how good?

[jillybean]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxxxxhxxxdaq10caxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♥ (P) ?[/hv]

 

What do you bid and why please?

[hrothgar]

I'm going to bid 2♥

 

I believe that the hand is right on a cusp between a three card limit raise and a three card constructive raise. The love the Aces, but I hate the 4=3=3=3 shape even more.

 

I'd feel much better about the raise if I'm playing 1M - 2M as a constructive raise raise. If the direct raise to 2M could be made on a weakish hand with 3 card support than I'd probably temporize with a 1♠, intending to invite in Hearts

[ohioply]

I play 2/1 so I would bid a forcing 1nt followed by limit raise in hearts. My partners generally take me for much less when I bid 2♥ directly, and I don't like my crummy spade suit with a known fit. If partner had opened a minor I would have bid 1 spade without question though:)

[goobers]

I'm bidding 2♥ here.... I almost always downgrade 4-3-3-3 10 counts, even if they do contain 2 aces :)

 

Here, the Q is sitting with an A, so depending on my mood, I may decide to give a limit raise. (1♠ or 1N(F1), whatever your choice.)

[jillybean]

Oh I should add I dont play 2/1 !

[ohioply]

Playing sayc I'd bid a direct 3h limit raise I don't like the distribution of the hand but I do want to show my values.

[kenrexford]

For what I consider to be a constructive 3-card raise, this meets the exact definition. "Three-card support and 2.5-3 cover cards." I have exactly three-card support, and A-AQ on the side seems to be exactly 2.5-3 cover cards.

 

Playing a different style, the answer would be different, obviously.

[Mr. Dodgy]

3♥

 

22 Zars opposite an opener; 3-level should be right.

[cherdano]

It is really close between 2H and 3H I think. I would bid 3H.

I would never ever bid 1S on this.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

2H. Close decisions sometimes can be helped by looking a couple of things.

 

I normally give a limit raise with 10HCP, however, 1) I have weak trumps,

2) there is no ruffing value present and 3) I have nine losers(which is hardly a standard limit raise type holding)

 

If partner were a very solid bidder(or maybe a Roth Stone 'solid opener', I would make a limit raise.

 

Regards,

Robert

[kenrexford]

No one is bidding 1♠, which is a very good thing. Better to support with support.

 

However, that being said, that lurking 4-card spade suit hints at 2♥ being a better solution on a close call (if this is close for you). 1♥-P-3♥-P-3♠ is probably not a comfortable auction to 4♠. 1♥-P-2♥-P-2♠-P-3♠, in contrast, allows a fairly comfortable switch of trump suits.

[Apollo81]

Red IMPs I would bid 3♥ (or whatever shows a 3 card limit raise)

 

MPs I would bid 2♥.

 

If I was a PH I would bid Drury regardless of scoring/vulnerability.

[mikeh]

Good question.

 

I would bid 2♥ here at any form of scoring: even the given red v white imps: where I bid more aggressively than any other time.

 

But, before we answer the question of what we bid, we need to establish some partnership style issues... all serious partnerships have agreements about these issues even if they have not been verbalized.

 

1. Do we make limit raises asking opener to accept if he has a reason to do so (extra values) or to accept unless he has a reason not to? I like the second approach... but this means that my limit raises have a higher minimum than does a limit raise by a member of the first school.

 

It may be that this hand is a limit raise for those who expect partner to pass with reasonable 13 counts.. but I expect partner to bid game with a 5431 13 count if he has his fair share of controls.

 

2. How aggressively will opener make a gametry over a single raise? This is or should be related to the first point. if we make light limit raises, then opener needs to be conservative in making moves after a single raise. If we make sound limit raises, then opener has to be more aggressive with gametries. I make aggressive gametries, so you are probably safe bidding 2♥ opposite me.

 

BTW, no matter what style you play, there is risk at the 3-level. My way, there is risk when responder is light, and this is why I like to play semi-constructive single raises, going through a forcing notrump with weaker raises... but that approach is not available, as I read the post.

 

Another way of looking at this hand is LTC. We have a huge LTC: 3 in ♠s, 3 in ♥s, and 3 in the minors, or a total of 9. If partner has a minimum, he will usually have an LTC of 7. This means a combined total of 16. Subtract this from 24 and we get out trick expectation: 8 tricks. This in turn tells us that this hand lacks 3-level safety opposite a minimum balanced opener. Now, LTC is hardly definitive (nor is any other form of aritmetical valuation) but it is a useful check for close decisions.

 

Yet another way of looking at it is that we generally need the equivalent of about 25 hcp to bid and make game (excluding a minor game) and we hold a very, very flat 10. So partner needs the equivalent of a good 15 or so. If we open 1N 15-17, and do so with 5 card heart suits, as many do, we already know that we don't want to be in game if he holdsa 12-14 5332, a very common hand type.. and that he may well and probably should accept a limit raise with a 14 count.

 

And so on.

 

But, in truth, it is style... if you are a heavy inviter/light acceptor in terms of limit raises and an aggressive gamte trier by opener (and if you are one you should be both) then 2♥ is clearly right.

[pbleighton]

Nice problem, it's a very close call.

 

I would bid 2H playing constructive raises.

 

Playing a wide ranging 2H, I would bid 1S, and invite if my partner rebid either 2S or 2H. Otherwise I would correct to 2H. I hate doing this with 3 card support, but the trump are so bad and the hand is so flat...

 

Peter

[skjaeran]

I'd not bid 3♥ inv on this hand - if that was part of my methods. A balanced 10-count with 3 small trumps isn't what partner would expect. 2♥ is fine with me.

 

Btw, I play 3♥ as preemptive here, and have other methods to distinguish between a bad and a constructive raise (I don't play a forcing 1NT).

[helene_t]

This is a textbook example of one of the advantages you have playing five-card majors. 2♥ shows this hand. If you start with 1♠, you'd like to bid two-and-a-half hearts in the next round.

[kenberg]

SAYC allows 1H-3H on a three card holding but allowing it and liking it are two different things, especially when its xxx with no reasonable hopes of ruffing in the dummy. It's a ten count, add a bit for the ten of diamonds but subtract a bit for the lousy shape.

 

I go with 2H. My fondest hope wold be that partner makes a semi-balanced game try with 2NT, which I will raise to 3.