opinions please

[sceptic]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=st8543h652d73cak6&w=shqj873dk942cqt73&e=sqj976hdqj85c8542&s=sak2hakt94dat6cj9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  1♥

 Pass  1♠    Pass  2NT

 Pass  3NT   Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

can I have opinions on the 1 spade bid please

 

 

also can I have opinions on the 2nt bid after 1 spade, what other options do I have over a 1 spade bid?

[luke warm]

i guess 1♠ is ok, but i'd just bid 2♥... over 1♠ i'd bid 2nt also

[luis]

My humble opinion is that 1♠ is fine

2NT is fine

and 3NT is horrible, why not 4♥ when you have support?

 

Luis

[foo]

Agree with Luis.

 

Proper sequence should be 1H-1S;2N-4H

 

If you are bit more sophisticated and play NMF over Opener's 2N rebid, Responder can uncover the double fit in S+H:

1H-1S;2N-3C!;3S-etc

Useful when Responder is a bit stronger and interested in exploring slam.

 

Up until the weird 3N rebid by Responder, this was a textbook SA auction.

[EricK]

I don't like 1♠.

 

The main reason is that if the bidding starts 1♥ 1♠ 2m 2♥ partner will not know you have genuine support. A secondary reason is that your spade suit is really weak so that partner might misevaluate a spade honour or a spade shortage. A third reason is that it makes it easier for LHO to get a lead directing bid in or double to show both minors. A fourth reason is that if the opponents do compete, partner might blow a trick with a spade lead.

 

2NT is OK, although I can understand any doubts you might have about it. Will partner simply bid 3NT if has something like ♠Qxxxx ♥Jx ♦KQx ♣xxx? The only alternatives are:

 

3♦ followed by 3♠ over the likely 3♥ (which will mislead partner into thinking you have a singleton ♣, but at least will guarantee you have the ♣ stopped if you end up in NT)

 

2♦. Which has the same advantages and flaws as 3♦, and the added flaw of being NF (you could easily miss a spade game if partner passes with a 5134 hand)

 

3♠. This looks too commital, but may work out OK even if you get to a 4-3 fit. (It is more likely to work out OK if 3NT by partner would be natural showing a 42(34) hand with weak spades).

[helene_t]

I don't like 1♠.

 

The main reason is that if the bidding starts 1♥ 1♠ 2m 2♥ partner will not know you have genuine support.

Yes but this hand is so bad that it's ok to sell it as a false-preference hand. For a direct raise I like to have slightly more. Add the jack of hearts and I agree with 2♥.

 

This is obviously an important issue to discuss with partner.

[cherdano]

I agree with Eric, I don't like 1♠.

[hotShot]

After 1♥ north knows that they have a 8+card fit in a major. He has 5♠ so it is unlikely that opps will try to play ♠.

What possible reasons are ther not to show support immediatelly?

1) delayed game rise? => hand is not strong enough

2) playing MP's to see if you can make NT => with this ♠ and 7HCP not a good idea

3) expecting opener to be a much weaker in declarer play, trying to get declarer

@ helene_t

north has 2 ♣ tricks, 7HCP and 3 card support.

2♥ would show 6-9(10) HCP and 3 card support, even with xxx in ♥ a raise is appropriate.

A suit conversion M=>M or m=>m should show strength, otherwise it makes no sence at all.

 

1♠ is just a poor bid.

 

2NT is ok.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would also have prefered 2H instead of 1S.

I just want to add another comment:

Responder should have bid 3C / 3S over 2NT,

the 2NT bid did not deny 3 card spade support.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

2♥ would show 6-9(10) HCP and 3 card support

In SAYC, yes. But most 2/1 players would say 8-10.

[cherdano]

2♥ would show 6-9(10) HCP and 3 card support

In SAYC, yes. But most 2/1 players would say 8-10.

Even so, I think this hand qualifies. xxx trumps is a minus, but AK a plus (and we do have 8 dummy points).

[keylime]

If you play Flannery, 1♠ is nearly automatic.

 

However, let's say you're not. I've of the school that I have no reason to introduce spades unless I am going to make a move (a la 3h or higher at my next turn). Why muddle the auction?

