[NDLR]

Hi all,
Came across a hand where p had 18 HCP in 4th seat, all passed to him. Shape was 5440 with 3.5 losers (short suit was AKJ). Was wondering whether there is merit in opening this hand 2♣. The obvious advantage being to force a response from p as opposed to opening 1 Major and risking a pass. Should the void be given a numeric value (e.g. A=4)?
Furthermore, are there data sets available where this has been run through an algorithm (e.g. monte carlo) to determine the likelihood of making game given 18HCP and random shapes? Ultimately, could it be a simple case of applying the prababilistic expected value from partner to be 7.33HCP ( 7.33*3 + 18 = 40 ) assuming that a combined 25HCP is sufficient to achieve game most of the time or are there other considerations that I am missing?

Many thanks!

[helene_t]

Hi NLDR, and welcome to the forum

5440 is an awkward shape for 2♣ openings, especially if the long suit is a minor so that you would have to introduce your first suit at the 3-level. On the other hand, it is quite easy to bid such hands after opening at the 1-level. Just rebid a reverse or a jump.

So I would probably need something like AKQxx-AKxx-AKxx to open 2♣ with that shape. 18 points is nowhere near enough - just open your longest suit: if you have game, partner probably won't pass your opening bid. Besides, having a void you shouldn't be so afraid of the board being passed out, as usually someone can bid the suit in which you are void.

With respect to the probabilities, you can use Hans van Staveren's "Dealer" software to generate deals with a particular hand type in one of the hands, and calculate how often game makes double dummy.

[mw64ahw]

With 18 points the other hands share 22 points between them. I would expect partner to bid with 5/6. Typically I would still open 1♠ and if partner passes you may not be making game with support lacking.

If you open 2♣ you are likely to end up playing in a minimum of 3X if partner has little or 2♠ if partner has nothing. Can you count the tricks even without ♠ support?

With a 5 card minor instead of the Major I would be opening 2♣ with 3.5 losers with opener's 2nd bid being 3(one below the short suit). This enables responder to immediately place the contract. With 5 in the Major you may miss the 5-3 fit.

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2021-June-23, 20:43, said:

With respect to the probabilities, you can use Hans van Staveren's "Dealer" software to generate deals with a particular hand type in one of the hands, and calculate how often game makes double dummy.

You can usually do this on BBO, but not right now, as BBO accidentally disabled the 'dealergib' page and has yet to restore it.

[Winstonm]

Just on a simplistic expectation model - 22 missing points divided by 3 hands=7 1/3 per hand - so expectation would be game is a reasonable assumption. But the issue of 2C opening is to require partner to respond when he or she would otherwise pass or to show a range of NT points that outside single bid ranges.

Your concern is valid - your solution (2C) is flawed, not because of you but by its nature. This is the kind of hand that forcing 1C bids were designed to handle.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-24, 07:47, said:

Just on a simplistic expectation model - 22 missing points divided by 3 hands=7 1/3 per hand - so expectation would be game is a reasonable assumption. But the issue of 2C opening is to require partner to respond when he or she would otherwise pass or to show a range of NT points that outside single bid ranges.

Your concern is valid - your solution (2C) is flawed, not because of you but by its nature. This is the kind of hand that forcing 1C bids were designed to handle.

Wondering if playing a Roman 2♦ in 4th seat only is a reasonable solution, I have a feeling that some strong usage is better than a ramped up weak 2, Roman or Mexican or strong 2/all strong multi.

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-June-24, 08:08, said:

Wondering if playing a Roman 2♦ in 4th seat only is a reasonable solution, I have a feeling that some strong usage is better than a ramped up weak 2, Roman or Mexican or strong 2/all strong multi.

I agree that the weak-ish 4th seat bid is not as valuable. What about using those bid's as a modified Acol 2 bid - from Resse-Shapiro days - that was a 1 round force?

[mycroft]

Yes, that's probably a useful meaning for this situation. Looks really strongly like "more likely to forget it the next time it comes up" meaning too. Hopefully it's a "we both forgot it" situation...

