Max or not?

[pclayton]

Matchpoints, noboby vul.

 

♠x

♥Qxx

♦AQx

♣AJxxxx

 

You open 1♣ in 4th seat (agree?) and raise pard's 1♥ bid to 2 (agree?). Pard now bids 2N and you now must choose if this hand qualifies as a minimum or a maximum with 3 trump (via 3♣ or 3♦).

 

Whats it gonna be?

[whereagles]

It's a max, and yes auction seems fine :)

[Guest Jlall]

How could this possibly be a minimum?

[pclayton]

How could this possibly be a minimum?

Isn't it conceivable I could pass 1♥ with a minimum? Or just toss it in in 4th?

[Guest Jlall]

How could this possibly be a minimum?

Isn't it conceivable I could pass 1♥ with a minimum? Or just toss it in in 4th?

So? You have a singleton, 2 and a half quick tricks, perfect honor structure, a 6 card suit and 13 points. You don't have a minimum.

[gwnn]

yes yes max

[inquiry]

34 ZAR fit points, opening bid requires only 26... this is a max.

[Foxx]

Agree with 1♣ opening bid, not with 2♥ raise. You have six clubs, so best make the routine rebid.

 

We haven't gotten bowled over with enemy spade bids, so partner's majors are 4-4. I'll bid 3♣ to continue the description, allowing our side to play here if it is right. Over 3♦ or 3♠ I will go back to hearts.

[the hog]

Well I would have passed this hand in fourth seat, but I guess I am in the minority. Having opened I certainly agree with raising H. In this sequence I would show a maximum hand.

[inquiry]

Well I would have passed this hand in fourth seat, but I guess I am in the minority. Having opened I certainly agree with raising H. In this sequence I would show a maximum hand.

Really, you would not open this, and yet you consider it a maximum 2♥ rebid?

 

Do you believe so strongly in Pearson points you would pass this very nice hand?

[the hog]

Well I would have passed this hand in fourth seat, but I guess I am in the minority. Having opened I certainly agree with raising H. In this sequence I would show a maximum hand.

Really, you would not open this, and yet you consider it a maximum 2♥ rebid?

 

Do you believe so strongly in Pearson points you would pass this very nice hand?

Actually "Yes", Ben. I have had mixed results basing my openings on Pearson points. Sometimes you get a great result, sometimes you miss a game, as likely on this hand. Without being dogmatic about this I think it is important to be consistent in your approach, so partner at least has some idea of what is going on in your mind. As I said, having decided to open it and having pd make the best possible response for me, I would treat this as better than a minimum.

 

I will say that it is better imo to open a hand with a S singleton or a void rather than a doubleton, as if the opponents buy the hand, trumps are likely to break badly for them.

[jdonn]

It's not inconsistent to want to pass the hand (not that I agree) and then call it a max when partner makes a great response for your hand, Ben. Anyway Hog took an action he admitted most would disagree with (as we all do in our own unique situations), and even if someone disagrees they can certainly see why he would do it, so I hardly consider it worthy of calling him out on it or expressing shock.

[pclayton]

It's not inconsistent to want to pass the hand (not that I agree) and then call it a max when partner makes a great response for your hand, Ben. Anyway Hog took an action he admitted most would disagree with (as we all do in our own unique situations), and even if someone disagrees they can certainly see why he would do it, so I hardly consider it worthy of calling him out on it or expressing shock.

 

To me, this is the crux of the argument.

 

The spectrum of hands after a 4th hand opening that raises to 2♥ is different than the spectrum that raises from 1st or 2nd.

 

I think it is very inconsistent to call this close to a passout, yet consider this a max.

 

Put it this way, if we took away the ♦Q, I think a lot of us would pass it out, but if we made the ♥Q the KJ, that we'd still only raise to 2♥.

 

What we decided in my partnership was that we weren't going to split hairs with these things. If its a 6 loser hand, its a maximum, period ;)

[cherdano]

It's not inconsistent to want to pass the hand (not that I agree) and then call it a max when partner makes a great response for your hand, Ben. Anyway Hog took an action he admitted most would disagree with (as we all do in our own unique situations), and even if someone disagrees they can certainly see why he would do it, so I hardly consider it worthy of calling him out on it or expressing shock.