[mikeh]

2♥ would show 6-9(10) HCP and 3 card support

In SAYC, yes. But most 2/1 players would say 8-10.

I disagree.

 

There is a school of thought within the 2/1 community that plays single raises are constructive. Some of those players specify an 8-10 point range. Others are more flexible in their requirements and may hold a good 7.

 

But a very large contingent within the 2/1 gf community do not play constructive raises... and they are not being irrational about it.

 

One major problem with constructive raises is the sequence:

 

1♠ [P]  1N  [2x]

 

where 2x is any bid from 2♣ to 2♥: ie the use of the constructive raise has forced responder, with 3 card support, to bid 1N because he was not strong enough to raise directly. It is far easier for the opps to come in over 1N than over 2♠.

 

Personally, I play 'semi-constructive' raises: defined as a hand that would accept a help suit game try in at least one side suit: I don't really think in terms of hcp much :unsure:

 

On the actual hand, I would have no real problem with either 1♠ or 2♥, in a sayc context.

 

2N is clear.

 

3N is not clear, but not irrational: it is easy to construct hands on which 9 tircks in nt are easier than 10 tricks in a major. I would tend to bid 3♥ here: that would both show the 3 card support and allow partner to bid 3♠ if partner held 3 ♠ and doubt about denomination.

 

When in doubt, a useful maxim to follow is 'support with support'. So long as maxims do not become dogma, they can help keep us on track in difficult situations.

[jdonn]

One major problem with constructive raises is the sequence:

 

1♠ [P]  1N  [2x]

 

where 2x is any bid from 2♣ to 2♥: ie the use of the constructive raise has forced responder, with 3 card support, to bid 1N because he was not strong enough to raise directly. It is far easier for the opps to come in over 1N than over 2♠.

Well, yes and no. It's true you let the opponents in more cheaply, but this is not the same as letting them in more easily. Most players are aware that 1♠ p 1NT is a far more dangerous auction to jump into than 1♠ p 2♠.

 

Also, suppose the opponent is going to overcall on either auction on a given particular hand. You might buy it more cheaply after 1NT by balancing with 2♠, whereas partner on the immediate raise auction might compete to 3♠ against your will.

 

I have come to think over time (though it took a lot of persuading and playing both ways) that constructive raises are very worthwhile. To each his own though.

[mikeh]

I did not mean to say that constructive raises are a bad idea: I have often played them and will almost certainly do so again: if my partner wants to, I never object. I happen to prefer something a little different: semi-constructive is (for me) a valuable compromise.

 

My real point was merely to clarify that, in my experience, it is incorrect to suggest that the 2/1 community, as a whole, plays constructive raises: that statement, posted in a BIL forum, might mislead a number of players who are learning or thinking of learning 2/1.

[jdonn]

Yes I understand, they are definitely just an optional add-on.

 

On the original hand it seems obvious to me to raise to 2♥ right away. When I have support, I support. If partner has extras with four spades we will still find that suit next, and if he is a minimum I just don't care.

[jdonn]

If you play Flannery, 1♠ is nearly automatic.

 

However, let's say you're not. I've of the school that I have no reason to introduce spades unless I am going to make a move (a la 3h or higher at my next turn). Why muddle the auction?

Why is this? My thinking would be partner doesn't have four spades, so now I'm even less interested than I was before in bidding 1♠.

[Blofeld]

I'm very happy bidding 2♥ even playing constructive raises.

[foo]

♠T8543♥652♦73♣AK6

 

1H-??

 

In both SA and 2/1 GF, both of

1H-1N;2m-2H

1H-1S;2m-2H

Are Preference Auctions showing a minimum that should almost always be passed.

 

*glances upward* 2 cover cards, 9 losers, all my HCP in a likely to be undevelopable short suit... yep looks like a good hand for a Preference Auction to me.

 

Now, which contract is going to play better?

2S in your 54 fit or possibly 53 fit with a shortness in Dummy, OR

2H with your xxx in support in a flat hand?

2S

 

If it goes 1H-2H;Game Try, how do you feel?

Sick to your stomach.

 

You bid 1S rather than a 2H raise because

a= you are trying to improve the final contract

b= you want this auction to end in 2M and no where else.

[jdonn]

I still don't understand 1♠.