[akwoo]

The problem with opening such a hand 2♣ is not that it is too weak. (It isn't - I sometimes open 2♣ on AKQxxxx Ax KQx x) The problem is that, starting the auction at the 2 level, you don't have room to show both your suits, never mind all 3.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-24, 09:51, said:

I agree that the weak-ish 4th seat bid is not as valuable. What about using those bid's as a modified Acol 2 bid - from Resse-Shapiro days - that was a 1 round force?

Some people played them forcing, some didn't. Playing a multi in olden days, I might use an all strong multi. We already play different bids in 4th seat so memory is not an issue.

[razorsharp]

GROW UP, bridge players! The incredible advantage of Mini-Roman 2!D opener (10-12+ HCP) is magnified by P-P-P-2!D, allowing the best contract to be found and preempting them effectively. Can't give that up, esp. considering the frequency. 4th seat ACOL 2- major and 3-bids are clearly best compatible treatment !H

[Cyberyeti]

razorsharp, on 2021-June-24, 13:49, said:

GROW UP, bridge players! The incredible advantage of Mini-Roman 2!D opener (10-12+ HCP) is magnified by P-P-P-2!D, allowing the best contract to be found and preempting them effectively. Can't give that up, esp. considering the frequency. 4th seat ACOL 2- major and 3-bids are clearly best compatible treatment !H

Do you actually want to open a 10 count 4441 in 4th seat ? Also on frequency grounds, how likely is 10-12 ? I would have thought stronger is more likely after 3 passes, 13-15 or similar if not stronger.

[Winstonm]

I tend to favor pass in 4th seat with 10-11, especially so with a stiff in spades

[mycroft]

"double and lead trump. The double is optional."

Please note, I have played this (though not for 20 years), and still play the Wei-style Precision variant. Doesn't mean the joke is wrong. Especially in 4th seat.

[mikeh]

To the OP, it’s a good idea to give as close to the exact hand as possible. Small cards can be ‘x’s but 9’s and 10’s matter.

AQ109x A108x AKJ9 void is far stronger than AQ543 A643 AKJ2 void. A5432 KQJ2 AKJ2 void is even worse.

However, I think you’ll find that very few experts would dream of opening 2C even with the first hand. There are a number of reasons and I’m not going to go into great detail here.

However, I’ll touch on a few.

a) three suited hands opened 2C are very difficult to describe. Life is fine (usually) if partner has a good fit for your longest suit, probably not a disaster if he fits your second suit, but probably a disaster if the fit is in the third suit (opener may well be unable to show it at a safe level) or if there is no good fit at all.

b) by contrast, three suited hands are usually relatively easy to describe if one starts with one of the long suit.

c) partner, even as a passed hand, has rights. If he has say a 9 count or even a good 7-8, with a fit, is going to expect a stronger hand and may get you too high

d) it is extremely unlikely that partner is passing. Neither opponent opened, even in 3rd seat, so partner is very likely looking at at least 5 hcp. While old fashioned texts (and for all I know, even current texts) say one needs 6 points to respond, that’s a far cry from current trends amongst good players. If partner fits your main suit, he should strain to bid. If he doesn’t fit your main suit, and is so weak that he passes, you haven’t made game yet, have you?

Btw, for those suggesting playing some form of Roman 2D, my advice is: don’t

I played mini-Roman many years ago, when I wasn’t a very good player. I always like seeing my opps play it, since that’s as good a way of identifying unknown opps’ skill level as I know. I obviously don’t know the methods of all expert pairs even in NA, but I think I do in terms of Canada and I’ve played against a lot of truly WC pairs. I don’t know any who use mini-Roman

Strong Roman is quite different. Invented to fill a systemic hole in methods developed in the 1950’s, it found new life more recently when some pairs included it as a ‘strong’ option in a multi 2D structure. I have played it in that context, but it’s a minority approach (which I don’t use anymore when playing multi).

[bluenikki]

"old fashioned texts (and for all I know, even current texts) say one needs 6 points to respond"

In old Goren, you MUST respond with 6 points INCLUDING DISTRIBUTION. So most 5 hcp hands were no-choice responses.

Carl