[pescetom]

If I bid anything other than pass in 4th seat it is because I think there is a good chance of a positive score... so it seems obvious that a 2 level opening with a 6 card suit should have a minimum closer to 10 HCP rather than the usual 6 HCP or so, particularly if not spades.

But where bridge logic ends, agreements start to be necessary, and twice in a week with two different partners I have found this situation problematic: the first with 2♥+2 (admittedly a rather thin game, some bid and made but it was down double-dummy) and the second with 2♦+4 (again down double-dummy, but 5♦ was cold and bid and made by many).

Should the 2-level opening be limited and if so, to what maximum?
What should a simple raise / 2NT / new suit by passed hand mean?

Please assume you play Ogust and RONF over a weak 2 level opening in 1st seat.

[johnu]

Typically a 4th seat "weak" two is around 10-13 or 10-14 points. I don't think most players do anything different over a 4th seat weak two, so Ogust and RONF seem fine. Creating a new system for marginal (if any, with added memory load) improvement for a very rare situation isn't the best use of time.

I would modify RONF so that only 2NT is forcing, which I already would do for a 3rd seat weak 2.

[DavidKok]

One useful agreement is that you should only open a (weak) two in fourth seat if you would have rejected an invitation to game, while any hand that will accept should open on the 1-level. This is not standard, but it is simple and effective.

[LBengtsson]

10-14 6 card suit for me for 2♦/2♥/2♠ in 4th. I guess the idea behind it is that if you have only 10-14, the opps could have their own part score available, and opening at the one level with this type of hand allows them to compete more easily.

[Douglas43]

About 9-11 hcp for me, might be 8 with spades and vulnerability in our favour.

[Cyberyeti]

You also need to decide what a 4th seat 3 opener looks like, we play 10-14 ish

[pescetom]

johnu, on 2022-July-07, 15:44, said:

Typically a 4th seat "weak" two is around 10-13 or 10-14 points. I don't think most players do anything different over a 4th seat weak two, so Ogust and RONF seem fine. Creating a new system for marginal (if any, with added memory load) improvement for a very rare situation isn't the best use of time.

I would modify RONF so that only 2NT is forcing, which I already would do for a 3rd seat weak 2.

I agree about keeping things simple in an infrequent situation, in fact I was wondering if it might be better to drop Ogust and just maintain RONF plus a simple raise as a natural invite. But I agree that same systems is probably the least memory load.

We do play that RONF is off in third, but I'm not convinced it is a good idea in fourth: apart from other considerations we don't always have a way of introducing a new suit after Ogust.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2022-July-08, 06:42, said:

I agree about keeping things simple in an infrequent situation, in fact I was wondering if it might be better to drop Ogust and just maintain RONF plus a simple raise as a natural invite. But I agree that same systems is probably the least memory load.

We do play that RONF is off in third, but I'm not convinced it is a good idea in fourth: apart from other considerations we don't always have a way of introducing a new suit after Ogust.

The fourth seat opening said among other things "I strongly believe we should declare this suit." So how can responder, who presumably lacks a decent 6-card suit, suggest a partscure in a different suit?

No, the only sensible use of a new suit is to show a source of tricks in a hand supporting opener's suit.

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2022-July-08, 07:03, said:

The fourth seat opening said among other things "I strongly believe we should declare this suit." So how can responder, who presumably lacks a decent 6-card suit, suggest a partscure in a different suit?

No, the only sensible use of a new suit is to show a source of tricks in a hand supporting opener's suit.

If you are saying that a forcing new suit should usually also have support to fall back on, I can see it.

But I can't see why we should exclude the idea of playing in responder's 5-card major, especially at MP. In the case of the 2♦ hand I mentioned, 5♦ was cold but also 5♠ in the 3-5 fit (would have been a top but for the lucky pair in 1NTx-7). I guess it depends partly on how heavy your 1M opening style is.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2022-July-07, 16:17, said:

One useful agreement is that you should only open a (weak) two in fourth seat if you would have rejected an invitation to game, while any hand that will accept should open on the 1-level. This is not standard, but it is simple and effective.

I saw one (older?) US document recommending the opposite, more or less, with the two bid promising a good six of 13-15 HCP and weaker six going through the one bid. Which does seem very playable, with responder well placed to invite or bid game.

I guess your solution has the advantage of higher frequency.

Current sources seem mostly aligned around 10-14 for majors, which looks more difficult for responder than either of the above.

[Tramticket]

When I first learnt bridge, we played Strong Acol Twos. They are a good method, but like most in the UK, we abandoned Strong Twos because they come up too infrequently. But since the partnership was familiar with the method we carried on playing Strong Twos in fourth seat.

Partnerships change and I no longer play Strong Twos in any seat. But I can't remember the last time that a 4th-seat Weak Two came up at the table.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2022-July-08, 13:57, said:

But I can't remember the last time that a 4th-seat Weak Two came up at the table.

Happened to me twice in a week, both disasters

Yes it should be fairly infrequent whatever the agreement and not worth much memory load for an I/A partnership.
But a 4th-seat 1M is frequent and we should know which 6-card hands it includes and excludes.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2022-July-08, 09:46, said:

If you are saying that a forcing new suit should usually also have support to fall back on, I can see it.

But I can't see why we should exclude the idea of playing in responder's 5-card major, especially at MP. In the case of the 2♦ hand I mentioned, 5♦ was cold but also 5♠ in the 3-5 fit (would have been a top but for the lucky pair in 1NTx-7). I guess it depends partly on how heavy your 1M opening style is.

And if there is *no* fit to responder's 5-card major? Now you are stuck with trying to take 9 tricks in a partial misfit.

Face it: a hand with a 6-card suit is almost 2-1 against having 3 cards in another particular suit. You mentioned matchpoints?

[smerriman]

bluenikki, on 2022-July-08, 20:18, said:

And if there is *no* fit to responder's 5-card major? Now you are stuck with trying to take 9 tricks in a partial misfit.

No, you'd be trying to take 9 cards in a *fit*, as you wouldn't have bid a new suit otherwise as per the above condition. It may be 2:1, but if you gain 1/3 of the time and had support to be at the 3 level anyway, what's to lose?