Improving My Game 4

[Guest Jlall]

MP all vul.

 

x ATxxxx Axx Kxx. Partner opens 1C, RHO bids 1S, you bid 2H, p 2N(NF), p ?

 

Standardish opening bid style (almost all balanced 12s, few balanced 11s, half unbalanced 11s).

[han]

Close between 3H and 4H. When giving partner some 12-14 counts in my head, all having exactly 2 hearts and something in spades, I noticed that game often had some play but was more often bad than good. I guess partner can be 4-1-4-4 too, but sometimes partner won't have a real spade stopper which would be good for us (unlikely given that LHO didn't raise).

 

So again I'm choosing the low road: 3H.

[mike777]

3H

[Guest Jlall]

Close between 3H and 4H. When giving partner some 12-14 counts in my head, all having exactly 2 hearts and something in spades, I noticed that game often had some play but was more often bad than good. I guess partner can be 4-1-4-4 too, but sometimes partner won't have a real spade stopper which would be good for us (unlikely given that LHO didn't raise).

 

So again I'm choosing the low road: 3H.

4135 is also possible right? Should 3S imply a choice of games between hearts and spades (initially)?

 

edit: hearts and NT obv.

[ralph23]

3♥. Just describing my hand. Anything else seems too unilateral.

[Echognome]

Close between 3H and 4H. When giving partner some 12-14 counts in my head, all having exactly 2 hearts and something in spades, I noticed that game often had some play but was more often bad than good. I guess partner can be 4-1-4-4 too, but sometimes partner won't have a real spade stopper which would be good for us (unlikely given that LHO didn't raise).

 

So again I'm choosing the low road: 3H.

4135 is also possible right? Should 3S imply a choice of games between hearts and spades (initially)?

In my view, yes. I know this was a typo, but your idea between offering a choice of games between 3N and 4♥ initially. If partner has something more, he will carry on over 3NT (knowing about the wastage) or over 4♥ (knowing about your suitability). Whether you should cuebid on the way to 4♥ if you are really suitable is up to partnership discussion. Since you will be dummy in a heart contract, I think it would be good.

[pclayton]

3♥ is sufficient. This hand has depreciated in value.

[Foxx]

3♥ will do for the moment. With a strong doubleton heart and/or more than a bare minimum, partner can bid again.

[cherdano]

Close between 3H and 4H. When giving partner some 12-14 counts in my head, all having exactly 2 hearts and something in spades, I noticed that game often had some play but was more often bad than good. I guess partner can be 4-1-4-4 too, but sometimes partner won't have a real spade stopper which would be good for us (unlikely given that LHO didn't raise).

 

So again I'm choosing the low road: 3H.

4135 is also possible right? Should 3S imply a choice of games between hearts and spades (initially)?

 

edit: hearts and NT obv.

"Should?" I would think it is the most useful meaning, but then how often cue-bids like this actually are choice of games is really a partnership issue, I doubt anybody would consider it standard here. (I am almost sure Han would take it as COG, or at least allow for that meaning, when playing with me, but I wouldn't try it with anyone else.)

[han]

I also think it is looking for the best strain, but it doesn't necessarily show 6 hearts. Hence partner will always bid 3NT with a spade holding like AJx, regardless of his heart holding. Now, 3NT may then very well be right.

 

But as I said before, I do not think the hand is good enough to force to game.

[Finch]

I don't believe 2NT promised much of a spade stop, it was just descriptive of a balanced hand. So I would play 3S as saying "do you really have a stop?"

 

This is a very tough hand. I'd quite like to bid 3C, as long as partner thinks it is either forcing or highly encouraging.

[Echognome]

I don't believe 2NT promised much of a spade stop, it was just descriptive of a balanced hand. So I would play 3S as saying "do you really have a stop?"

 

This is a very tough hand. I'd quite like to bid 3C, as long as partner thinks it is either forcing or highly encouraging.

As my prior post, I'm not saying the hand is worth 3♠, but I still believe 3♠ is choice of games. If partner holds Axx Kx xxx AQxxx, what do you want him to bid? If 3NT, how can you intelligently choose between 3NT and 4♥?

[benlessard]

Repeating ♥ with AT9xxx is sick imho. ill bid 3♣ NF no other bids come close.

 

Its still foward going. If 2nt is NF its should always show a stopper IMHO.

[Guest Jlall]

I bid 3H, and partner passed. It made 4.

 

Partner had AKxx Q9 xxx Axxx

[han]

That's close to the best dummy partner can have and I think a raise to 4H would not have been unreasonable.

