Initial response

[paulg]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skt3haqt4da73c932]133|100|Scoring: MP

Partner opens 1♠ (5 card majors, 14-16 1NT)

 

Your bid?[/hv]

 

From the Life Masters Pairs at the weekend. You probably expect to end up in 4♠, but how do you start?

 

Paul

[Blofeld]

2♣.

 

I may not be able to get back to spades if partner raises hearts.

 

If the diamonds were something like KJx I'd probably bid 2♦. But here the ace is a useful value opposite anything. And it's normalish to let 2♣ be 3 cards, while not 2♦.

[JohnnyH7]

I would bid 2H. I think this is less of a distortion than 2C, although 2C is the correct technical bid. It will be very hard for partner to evaluate his hand if I start with 2C; starting with 2H enables him to upgrade th right things (heart length and/or the king, minor suit shortness etc).

[Free]

2NT probably risks to lose the ♥ fit, or to find 3NT. I guess 2♣ is probably better...

[joshs]

2H. Yes I know this shows 5, but my primary interest is to be able to offer a choice between 3N and 4S, and the best way of doing that is by bidding where I live. After 2H you plan on raising 2N to 3N or otherwise supporting spades. Now if you play some sort of stupid fast arrival where partner will jump to 4H on 3 card support, then you better have the agreement that correcting to 4S is to play...

[Blofeld]

2H. Yes I know this shows 5, but my primary interest is to be able to offer a choice between 3N and 4S, and the best way of doing that is by bidding where I live. After 2H you plan on raising 2N to 3N or otherwise supporting spades. Now if you play some sort of stupid fast arrival where partner will jump to 4H on 3 card support, then you better have the agreement that correcting to 4S is to play...

I don't play fast arrival, but if it goes:

1♠ : 2♥

3♥ : 3♠

4X, I'd take 4♠ as slammish.

 

I'd love to be able to bid 2♥ here, but I don't think I can get away with it.

[jdonn]

2H. Yes I know this shows 5, but my primary interest is to be able to offer a choice between 3N and 4S, and the best way of doing that is by bidding where I live. After 2H you plan on raising 2N to 3N or otherwise supporting spades. Now if you play some sort of stupid fast arrival where partner will jump to 4H on 3 card support, then you better have the agreement that correcting to 4S is to play...

I don't play fast arrival, but if it goes:

1♠ : 2♥

3♥ : 3♠

4X, I'd take 4♠ as slammish.

 

I'd love to be able to bid 2♥ here, but I don't think I can get away with it.

Responder sets trumps, not opener. 3♠ is not a cuebid for hearts, it says spades are trumps. So 3♠ then 4♠ is to play.

[mike777]

edit: I changed my mind and bid one semiforcing 1nt I really need a club stopper to bid 3nt so that is out...If Pard rebids 2clubs I will rebid 3nt. But maybe I should always rebid 4s these aces look more like a suitedhand but 4333 says nt, I am not sure on these type of hands. If pard bids anything else I will rebid 4s. If pard passes my semiforcing 1nt we will play in 1NT.

 

3nt

 

I play this shows 14-16 hcp..with 3433 shape with exactly 3 spades.

Most of us who play 14-16 opening nt also open all 5332 hands with 11 hcp so......

Typical in between hand where you have no perfect bid if playing junky openings

 

I will upgrade this hand since it has two ten cards.

I am just a touch too strong to make 3 card limit raise via 1nt but I could understand bidding a semiforcing 1nt and playing in 1nt at MP.

[pclayton]

This is a style issue and I think if you aren't playing a natural 2N, you'd get votes for a forcing 1N, 2♣, 2♥ and immediate spade raises.

[flytoox]

2H. If pd raise you are willing to play in 4H. This 4-3 fit will often play better than 5-3 spade fit.

 

In the book 'Matchpoint' there is a similar example given by author.

[mike777]

2H. If pd raise you are willing to play in 4H. This 4-3 fit will often play better than 5-3 spade fit.

 

In the book 'Matchpoint' there is a similar example given by author.

wow really what page is this I got to look this one up.

[flytoox]

2H.  If pd raise you are willing to play in 4H. This 4-3 fit will often play better than 5-3 spade fit.

 

In the book 'Matchpoint' there is a similar example given by author.

wow really what page is this I got to look this one up.

which page i cannt remember. But i am sure you can find it. It is in the chapter about 4-3 fit.

[whereagles]

Unless you have a bid to show this kind of support, these hands can be bothersome :P

 

2C/D (gf or not) followed by any spade raise tends to show much better clubs.

1NT would have to be forcing, and agreed upon that 4♠ next shows this kind of hand.

2NT should really have 4 cards, or at least a side doubleton.

 

I guess that leaves 2H, followed by some nr. of spades.

[paulg]

[i think this ranks as a reasonable problem as there are three clear alternatives plus some minority views - thanks all]

 

So partner held ....

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sajtxxxhjxxdkqjcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

So (I expect) the 2♣ bidders will sail happily into game, any slam ambitions doused by North's singleton opposite values (sic).

 

The 3NT bidders will probably find North stuck for an invitational bid (4♦ perhaps) but, again, 4♠ looks a natural resting place.

