[onoway]

Discussion the other day about what pass pass pass 2(♠ or♥ or♦)signified in terms of hand strength, playing 2/1. People came up with various answers ranging from 12-14 to 15+.

I'm also curious as to the rational for opening 2 with a normal opener in 4rth seat. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me..nobody left to preempt and p may not have anything helpful to contribute to the cause. Is there any consensus about this in the wider world?

[awm]

I play these as about 9-12, the weakest hands I'd open in 4th and denying interest in game unless there's a good fit. The idea is to try to win the part score battle. I suspect my view is very much in the minority here though.

[the hog]

There are a number of possibilities and these are dependant on partnership agreement, not on system so much.
AWM's method is one and I don't think i is as uncommon as he thinks. Other possibilities are playing it as an Acol 2 - my preference.
Another is to play it as a 2 suited opening eg S+m but with increased strength, eg 10-13. I played this for a while when playing RCO's because of the symmetry in opening bids. It worked fine.

[Cyberyeti]

awm, on 2014-January-12, 21:24, said:

I play these as about 9-12, the weakest hands I'd open in 4th and denying interest in game unless there's a good fit. The idea is to try to win the part score battle. I suspect my view is very much in the minority here though.

We play this too

[helene_t]

Ken Rexford once argued that they should be stronger than 1x..2x, i.e. 13-15 or such. I don't remember the reasoning. I would think that AWM's method is standard.

[lycier]

I play 11-13 hcp with 6 card.

[Endymion77]

I play it as an opening hand with a good 6+ card suit, no extras (11-14 or so). Basically to play against a passed hand and preempting opps a little if they want to balance.

[kenberg]

Obviously a fourth hand opening is based on a hand where you think you have a decent chance to produce a plus score by doing so, otherwise you pass it out. So that sets some constraints. My notion is that opening 2♠ shows a hand where I am quite sure spades should be trump, thus a strong suit, plus decent values. KQJxxx and an outside ace, while not without risk, should do it. I don't have eight tricks on my own but after three passes partner should have something. If I have another Q somewhere (and so an opening hand) that's ok too, I still open 2♠. Possibly we can make 4♠ but it is unlikely. With both opponents having already passed, I expect my call of 2♠ to buy the contract, and I expect to make it.

Given that my 2♠ is of this sort, I think that if my passed hand partner now bids a new suit it should be a game try in spades. Occasionally he will be delighted by my 2♠ and think more is possible. If he just has a modest hand and no spades, leave me there, I said spades were trump with my fourth hand opening of 2♠.

[cherdano]

awm, on 2014-January-12, 21:24, said:

I play these as about 9-12, the weakest hands I'd open in 4th and denying interest in game unless there's a good fit. The idea is to try to win the part score battle. I suspect my view is very much in the minority here though.

Huh, I thought this is US expert standard.

[Zelandakh]

I would also say that the standard, not only in the US, is for 4th seat "weak" twos to be what Adam wrote. A couple of British pairs do do what the hog suggested and revert to strong twos. I have also heard some good players, not just Ken, argue for the tweener option, typically about 14-16. The argument is that this gives a bigger boost to constructive bidding than using it for the absolute minimums. If you run a search you will find plenty of threads touching on this subject, akbeit not for a few months now.

[MrAce]

Endymion77, on 2014-January-13, 05:26, said:

I play it as an opening hand with a good 6+ card suit, no extras (11-14 or so). Basically to play against a passed hand and preempting opps a little if they want to balance.

So do i.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-13, 11:16, said:

I would also say that the standard, not only in the US, is for 4th seat "weak" twos to be what Adam wrote.

Yes, definitely standard here, though some pairs might make a small adjustment, eg 10-13. People who play Lucas Twos maybe still play them, but beefed up as suggested by the hog above.

What about a 4th seat 3-level opener? Still trying to buy the contract? Holding a hand that would, in other seats, open 1x and rebid 3x? Holding a solid suit minor hoping partner has enough bits and pieces to try 3NT? Holding a solid major expecting partner to raise to game with a card? Something else? What do people prefer here?

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on 2014-January-13, 04:15, said:

Ken Rexford once argued that they should be stronger than 1x..2x, i.e. 13-15 or such. I don't remember the reasoning. I would think that AWM's method is standard.

I actually prefer Roman Two's (the suit bid plus clubs) because it averts the high reverse problem.