Variation to BWDH

[han]

The following hand came up yesterday during a homebase tournament.

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=saqxha1098xxdkxxca]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

The auction was 1H-1S-??, opponents silent. What's your call? Which alternatives do you consider reasonable?

[kenrexford]

Whichever of 2NT or 2S shows 4+ suppport and limit+. What next is uncertain...

 

Whoops -- missed "opponents are silent"

[pclayton]

I suppose you'd get votes for 2♦, 3♥ and 2 or 3♠.

 

Ben's trick about 3♥ promising 3♠ is useful a neat treatment here, although I don't know if it works after 1♥ - 1♠ - ?

 

In the absence of anything special, I'll try 2♦, but I think a majority of experts would bid 3♥.

[joshs]

I consider 2D and 3D reasonable, I don't think 3H on that weak of a suit, with sutability for 3 other strains to be reasonable.

 

My vote is 2D. The 2D bid is a mild underbid, but lets you explore more strains, assuming partner doesn't pass. But its close...

 

I seem to recall that in washington standard the auction 1H-1S-3N showed 3S and 6H, Not Forcing. But washington standard uses a flannary 2D opening, so 1S is usually 5 cards, and that significantly upgrades openers hand.

[han]

Very funny Ken :).

 

With Ben we would have had no problem on this hand (for one thing, we play Kaplan inversion and a strong Riton 2C rebid which can be a variety of strong hands without clear rebid). Here I was playing with MickyB and without many agreements.

[han]

Wow Josh, 3♦!?!

[hrothgar]

I'm bidding 3♦

[joshs]

Wow Josh, 3♦!?!

3D has the merit of ending up in a reasonable contract opposite:

KQxxx x Qxx xxxx or lots of other hands with 5 spades and 1H that would pass 2D

 

The main question you have to ask if you decide to make an overbid like this is:

does it significantly help you get the strain correct. I think the answer is uncertain here, but you will usually get to a reasonable strain after 3D.

 

I do slightly prefer a 2D bid, but I tend to be very conservative in my bidding...

[mikeh]

A good hand for Cole (which I suspect is close to ritong, since both use a forcing 2♣ here). Absent that, my choice is a relatively guiltless 2♦. Partner will rarely pass and there is no law that says, when he passes, that we are in a horrible spot... yes, 2 or 3♠ would likely be better than 2♦, but it is unlikely that we have missed game.

 

This ties in well with another current thread: the 2♠ rebid after 1♣ 1♥ with K10xx x AJ AKQxxx.

 

It comes down to how much does responder need to keep a change of suit auction alive at his second turn.

 

I am a heavy bidder when it comes to responder (or opener) making a game invitational bid, but I am a light bidder when it comes to responder keeping a change of suit auction alive.

 

Thus I would happily take a false preference to 2♥ with 5=2=3=3 with almost any hand and with 5=2=4=2 with a good 8 count or more.

[han]

Riton is indeed somewhat similar to Cole. The idea is to use the 2M openings to show the minimal opening hands with 5(+) in the major and 4+ in clubs, so that the 2C rebid can be used for strong hands.

 

Your (mikeh's) comments about missing game makes me suspect that you didn't notice the form of scoring is MPs. Does this change your opinion? Playing in 2D could be disasterous.

 

 

MickyB also bid 2♦ and I passed with xxxxx K xxx J10xx. Perhaps I shouldn't have bid 1S in the first place.. any thoughts? 2D made exactly, but spades and hearts both play better. It is not clear where the 3D bidders end up, probably in 4S, I think that's not such a good MPs spot (nor is any other game).

 

Cole/Riton bidders probably play in 2S, likely the best contract.

 

I think I would have bid 2D too.

[whereagles]

3♥. I'd prefer a better suit, but nothing else comes close to what I have. (I absolutely hate bidding 2/3♦ to 'solve' the problem.. LOL.)

 

The alternative is 2♥, hoping pard can scrap up a bid over that.

[jdonn]

I like 2♦ a lot. My second choice is 3♦ as the best way to keep both majors alive (and diamonds too for that matter).

 

I think the fault was responder's for responding to the opening bid. Why not pass 1♥? I'm sure game in spades is possible on some hands but you will get too high on many other hands, or have something happen like actually occured.

[mikeh]

Your (mikeh's) comments about missing game makes me suspect that you didn't notice the form of scoring is MPs. Does this change your opinion? Playing in 2D could be disasterous.

That is not the first (nor the last) time I made that mistake :(

 

Actually, it doesn't change my bid at all, because I suspect that partner will be far more likely to correct to 2♥ with 5=2=4=2 weak at mps than at imps. Also, plus scores are king at mps, and an overbid of 3♥ (wrong suit quality) or 3♠(wrong suit length) is far more likely to get us a minus score if he has a hand with which he would pass 2♦. Put another way: if he bids over 2♦, I will probably find the right spot (altho he may think I am 3=5=4=1) while if he passes 2♦, I may well score better than any other contract I could have reached.

[keylime]

I bid three hearts here, showing 3-6-x-x and inferring offshape hand. I like my hand, and I want to tell pard the reasonably good news.

[Free]

3♥ showing 6♥-3♠, wtp??

[Codo]

I do not understand, why 3 ♥ should show 3 Spades, so I would bid 3 Spades.

I never jump in pds suit with just a 3 card raise, but this is the hand, where I would.

Besides, I play the Kaplan inversion and this is a perfect hand to do so.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I think I will go with 3H, the suit is a bit rotten,

but at least I get the strength across.

 

You will get votes for 2D, 2H, 2S and 3H,

but bids on the 2 level, are a bid to heavy for me.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

So we end up in 3-3 D fit, I bet we make alot of tricks. :). I have been in much worse contracts. I doubt the other table is bidding 4s.

[han]

Mike777, as I said, it is matchpoints. Playing in 2D while the other tables are in a major partscore is likely a bottom.

[pclayton]

I think 2♦ has so much going for it, that I would risk it even at MP's. Hopefully they don't lead a trump (although they usually should) if pard lets me play there.

[han]

Good point Phil. Fortunately they didn't lead a trump. Also, as Jdonn already stated, my response was questionable and the result can be blamed on my choice at least as much as on MickyB's.

[mike777]

I agree 100% with all the bids, this hand is more difficult than most seem to consider but with all that said I thought all the bids were clear cut.

[jdonn]

I agree 100% with all the bids, this hand is more difficult than most seem to consider but with all that said I thought all the bids were clear cut.

Now here is a man who does not result! :)

[HeartA]

Wow Josh, 3♦!?!

3♦ would be my choice, too. wtp?

[mikestar]

This is the sort of hand where you curse yourself for not playing Precision--of course, we Precisionistas curse ourselves for playing it on on certain other hand types. If perfect methods were possible, they would have been discovered by now.