 

To me, this is the crux of the argument.

 

The spectrum of hands after a 4th hand opening that raises to 2♥ is different than the spectrum that raises from 1st or 2nd.

 

I think it is very inconsistent to call this close to a passout, yet consider this a max.

 

Put it this way, if we took away the ♦Q, I think a lot of us would pass it out, but if we made the ♥Q the KJ, that we'd still only raise to 2♥.

Phil, I really disagree with your post here.

1. Maybe for some this is close to a passout, but there are still substantially weaker hands that even The_Hog would open, they would just contain more spades.

2. This hand improved A LOT after partner bid 1♥, not only is the singleton great, but also the dubious ♥Q has become the trump queen. And with the aces and a suit that can be set up, it is a great hand for suitplay anyway.

[bid_em_up]

How could this possibly be a minimum?

Isn't it conceivable I could pass 1♥ with a minimum? Or just toss it in in 4th?

And you did neither of those, did you? And partner already is aware of this, right?

 

So now in the context of the remaining possible min/max hands, I think 2H just assured opening hand, and this hand is minimum in that context.

 

Would you have bid differently holding x KJx AJxxx KQxx? I would consider this to be a max hand, and the one you held is minimum for the given auction.

 

jmoo.

[pclayton]

It's not inconsistent to want to pass the hand (not that I agree) and then call it a max when partner makes a great response for your hand, Ben. Anyway Hog took an action he admitted most would disagree with (as we all do in our own unique situations), and even if someone disagrees they can certainly see why he would do it, so I hardly consider it worthy of calling him out on it or expressing shock.

 

To me, this is the crux of the argument.

 

The spectrum of hands after a 4th hand opening that raises to 2♥ is different than the spectrum that raises from 1st or 2nd.

 

I think it is very inconsistent to call this close to a passout, yet consider this a max.

 

Put it this way, if we took away the ♦Q, I think a lot of us would pass it out, but if we made the ♥Q the KJ, that we'd still only raise to 2♥.

Phil, I really disagree with your post here.

1. Maybe for some this is close to a passout, but there are still substantially weaker hands that even The_Hog would open, they would just contain more spades.

2. This hand improved A LOT after partner bid 1♥, not only is the singleton great, but also the dubious ♥Q has become the trump queen. And with the aces and a suit that can be set up, it is a great hand for suitplay anyway.

Arend; I don't think this is logical.

 

The fact that we chose to raise to 2♥ already expresses we have a non-minimum. I agree that certain cards have improved in value, but this is reflected in our decision to raise.

 

So initially this may have been close to a passout (I agree; I stated that if I took away the ♦Q, many would pass).

 

Our hand has now improved to a non-minimum (also agree).

 

Where your argument breaks down is that because this hand is a non-minimum we have raised to 2♥. You seem to say that because its a non-minimum, we have to bid 3♦. According to this logic, I can't see any hands that raise to 2♥ that would ever bid 3♣.

 

Therefore, we have to divide the hands that raise to 2♥ into two sets, and this hand seems clearly to fall into the lower half.

[neilkaz]

I agree with the bidding so far although rebidding 2♣ is not out of the question when I have a nice looking 13 HCP, 3 card support to the Q and a stiff I want to support PD's major, especially with the 2NT gadget used here.

 

In difference to a couple others, my raise to 2♥ doesn't indicate a non minimum hand, but just shows support for PD's major in what is likely to be the part score battle I started. A minimum hand would not have been opened by me here, or with my 6♣ I'd rebid them lacking ♥ support.

 

So like most other I show my max here.

 

I don't pass the hand out as I miss too many games, and have a 6th ♣ to compete to 3 over the likely comp to 2♠. If the opps by the hand for 3♠ and make, then I've lost, but on balance unless PD opens anything breathing in 2nd seat I miss too many games/part score by passing. I think I have enough defence when I open this, that anything but opps who open very conservatively aren't likely to bid and make 4♠..ie I doubt PD is broke and perhaps he may have a few ♠.

