personally I think points number 2 and 3 are some of the main benefits of lighter opening styles. I think in the context of a limited opening system it is clear to include these hands and build the system around them. In a standard system I'm more on the fence - I'll open shapely hands almost always, but the 11-count 5M332's keep getting me into trouble (I always end up playing 2NT-1 facing a 10-count when the field is in 1NT=, or 6M-2 when partner fell in love with their balanced 19-count with 3-card support).

I've never been a fan of Drury, even with good followups. For a brief while I played very wide-ranging 2-level preempts in third seat - our agreement was "if you would be happy to have partner raise you to the 3-level with a limit raise, open 1M. If you are not, open 2M". It worked quite well and meant we could play our normal raise structure without issues.