how good is this hand

[flytoox]

Red all, pd opens 1H. You hold:

 

S: J9874

H: KQT

D: TX

C: KJT

 

What do you repsond and what is your plan for continuation? HOw good is this hand? DOes it worht an invitation?

[hrothgar]

I'd respond 1♠, planning to show heart support at my next opportunity.

I will not (immediately) treat this as a 3 card limit raise.

[inquiry]

Some negative factors. 5332 is not a great distribution

Lack of an ACE

HCP in your shorter suit

Only 10 hcp

 

Some Positive Factors

Three honors in partner suits

KJT is a nice combination

 

So this hand boils down to a single qustion.

Is this a constructive raise to 2H (1H-2H), or are you willing to show this as too good for the constructive raise, and therefore you will show it as a three card limit raise.

 

IF you use ZAR Fit points, you will see that this hand has 10 hcp, 2 control points, 11 distributional points, and two fit points (for KQ of hearts). That comes to 25 ZAR points. So the combines hands have 51 at a minimum. Zar mgiht suggest just force to game here. However, the minus suggest caution. Still, the hand is too good for a constructive raise to 2H imho.

[pclayton]

If I was convinced ♥'s was the correct strain (or if I played flannery), I'd make a limit raise. Spades may play better, especially if pard has to ruff diamonds with my high trump.

 

The problem with 1♠ is that pard may not like her short spades, which might be the key to the hand in 4♥. But 1♠ looks normal.

[whereagles]

I used to always bid 1♠ with hands like these, but these days I'm beginning to wonder whether immediate support is better.

 

The point is it sucks if the auction continues

 

1♥ (pass) 1♠ (2m)

pass (3m) ??

 

or

 

1♥ . (pass) 1♠ (3m)

pass (pass) ??

 

If this happens, pard would be much better placed if it had gone

 

1♥ (pass) 2♥ (3m)

 

The situation is very similar to the usual 2/1 problem of having to bid a forcing 1NT with a hand of the non-constructive raise type, e.g. hands of 5-7 hcp and 3 card M support.

 

If you hold a hand that knows it wants to bid 3♥ over an opponent 3m, then bidding 1♥-1♠ should be superior. Otherwise I'm not so sure....

[bid_em_up]

There is absolutely no good reason to make an immediate limit raise with this hand that I can see.

 

If instead you simply bid 1♠, think about the following sequences and how you will like/dislike them:

 

1♥-1♠-1N? Ok, partner is limited, probably 2-5-3-3, but now I would make the limit raise of 3♥. A good partner will bid 3 spades if they happened to be 3-5-3-2 (and your partnership does not raise on 3 card support).

 

1♥-1♠-2♣ ? This hand improves tremendously with the good fitting honors in your hand. Now I do not stop at less than 4♥.

 

1♥-1♠-2♠ ? Fantastic. Even if your partnership is prone to raising on 3 card support in this sequence, you should be in game.

 

1♥-1♠-2N (or higher)? Great. Game is assured, somewhere.

 

Ok, so whats the one sequence that can present a "real" problem?

 

1♥-1♠-2♦ . This is the only call that gives you cause for concern, imo. In this sequence, your black suit cards are probably not pulling their full weight. At the table, I would be inclined to bid 2N to show the club stops , and let partner make his next call. If partner raises to 3N, I will pass, the heart suit will still take tricks in NT. If partner bids anything else (3C, 3D, 3H, 3S), I will bid 4H.

 

If he passes 2N?!!, he opened a dog and we are probably high enough.

 

(Oh, and as a notation to whereagles comments above.....this hand should always compete to 3♥.)

[pclayton]

I used to always bid 1♠ with hands like these, but these days I'm beginning to wonder whether immediate support is better.

 

The point is it sucks if the auction continues

 

1♥ (pass) 1♠ (2m)

pass (3m) ??

 

or

 

1♥ . (pass) 1♠ (3m)

pass (pass) ??

 

If this happens, pard would be much better placed if it had gone

 

1♥ (pass) 2♥ (3m)

 

The situation is very similar to the usual 2/1 problem of having to bid a forcing 1NT with a hand of the non-constructive raise type, e.g. hands of 5-7 hcp and 3 card M support.

 

If you hold a hand that knows it wants to bid 3♥ over an opponent 3m, then bidding 1♥-1♠ should be superior. Otherwise I'm not so sure....

Why am I worried about making a call at the 3 level after interference? Pard won't play me for a weak hand with belated support, since those hands raise ♥'s at R1.

 

If I have to make a call at the 4 level, I'll be more concerned.

[whereagles]

Why am I worried about making a call at the 3 level after interference? Pard won't play me for a weak hand with belated support, since those hands raise ♥'s at R1.

As I said, if you judge this hand to be worth a limit raise, by all means bid 1♠.

[SoTired]

If one of my kings was in the spade suit, I would treat this as 3-card limit raise and bid 1♠ followed by 3♥. I want partner to ungrade ♠Qx.

 

But with this lousy spade suit, I don't want to bid 1♠ because I don't want partner to upgrade spade honors.