 

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[han]

I agree with those that say that this is a clear max.

[jdonn]

If you removed the queen of diamonds and switched the pointy suits

 

Axx Qxx x AJxxxx

 

I would open 1♣ in 4th seat, raise the 1♥ response, then show a minimum. I do not want to either pass the hand out or pass 1♥ since we might have game if partner has a 5 card major, and since the opponents never end up passing it out there anyway.

 

I understand your point Phil, I just don't think it's practical. The top end of the single raise hasn't changed, if you are unlikely to show a minimum that doesn't mean you switch what the other ranges encompass.

[Guest Jlall]

Would you have bid differently holding x KJx AJxxx KQxx? I would consider this to be a max hand, and the one you held is minimum for the given auction.

 

jmoo.

I would consider the hand we held roughly equal to this hand.

[mikeh]

I will add to the minority position: to me, this is a minimum, altho it is close.

 

I have aces and I have a stiff, but I only have 3 trump and I have promised more than a minimum already... by raising to 2♥. BTW, I agree with the raise because this hand is far more forward-going than would be suggested by a 2♣ call, and I could not imagine pass.

 

Furthermore, this is matchpoints and we rate to score quite well if we have found our 4-3 fit and it plays well. +170 will be at least average most of the time and a minus score will be very bad.

 

In a large field, as the posts suggest, there will be a few passouts and a few 2♣ contracts, so just reaching ♥s will get us some matchpoints.

 

Much tougher at imps, especially if vulnerable: then I think I'd upgrade.

[Halo]

I would have bid 2♣, because I prefer not to push on the rebid. Wouldn't object to any partner bidding 2♥.

 

If I have bid 2♥, I would definitely bid 3♣ now. My whole auction is forward going, and this shows my shape (as far as possible) and limitations.

[mikeh]

I would have bid 2♣, because I prefer not to push on the rebid.  Wouldn't object to any partner bidding 2♥.

 

If I have bid 2♥, I would definitely bid 3♣ now.  My whole auction is forward going, and this shows my shape (as far as possible) and limitations.

I suspect that 3♣ is not available as a natural bid. The OP suggested your choice was to show a min or a max 3 card raise, via 3♣ or 3♦.

 

This suggests the use of a common, simple but effective relay system over 1x 1Major 2Major sequence: 3♣ = min with 3 trump, 3♦ max with 3 trump, 3♥ min with 4 trump, 3♠ max with 4 trump, higher bids show specific maximums (ie 4 new suit = splinter, 3N = max with 4333, 4 card trump)

 

If 3♣ were available to show this hand-type, then it would be attractive since it would represent a middle-ground between min and max acceptance of ♥s, and might allow us to play a 6-3 ♣ fit rather than a 4-3 ♥ fit, but it is not available.

 

BTW, if you had rebid 2♣, the odds are exceptionally high that partner will NOT bid ♥s again: he almost certainly lacks 6 of them, and he will be very, very leery of bidding a 5 card suit after you show an unbalanced hand with long ♣s and moderate values: this is why the ♥ raise seems so strongly indicated.

 

Further BTW, to the posters who opt to show a max: construct hands where game is good opposite a non-opening with 5♥ that was not strong enough to bid game over the (mildly encouraging) immediate raise. I tried, not for a long time, but found that there were more hands on which we got too high if I showed a max than hands on which we missed a good game by showing a min.

[cherdano]

I will add to the minority position: to me, this is a minimum, altho it is close.

 

I have aces and I have a stiff, but I only have 3 trump and I have promised more than a minimum already... by raising to 2♥.

I don't understand why you bring "only 3 trumps" into play - my assumption is that our reply will tell "3 trumps min" or "3 trumps max" so we don't need to downgrade for having 3 trumps only, partner will know that.

[gwnn]

xx

AJxxx

JTx

Kxx

 

?