[benlessard]

3♥ is quite ugly imho

 

pass is probably a worse mistake

 

3 trick and Q9 in a repeated suit not sure i can understand a pass. (Unless you often pull out of 2nt without game interest)

 

 

Im curious as why you didnt bid 3♣ ?

[Finch]

Im curious as why you didnt bid 3♣ ?

Maybe the thought 3C showed a hand more like

 

x

KQxxx

xx

KJxxx

 

(I'm not at all sure what 3C _should_ show here. That's why I suggested it...)

[han]

I don't see any reason why 3C shouldnæt show clubs. Let me put it another way, I would expect partner to pass 3C more than 90% of the time, and often it will be a 4-3 fit.

[mikeh]

It seems to me that bidding 3♣ should be forcing.

 

If 3♠ is offering a choice between 3N and 4♥, how is responder to investigate a club contract without going beyond 3N?

 

Surely limiting 3♣ to invitational hands is low percentage? Just how often, at mps, do we want to pull 2N to 3♣ and stay there? When partner could be on a 4 card suit? And at imps, how many times do we want to stop on that particular dime?

 

Give me x AKxxx Qxx KQxx opposite A10x xx AJx Axxxx and I want to reach 6♣, thank you. While opposite many softer opening hands, we need to be in either 3N, 4♥ or 5♣. So what would our call be over 2N with this hand?

 

While we may say that we can't have it both ways... we need an invitational, nf preference to clubs as much as we need a club force below a probable game contract (3N), the truth is that the game/slam decisions are more important even at mps. After all, sometimes when 3♣ is ok, 2N is better...even if not on paper.

 

On the (tough) actual hand, I'd bid 3♥. I think 3♠ is just too much, no matter what it's meaning. While I understand those who say that rebidding that suit is too much.. this is one of the many hands that arise where the problem is not what is the best descriptive call but what call is the least misdescriptive. 3♥ distorts the suit quality, mildly. But otherwise it is ideal: 6+ suit with no strong interest in 3N and with invitational values.

[nige1]

MP all vul.

 

x ATxxxx Axx Kxx. Partner opens 1C, RHO bids 1S, you bid 2H, p 2N(NF), p ?

 

Standardish opening bid style (almost all balanced 12s, few balanced 11s, half unbalanced 11s).

IMO 3♣ = 10, 3♥ = 9.

[Guest Jlall]

I didn't bid 3C because that is what I'd bid with 1 less heart and 1 more club and a similar hand.

[mikeh]

I didn't bid 3C because that is what I'd bid with 1 less heart and 1 more club and a similar hand.

I gather that you consider 3♣ as nf, then... or do you upgrade x A10xxx Axx Kxxx to a forcing call? If 3♣ is nf, what do you bid with x AKxxx Axx Kxxx?

[Guest Jlall]

I didn't bid 3C because that is what I'd bid with 1 less heart and 1 more club and a similar hand.

I gather that you consider 3♣ as nf, then... or do you upgrade x A10xxx Axx Kxxx to a forcing call? If 3♣ is nf, what do you bid with x AKxxx Axx Kxxx?

In this particular partnership 3C would be NF yes. This obviously creates a bunch of problems with not many good solutions. My partner was a client though and this was her system... (I usually play a 2/1 as forcing through 3 of my suit which would mean both 2N and 3m are forcing which I like).

[jdonn]

Mike your logic that 3♣ should be forcing is very convincing. But for better or worse I just don't think that is standard. However, for most of the example hands you are showing the problem could be solved by an original fit jump, which is not a total panacea but is surely the best solution under the circumstances. I'm guessing that is what Justin was playing since he normally does, although it's with the client so who knows, she (he?) might just play it as a weak jump.

[benlessard]

I think 3♣ could be non-forcing (based on the fact thant 2nt aint forcing but i don't really know) you still have 3♦ to force. But i still think no other bid come close. If partner bring you a stiff heart and 5 clubs (wich is quite likely by the way) 3♣ will play much better then 3♥ and with any Qx partner can correct and with any max partner can bid game. I would prefer to play 2nt then 3♣ but i want to make a foward move so 3♣ look natural and safe.

 

PS i thought at first that the hearts were AT9xxx and i didnt want to repeat them. But ATxxxx --- ugly

 

Of course when you play with a student the game (esp MP) its a different game, they never raise you with Qx or with a stiff K and they repeat all kind of crappy suit because they don't understand delayed raise. So if you know your parnter wont correct to 3♥ with 2♥ and 4♣ or wont bid 3♥ with Qx then both 3♥ and pass are reasonnable Mp gamble.