how good

[Apollo81]

Unfav IMPs

 

♠Qxx

♥KJ10x

♦Ax

♣Q9xx

 

no opposing bidding

 

1♦*-1♥

2♥**-3♣***

??

 

* Precision, 14-16 1NT opening, style is to open about 1/2 of balanced 11s

** balanced 11-13 or possibly a very min 13(45) hand

*** short-suit game try

 

The hand below would not have raised to 2♥, we have another bid for that.

AQxx

KJ10x

x

Q9xx

[inquiry]

This hand has gotten worse with the 3♣ bid, obviously. On the other hand KJT of hearts is worth more than face value, the spade queen will be working, and Ax is a very good diamond holding.

 

This hand is NOT good enough to accept the game try.

 

On the other hand, vul at imps, it is not SOOO bad that I would be willing to give up game without another try. If you accept the premise that at imps, vul, you would bid the game on any reasonable excuse and that a 3♥ bid would have been a solid denia of game tryl, then 3♦ is last train-like that suggest a minimum hand or little better but with some wasted values. Partner only goes on with very solid game try, usually needing quality hearts.

 

However, if you partner has a habit of simply bidding all close games at imps when vul without exploring, so that his short suit game try at these colors in all likelyhood a stretch, then bid 3♥ immediately.

[jdonn]

Easy acceptance. What Inquiry doesn't mention is that the club LENGTH is good. Meanwhile we have a 4th trump where we may have had 3, and the JT of trumps is key. I don't even think this decision is close, if you don't bid game here you are overthinking things. If you make an ambiguous 3♦ retry, partner won't have the slightest clue what to do.

[skjaeran]

The ♣Q is waste paper, but the rest of my hand is great. A 4th trump, ♥JT, a very useful doubleton. Not to mention my ♣ lenght.

 

I'd accept at any vulnerability and scoring. Without the slightest doubt.

[jtfanclub]

The ♣Q is waste paper, but the rest of my hand is great. A 4th trump, ♥JT, a very useful doubleton. Not to mention my ♣ lenght.

 

I'd accept at any vulnerability and scoring. Without the slightest doubt.

Am I confused? Didn't 2♥ promise a 4th heart? Or is that completely artificial? I assume that 2♥ wouldn't be bid with a balanced hand with 3 hearts.

 

The Q♣ is waste paper, but I think the Q♠ isn't pulling full weight either. I'm concerned that partner could be 3-4-5-1, in which case the diamond doubleton isn't terribly useful (diamonds on the average will split 4-2, but after drawing trumps I can only ruff one of them). I'd feel a lot better with the spades and diamonds reversed, since partner shouldn't have 5 spades.

 

I stay.

[skjaeran]

The ♣Q is waste paper, but the rest of my hand is great. A 4th trump, ♥JT, a very useful doubleton. Not to mention my ♣ lenght.

 

I'd accept at any vulnerability and scoring. Without the slightest doubt.

Am I confused? Didn't 2♥ promise a 4th heart? Or is that completely artificial? I assume that 2♥ wouldn't be bid with a balanced hand with 3 hearts.

OP explained the 2♥ raise as:

** balanced 11-13 or possibly a very min 13(45) hand

The raise could be made on 3 with minimum and a singleton ♠. If balanced it showed 4-card support.

[mr1303]

I think it's somewhere in between 3 & 4. As long as 3D doesn't say anything about my diamond holding, then I'll try that. A "blame transfer" bid.

[Guest Jlall]

agree with easy acceptance. Think about how this play will go. We will ruff clubs. Our JT of trumps will then be very useful for pulling trumps. We won't have many losers.

[whereagles]

Indeed. 4♥ should be a no-brainer.

 

According to FTL, we got 10 working points and an SST of 3. Couple that with pard's other 10 WPs and we come to what should be an easy 10 tricks. If we had 13-14 WPs, a cue would be in order, just in case pard is good for slamming.