 

The 2♥ bidders give North a problem especially if 2♠ is non-forcing. However most 5cM systems would allow 2♠ here and now there is a chance for slam to be investigated.

 

The Jacoby bidders will hear about the club singleton and I expect them to be in slam. The lack of the ♠Q will not matter as North will believe they have a 10-card fit.

 

Similarly the 2♦ bidders will probably investigate slam too, but not as vigorously.

 

Slam is poor needing the heart finesse and the spades to come in - 29% territory - though it all worked out on the day.

 

However avoiding the club lead and making 13 tricks in game was worth 80% of the matchpoints.

 

Paul

[mike777]

slam ambitions?

Heck I bid the hand like I may end up in 1nt :P.

 

You guys must really play the heck out of the cards, the rest try not to get past the one level :).

[flytoox]

It is on page 62 of Woolsey's book, in the section about 7 cards trump fit. It is not the same hand, but very instructive.

[mike777]

It is on page 62 of Woolsey's book, in the section about 7 cards trump fit. It is not the same hand, but very instructive.

I note in none of the examples I looked at was the 4 card major hand of 4333 shape. It always had some ruffing value.

[han]

For me 2C is the systemic bid with this hand with almost all the people I play with.I donæt see a reason to lie on such a normal hand.

[paulg]

This is a style issue and I think if you aren't playing a natural 2N, you'd get votes for a forcing 1N, 2♣, 2♥ and immediate spade raises.

One style issue is that I think many British players would consider 2♣ to be a tactical call with 2♦ being the more normal choice. It is an interesting observation (to me) how many do not appear to have considered 2♦.

 

And the 3NT bidders appear to have given up on finding a 4-4 heart fit - as Mike says the 4333 shapes normally have a 4-card minor, not the other major.

 

But clearly no choice is perfect and, unfortunately, you do have to make a bid.

 

Paul

[han]

In the US it is quite standard (at least among 2/1 players) to respond 2C with 3+clubs and 2D with 5+. Certainly no player with that agreement would consider 2D.

[paulg]

And what do they respond to 1♠ with:

 

♠ K 10 x

♥ A Q 10 x

♦ A x x x

♣ x x

 

(It's a lot to catch up if you have to use a forcing 1NT for this).

 

We are actually considering making our 2♣ response either natural or balanced, as per Versace/Lauria and Bocchi/Duboin (and I expect others too). This also allows 2♦ to guarantee a 5-card suit.

 

Paul

[mike777]

And what do they respond to 1♠ with:

 

♠ K 10 x

♥ A Q 10 x

♦ A x x x

♣ x x

 

(It's a lot to catch up if you have to use a forcing 1NT for this).

 

We are actually considering making our 2♣ response either natural or balanced, as per Versace/Lauria and Bocchi/Duboin (and I expect others too). This also allows 2♦ to guarantee a 5-card suit.

 

Paul

This seems like an easy 2D and then probably 4s rebid, wtp? Even I do not bid 1nt with this one. Again a hand at the margin across from a junky 11 hcp 5=3=3=2 but you got to live with it.

1s(open on junk)=2d(game force)=3d(not extra)=4s(minimum fast arrival) is typical bidding for me.

 

Marshall Miles advocates 1nt as 100% forcing so 2/1 promises 5 card suit 100% but not my style.

[david_c]

We are actually considering making our 2♣ response either natural or balanced, as per Versace/Lauria and Bocchi/Duboin (and I expect others too). This also allows 2♦ to guarantee a 5-card suit.

Ah good, that saves me pointing it out. ;)

[jchiu]

In the US it is quite standard (at least among 2/1 players) to respond 2C with 3+clubs and 2D with 5+. Certainly no player with that agreement would consider 2D.

This is news to me. I have always played 2♥ promising 5+, or a four-card suit that I would open 1♥ third seat with that suit and out; 2♦ and 2♣ promising 4+ except when 3=4=3=3, in which case 2♣. I don't mind bidding 2♦ with four pieces, since opener may bid the catchall 2M, then show support for diamonds. Also, I would never think of bidding 2♣ with a minimum FG hand with 3=4=4=2 shape opposite a 1♠ opener. Bidding where I do not live just hurts partner's evaluation of his hand.

[Finch]

This is a style issue and I think if you aren't playing a natural 2N, you'd get votes for a forcing 1N, 2♣, 2♥ and immediate spade raises.

One style issue is that I think many British players would consider 2♣ to be a tactical call with 2♦ being the more normal choice. It is an interesting observation (to me) how many do not appear to have considered 2♦.

 

And the 3NT bidders appear to have given up on finding a 4-4 heart fit - as Mike says the 4333 shapes normally have a 4-card minor, not the other major.

 

But clearly no choice is perfect and, unfortunately, you do have to make a bid.

 

Paul

Obviously we can both quote 'most British players' to our heart's content without being able to prove ourselves right or wrong.

 

However, I believe the 'British standard' response on this shape - 3433 - is 2C. The current Orange book mentions this specifically, with wording that says a 2-level response that doesn't promise a suit must be alerted, except that exceptionally a 2C response that could be 3433 does not have to be.

 

I also play that the 'systemic' response on this hand is 2C. I'm quite tempted by 2H, but only because I know I can get out into 4S if necessary.