 

Next question: Is this a 3-card LR (1NT followed by 3♥ or immeidate 3H depending on your system) or a constructive 2♥ raise.

 

I think this a 3-card LR.

[HeartA]

Well, if I want to be aggressive, I would treat it as 3-card LR. If I feel conservative, I would raise to 2H only.

[arrows]

if one plays constructive raise, this is a perfect hand for 2H, showing roughly 10-11 playing points.

 

if one doesn't play constructive raise, 2H looks a bit conservative, but definitely acceptable.

 

The problem of 1S first, is no good bid next round.

[mike777]

2h constructive. 7-10 hcp for me. This hand is not worth 12 support pts which is how I play 3 card limit raises.

 

If anything using in-and-out valuation ala Secrets of Winning Bridge would make this hand a slight negative since most of your honors are in hearts as opposed to outside the trump suit.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1S.

 

The nice thing is, I have a bid,

which describes my hand, and

gives me the chance to hear what

partner has to say.

In other words, I can wait with the

decision to invite or not.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I used to always bid 1♠ with hands like these, but these days I'm beginning to wonder whether immediate support is better.

 

The point is it sucks if the auction continues

 

1♥ (pass) 1♠ (2m)

pass (3m) ??

 

or

 

1♥ . (pass) 1♠ (3m)

pass (pass) ??

<snip>

Hi,

 

in the first auction you know, that partner

has at most 2 spades, since he did not

make a suppX, does this bother you?

No, your spade suit is just a 5 carder with

out wasted values.

 

You can bid either 3H or 4H depending if the

minor is clubs or diamonds.

 

In the 2nd auction you dont know about the

spade shortage, but you still know, if your

values in clubs work or not.

 

There are hands, where you are better placed

if you did show the support direct, but I doubt

it is this specific hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jdeegan]

:) 2♥. Nice problem hand. An awkward hand to bid, so I think by taking the slightly pessimistic view with a mild underbid, I may gain an advantage.

[the hog]

1S even though I don't like it that much. I will bid Hearts at 3 level next, particularly at Imps as you cannot afford to miss game, particularly vulnerable.

At MPs there is a lot to be said for a 1H 2H bid. (Good hand for pauses in the auction showing extra values.)

[EricK]

This hand is easily worth an invitation vulnerable at IMPS. If we are not playing 2/1 as GF then I quite fancy a 2♣ response. If partner has 4 ♠ we might still find out about them. If he has only 3 then we might be as well off in ♥ as in ♠. If he has a singleton ♠ we don't want him to devalue it which he might if we mention ♠, but if he has a singelton ♣ then we do want him to devalue it.

[bid_em_up]

This hand is easily worth an invitation vulnerable at IMPS. If we are not playing 2/1 as GF then I quite fancy a 2♣ response. If partner has 4 ♠ we might still find out about them. If he has only 3 then we might be as well off in ♥ as in ♠. If he has a singleton ♠ we don't want him to devalue it which he might if we mention ♠, but if he has a singelton ♣  then we do want him to devalue it.

Why mastermind when simple is best?

 

Just bid the hand naturally for cryin out loud.

 

Geez.

[EricK]

This hand is easily worth an invitation vulnerable at IMPS. If we are not playing 2/1 as GF then I quite fancy a 2♣ response. If partner has 4 ♠ we might still find out about them. If he has only 3 then we might be as well off in ♥ as in ♠. If he has a singleton ♠ we don't want him to devalue it which he might if we mention ♠, but if he has a singelton ♣  then we do want him to devalue it.

Why mastermind when simple is best?

 

Just bid the hand naturally for cryin out loud.

 

Geez.

Why is this masterminding? We are playing this hand in ♥ unless partner has got ♠ which are good enough to mention, and I am giving him information which can help him make the correct decision. That is co-operation, not masterminding.

[bid_em_up]

This hand is easily worth an invitation vulnerable at IMPS. If we are not playing 2/1 as GF then I quite fancy a 2♣ response. If partner has 4 ♠ we might still find out about them. If he has only 3 then we might be as well off in ♥ as in ♠. If he has a singleton ♠ we don't want him to devalue it which he might if we mention ♠, but if he has a singelton ♣  then we do want him to devalue it.

Why mastermind when simple is best?

 

Just bid the hand naturally for cryin out loud.

 

Geez.

Why is this masterminding? We are playing this hand in ♥ unless partner has got ♠ which are good enough to mention, and I am giving him information which can help him make the correct decision. That is co-operation, not masterminding.

It is masterminding because:

 

1) it will require partner to hold a hand good enough to reverse to be able to show his spades (give partner AQxx Axxxx Ax xx or KQx Axxxx xxx Ax) and what does he bid? And will he now accept an invite?

 

2) You DO want him to devalue a stiff spade (ruffs in the long trump hand are apt to be useless).

 

3) You distort the shape of your hand, presenting partner with the illusion of possible (yet, non-existent) pitches available in your hand on a club suit that doesnt exist.

 

4) We have no reason to believe that he needs to devalue a short club. Give partner AQx Axxxxx Axx x. Why should he devalue his singleton club when we bid 3H? If anything, its an asset.