[mikestar]

This really depends on what sort of hand partner will invite on--anything could be reasonable.

 

To me, this looks like a rejection. I start with a minimum opening, the Q♣ is dead but the ♥ honors are golden--so far we're about even. ♦Ax is doubtful--if partner has long weakish ♦ its wonderful, but that's unsure here. But if ♦A is poor, then ♠Q is more likely to be good: partner must have his values somewhere.

 

I don't think 3♦ should be a generic counter trial, neither should it focus on diamonds. I would make this bid with a hand where I wanted to accept but was worried because I only had three trumps. Partner bids game with 5♥ or 4 strong ones, tries 3NT with some extras in the side suits, and signs off with nothing good opposite 3.

[jdonn]

I completely don't understand the comments about either the queen of spades or the doubleton diamond lacking in value. Both are golden. A doubleton diamond is much better than three here when holding the A.

[pclayton]

You never have a perfect minimum for these actions; somethings going to be wasted.

 

What evaluates to a perfect 10 count is what is necessary to bid game, so I'll bid 4♥.

[dake50]

Partner invited a thin 11-13 to game? I got max for a thin 11-13. He plays excellently so give him a chance to shine as he asked.

[jtfanclub]

A doubleton diamond is much better than three here when holding the A.

Why?

 

If partner is indeed 3-4-5-1 distribution, why is it advantageous to have Ax over Axx? Do you think partner's 'default shape' is something other than this?

 

Do you feel that Qxx in spades and Ax in diamonds is better than Ax in spades and Qxx in diamonds? How about xx in spades and AQx in diamonds? I guess I'd rather have that queen in a red suit, or at least QTx instead of Qxx.

 

I guess i feel if partner was 3-5-4-1, he'd just go instead of asking my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, and I should be using that as his default shape.

[jdonn]

A doubleton diamond is much better than three here when holding the A.

Why?

 

If partner is indeed 3-4-5-1 distribution, why is it advantageous to have Ax over Axx? Do you think partner's 'default shape' is something other than this?

 

Do you feel that Qxx in spades and Ax in diamonds is better than Ax in spades and Qxx in diamonds? How about xx in spades and AQx in diamonds? I guess I'd rather have that queen in a red suit, or at least QTx instead of Qxx.

 

I guess i feel if partner was 3-5-4-1, he'd just go instead of asking my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, and I should be using that as his default shape.

He could have either shape. He would just be slightly more aggressive when holding the 5 hearts, but why should he "just go" when he isn't good enough?

 

To my simple minded viewpoint, when partner has Kxxxx or QJxxx or diamonds, I might not lose a trick if I have Ax but I definitely will if I have Axx. On top of that I also can move around in the suit freely without as much worry of suffering a ruff.

 

Ax in spades and Qxx in diamonds is also good. You have a better chance of setting up diamonds, but also a better chance of suffering a ruff and you have less transportation to ruff clubs, so call it a wash. In any case, to try to make a fine distinction based on this is to me, as I said before, overthinking things.

[Apollo81]

for all curious parties: partner's hand was AKx Qxxx Qxxxx x

[jtfanclub]

for all curious parties: partner's hand was AKx Qxxx Qxxxx x

So...50% on the natural opening lead of a heart to the ace and a heart back?

 

I guess all of us were right. ;)

[jdonn]

for all curious parties: partner's hand was AKx Qxxx Qxxxx x

So...50% on the natural opening lead of a heart to the ace and a heart back?

 

I guess all of us were right. :P

Lol, you try to avoid 50% games? ;)

[jtfanclub]

Lol, you try to avoid 50% games? :P

I don't avoid 50% NV games, but I don't get upset if we miss them. Why do you ask?

 

I think I was wrong. I think if I haven't guaranteed 4 hearts, then the hand shown has to be on the lower end of the scale...he'd still invite if the Q♦ were the K but pass if it were the jack.

 

I apologize for pushing it.