Force Game or Not

[microcap]

You hold [hv=d=s&v=n&s=saj109hxxdakqxxcqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] and open 1♦. LHO Passes, Partner responds one spade. What is your rebid and your thinking? Thanks!!

[dcvetkov]

4♠, Whats the problem like Justin would say :)

 

Solid trumps, running suit, it rates to be a winner on the long run, and it describes the strong hand with no singletons.

 

Any help suit tries will just help the opposition find the best lead or sacrifice

[Mr. Dodgy]

I voted 4♠, but it's a bit thin, 3♠ is probably better. Thinking? Nah.

[Wiste1]

I like 4♦: 5♦, 4♠ and game values denying singl./void....maybe not standard ?

 

With 18-19 balanced and 4♠ i would jump to 4♠

[mike777]

3s 16-17 yes?

 

Besides Partner does not promise 6 hcp.

[EricK]

3♠.

 

This seems standard. If partner has the wrong minimum we may even go down (eg Qxxx QJx Jx Jxxx with ♠ finesse off). If he has the right minimum we will make game. But making the value bid should get us to the right spot most often.

 

Eric

[han]

3S, heavy, but this is not good enough to jump to 4S in my opinion.

 

As most posters here, I play that 1D-1S-4D shows 6+ solid diamonds and 4-card support, so that is out.

 

I would be very surprised if Justin would say 4S WTP here. This is not a situation where you are to guess the final contract, partner still has a say.

[pclayton]

Pretty much a textbook 3♠ call with or without the Q♣. I feel better about this call playing a 12-14 NT by the way.

[mr1303]

3S, but I'm not overly happy for it. I wouldn't be surprised to see partner make a 4th if he passes.

[han]

Let me make a short commercial for one of Ben's favorite gadgets. He would bid 2NT, showing 4+ support and 17+ support points. No need to guess whether you want to be in game just yet, and this should make slam bidding much smoother.

[mikeh]

3♠

 

This bid reflects what I believe to be the appropriate attitude towards invitational bidding. The invite asks partner to bid game unless he has a reason not to do so.

 

Heavy invites and light acceptances.

 

Heavy both results in too many missed games. Light both results in overbidding.

 

Light invites and heavy accepts miss or reach the same proportion of games as does the reverse approach. They reach and miss different thin games, but on average it balances out.

 

The benefit from the heavy invite and light acceptance approach is primarily in the part score area. Heavy inviters will generally be safer opposite really bad responses or in the case of bad breaks.

 

This hand does not involve that kind of decision, since it is about reaching game. But imagine making the S hand a touch lighter: to the point that the choice is not 3 or 4♠ but 2♠ or a game try. If you are a heavy inviter and bid 2♠, then opposite a minimum with bad breaks you play 2♠ while your counterpart plays 3♠.

 

On this hand, I can afford to invite since my partner expects me to be full-values and he will stretch to bid game. If my philosophy is to push as opener, then partner has to be careful when deciding to accept,

[Chamaco]

Heavy invites and light acceptances.

 

......

Hi Mike,

interesting post.

 

I'd like to know which phylosophy you like to apply when playing strong club + weak NT with limited openers (frequent shapely 10 count).

 

Do you prefer heavy invite +light acceptance or the other way around ?

Do you use the same approach for limited openers and for big club sequences ?

 

Ty very much ;)

[Guest Jlall]

Correct, I would say what's the problem but I would bid 3S ;) I am used to light responses, so this is fairly normal to me. One of my partners even said my 3S bids "ask for a real response" lol. That was after i bid 3S with 4333 19 and he went on 6. But in any type of responses, I would expect partner to go with 2 cards over this raise. If he has the SQ and CK he will pass but thats the only hand I'm worried about. Even if he has that we may not be able to get to his hand to take the finesse.

[Finch]

Indeed, this looks to be a down-the-middle 3S bid. Better than a minimum opening, not enough to force to game, what's the problem?

[luis]

3♠ I'm quite comfortable with 3♠

[Walddk]

If this is not a 3♠ rebid I don't know what is. Shows 16-18 where I come from.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

 

I'd like to know which phylosophy you like to apply when playing strong club + weak NT with limited openers (frequent shapely 10 count).

 

Do you prefer heavy invite +light acceptance or the other way around ?

Do you use the same approach for limited openers and for big club sequences ?

 

I haven't played big club methods for 11 years. But I use the same philosophy, bearing in mind that 'light' or 'heavy' is in context.

 

The idea is still the same: when inviting, have full values, whatever that may be in the context of the auction, and your method. When accepting, go with any excuse.

 

Put another way: aggressive invites convey the message: go to game if you have a reason to do so

 

heavy invites convey the message: go to game unless you have a reason not to

 

BTW, all of this is a question of degree, of emphasis, of hand evaluation and I am not advocating an ultra-conservative approach by any means: I am an aggressive game bidder, who likes to upgrade hands. It is just that on hands where the invite/do not invite choice is truly close, I prefer not to invite. BTW, in my view this is a very important point to cover with any new partner, if intending to form a serious partnership: philosophy is as important (or more so) than implementing a bunch of conventions.

[Chamaco]

BTW, in my view this is a very important point to cover with any new partner, if intending to form a serious partnership: philosophy is as important (or more so) than implementing a bunch of conventions.

Yes, I'd even say that 1st step is to agree a phylosophy, second step is to choose the conventions that best fit with the pair's phylosophy :-)

[jdeegan]

:) 3♠

 

Not quite good enough for four. Queen of ♣ may not be pulling any weight. Besides, a typical minimum reponse of KQxxx of spades and a random queen or jack has no play for four. Enough said.

[P_Marlowe]

3S, wtp?

 

If partner has more than garbage, he will

move on, else pass.

Partner knows, we are playing IMP's.

 

Besides, 4S will kill any sensible slam try,

which partner may be inclined to make, after

4S, he usually can only bid 4NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[luke warm]

i voted 3S, but i do believe i'm on the cusp of 4S... the reason for 3S is the shape (4225).. with 4135 i'd probably go for 4S

[Fluffy]

I also voted for 3♠ althou Loser trick count goes against it today (even without the ♣Q), very close to 4♦. With the ♦J I would bid that, maybe even with the 10.

[Winstonm]

3S. Guess it's possible to miss game but it's also possible to not have a making game.

 

On really big hands,

 

AQ10x

xx

AKJ9x

Ax

 

I like to use a 4D bid on this type hand as the frequency is higher than solid suit rebids thereby making it more useful and almost as descriptive.

 

Winston

[Chamaco]

I also voted for 3♠ althou Loser trick count goes against it today

No, LTC is ok with bidding 3S.

 

In spades, AJ109 is not 2 losers but rather less than 1.5 losers (75% chances that the double finesse yields 1 loser only).

 

So we have at most 5.5 losers (2+2+1.5) and 5-5.5 losers is worth a reverse (as usual, once we find a fit).

[Kalvan14]

I also voted for 3♠ althou Loser trick count goes against it today (even without the ♣Q), very close to 4♦. With the ♦J I would bid that, maybe even with the 10.

Ditto.

My problem is that partner does not have a honor in ♦, and he might be more reluctant to go to 4♠ with a minimum (I can play 4♠ with a couple of kings in front - even with Q♠ and a side king).

The more I think about it, the more I like 4♦ (the problem is that 4♦ for me is 6 cards, but AKQxx is almost as good)