 

5) It makes it harder to bid on the next round and gauge what to do.

 

6) You fool partner with your holdings, now can he ever believe you again?

 

7) The whole key to the hand is how well do these two hands fit together. Which sequence do you think you are more apt to find it out on,

 

1♥-1♠-? where you get to hear partners next call? (Partner next raises spades or bids clubs themselves)

 

1♥-2♣-? and holding 3-5-3-2 partner is ill-placed for a bid, or holding 2-5-2-4 now raises to 3♣, and will accept automatically over your 3♥ call on the supposedly known double fit?!

 

Theres lots more, but do I really need to continue?

[joshs]

There is absolutely no good reason to make an immediate limit raise with this hand that I can see.

 

If instead you simply bid 1♠, think about the following sequences and how you will like/dislike them:

 

1♥-1♠-1N?  Ok, partner is limited, probably 2-5-3-3, but now I would make the limit raise of 3♥. A good partner will bid 3 spades if they happened to be 3-5-3-2 (and your partnership does not raise on 3 card support). 

 

1♥-1♠-2♣ ?  This hand improves tremendously with the good fitting honors in your hand. Now I do not stop at less than 4♥.

 

1♥-1♠-2♠ ? Fantastic. Even if your partnership is prone to raising on 3 card support in this sequence, you should be in game.

 

1♥-1♠-2N (or higher)?  Great. Game is assured, somewhere.

 

Ok, so whats the one sequence that can present a "real" problem?

 

1♥-1♠-2♦ . This is the only call that gives you cause for concern, imo.  In this sequence, your black suit cards are probably not pulling their full weight. At the table, I would be inclined to bid 2N to show the club stops , and let partner make his next call. If partner raises to 3N, I will pass, the heart suit will still take tricks in NT.  If partner bids anything else (3C, 3D, 3H, 3S), I will bid 4H.

 

If he passes 2N?!!, he opened a dog and we are probably high enough.

 

(Oh, and as a notation to whereagles comments above.....this hand should always compete to 3♥.)

"There is absolutely no good reason to make an immediate limit raise with this hand that I can see.

 

If instead you simply bid 1♠, think about the following sequences and how you will like/dislike them:

 

1♥-1♠-1N? Ok, partner is limited, probably 2-5-3-3, but now I would make the limit raise of 3♥. A good partner will bid 3 spades if they happened to be 3-5-3-2 (and your partnership does not raise on 3 card support). "

 

So then partner will pass 3H with xx Axxxx AKx Qxx

(around a 50% Game)

But bid game with

Qx Axxxx AKx xxx

(About a 34% game)

or

Kx AJxxx Kxx Qxx

(Well under 25%)

 

In otherwords, because you bid spades first, partner will ALWAYS make the wrong decision.

 

 

 

"1♥-1♠-2♠ ? Fantastic. Even if your partnership is prone to raising on 3 card support in this sequence, you should be in game."

 

Is this fantastic? Kxx AJxxx AQxx x is a really good 2S bid and this is about a 35% game.

 

And so on....

 

 

When you hold, J98xx KQT xx KJT you would rather partner is SHORT in spades and long in CLubs, not short in clubs and long in spades.

 

 

 

Only when partner's spade holding is super strong (2 honors or Axxx) does length in spades become an asset.

 

If you view this hand as a constructive or limit raise, its wrong to bid spades unless you played 4 card majors when you were not sure you had a heart fit in the first place.... Yes yif partner has 4S you might be better off in spades, but you can't find that contract without messing up partner's hand evaluation.

 

I think this is a limit raise (about 3 cover cards) if your opening bids are pretty sound, but you might only make a constructive raise if you played agressive opening bids and the 1-2 sequence is very sound (say 8-10 support). My preference is agressive opening bids, and a conservative response structure, so I can make a single raise with this and then show club values if partner tries for game.

[flytoox]

THanks all for the replies. Pd's hand is

 

S: QX

H: A98XX

D: AQXX

C: XX

 

I responded with 1S, and Pd rebided 2D. I thought about 2N but finally the art of letting pd playing the hand led me to call 3H. Pd raised to 4H. This is not quite a good contract but pd managed to make it with favorable layout. DK is onside. My LHO has sth like:

S: KX

H: JXX

D: KXXX

C: QXXX.

 

I personnally think 1S, then planning to rebid 3H or even 4H, is better than a simple 2H, even 2H is constructive. If pd rebid 2C, then you can just raise to 4H, as some poster pointed out.

[mike777]

How bad does partner's hand have to be before he rejects your limit raises? :)

[flytoox]

How bad does partner's hand have to be before he rejects your limit raises? :)

My rule of whether accept pd's 3 card limited raise is simple: do I have a minimum balanced hand? If no, then I accept.

 

Here the opener's hand is min, semi-balanced, but Qx in spade. So I think it is normal to accept a limited raise invitation.

[catatonic]

I use a different rule ; what have I got that I haven't already promised partner ; on this hand absolutely nothing , in fact it is about as bad as it could be shapewise ;pass 3 ♠as fast as is ethical