- Why is this hand so terrible? It's 7 points are in the form of an AK working together in the same suit, not scattered queens and jacks, and it has a potentially useful doubleton. It is about average for a single raise. Given that the standard for a single raise is either 6-9 or 6-10 presuming you don't play constructive raises, it is impossible to claim this hand is worth less than 6 in support of hearts. K&R values it at 7.35, and that is without even knowing about a fit opposite which is worth an upgrade.

- On a preference auction partner will think you have a doubleton heart. He will also misevaluate his spade holding. x AKxxx AKQx xxx is a clear pass on 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ opposite what should be a doubleton and with a stiff in partner's "suit". How can he bid on when you probably have QJxxx xx xx Axxx? Even worse would be if he rebid 2♣, now you miss game opposite even more hands, such as x AQJxx Ax QJxxx.

- 1♥ p 1♠ 3♦ p p? What do you do now? What if partner wanted to compete to this level if only he knew you had support for him? Or do you bid 3♥ yourself and make that decision for the partnership on a hand that clearly doesn't justify it?

 

I decided to see what online sources had to say.

 

OKBridge SAYC system reference:

1♠ = at least four spades, 6 or more points. Tends to deny a heart fit.

2♥ = three-card or longer heart support; 6-10 dummy points.

 

Richard Pavlicek Standard American bidding guide:

1♥ p ? With 3+ trumps

6-10 points raise to 2♥

 

Karen Walker's "Beginning Bridge: Basics for Responder":

If partner opens 1H or 1S, always raise his suit if you have 3+-card support. Showing a fit is more important than bidding any other suit.

 

Swan Games SAYC notes:

With a Minimum Hand (6-9/10 Points)

Raise partner's major with three-card support or better.

 

ACBL SAYC system booklet (same as OKB, but a more authoritative reference):

1♠ = At least four spades, 6 or more points, tends to deny a heart fit.

2♥ = Three card or longer heart support, 6 to 10 dummy points.

 

Believe me, there were many more.

[foo]

I'm certainly not arguing with the definitions of what a minimum hand is or what the books say about showing support.

 

That ♠T8543♥652♦73♣AK6 is clearly a minimum H raise in SA is not in question.

 

The issue is whether it is weak enough to set up a Preference Auction despite its 3card support or whether it is good enough for a direct raise.

 

jdonn has come up with some decent examples for his point that are not so unusual as to be unrealistic.

 

Call me convinced. 1H-2H is the better auction. I'm still concerned that there is a non-ignorable chance that We will get too high, but C'est La Vie.

[han]

For me this is a clear heart raise, I wouldn't even consider bidding 1♠. As for foo's question:

 

If it goes 1H-2H;Game Try, how do you feel?

Sick to your stomach.

 

Only if partner makes a short suit game try in clubs. I have nothing to be ashamed of.

[Double !]

prefer immediate raise to 2H

what is wrong with first supporting with support, and then look for other fish to fry if necessary?

 

fwiw: I am not crazy about constructive raises even in 2/1 or anything with 1M-1NT as being forcing. There is a chance of opps competing with a suit at the 2 level over 1NT and opener is now poorly placed without knowledge of trump support.

I must be getting old and obsolete

 

DHL

[foo]

FTR, there are some minimum responding hands with 3 card support that I still think are not worth a direct raise of 1H:

 

4333's with only two honors unless those two honors are both A's.

 

Control poor 6-7 counts, especially in flat hands.

 

etc

 

basically, a minimum raise should promise 2 cover cards and no more than 9 losers the vast majority of the time.

[Wackojack]

Hmm very interesting. Just to confess that I was Wayne's partner on this deal. Another confession. I come from an Acol background where it is automatic to bid a spade suit if you have it, when you don't have 4- card support for partner. Here we were playing 2/1 and my instinct was not to bid 2H unless I held Jxx or better when I hold 5 spades. I am now just about convinced that I should have supported with 2H immediately. btw We were not playing Flannery and had not agreed constructive raises. I am not sure I like them anyway. As Erick said 1h 1s 2m 2h is only preference.... so it can be inferred that this shows a doubleton heart. And yes I admit that my bid of 3nt was a bit weird.