Repost From Somewhere Else

[Apollo81]

♠A

♥J108xx

♦Jxxx

♣xxx

 

MPs all white

 

1♠-1N

2♥-?

 

(1) would you bid 3♥?

(2) what's the minimum change to make it a 3♥ bid

[ArtK78]

No.

 

At IMPs, I might bid. But not at matchpoints.

 

This hand would be pretty good if partner's spade suit is Txxxx. And a raise to 3♥ implies spade shortness. So game is not out of the question. If partner is 55 or 65 in the majors, you may have 10 tricks.

 

But a 2♥ bid usually shows 54 distribution and a minimum opening bid. So, most of the time, even 3♥ can turn a plus into a minus (or a bigger minus). So it is just not worth bidding at matchpoints.

 

Make the hand:

 

x

JTxxx

AQxx

xxx

 

and you have a 3H bid. Now you have 10 tricks opposite some good minimum openings with fitting values, like:

 

Axxxx

AKxx

JTx

x

[MFA]

Sure, games count at MPs too. The 5th trump is huge.

[kenrexford]

Yes, unless we have some technique or partner has some style that allows a handling of relatively strong major two-suiters with only four hearts.

[Finch]

umm... I'm closer to bidding 4H than passing.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 no, although I wont feel happy with

passing

 

#2 switch the Ace of spades to another

suit

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

Huh, isn't the ace best in spades?

 

I agree with the 3H bidders.

[Guest Jlall]

umm... I'm closer to bidding 4H than passing.

Couldn't agree more, I think passing is a huge error with thsi hand.

[ArtK78]

Huh, isn't the ace best in spades?

 

I agree with the 3H bidders.

Not when it means that the opponents can take the first 5 tricks in the minor suits.

 

I would much prefer that the ♠A be a different ace with the same distribution.

[han]

Not when it means that the opponents can take the first 5 tricks in the minor suits.

If so, get rid of this partner.

[Guest Jlall]

Not when it means that the opponents can take the first 5 tricks in the minor suits.

If so, get rid of this partner.

hahahaha, nice catch

[paulg]

Not when it means that the opponents can take the first 5 tricks in the minor suits.

If so, get rid of this partner.

Unless it's Hamman.

[jtfanclub]

Unless it's Hamman.

Hamman opens 1♠ with 4-4-3-2 distribution? That's good to know.

[hrothgar]

Unless it's Hamman.

Hamman opens 1♠ with 4-4-3-2 distribution? That's good to know.

The issue isn't the 1♠ opening. A number of good players systemically opened 1♥ with 4-4 in the majors. (Look back at some of the Blue Club auctions)

 

The 2♥ rebid... That's a whole different kettle of fish

[ArtK78]

Not when it means that the opponents can take the first 5 tricks in the minor suits.

If so, get rid of this partner.

I meant 4, but it would feel like 5.

 

:)

[jdonn]

I would have passed, that will teach me :)

 

Closer to 4♥ than pass? So you think 4♥ is making more than half the time? That's pretty bold.

[awm]

Opposite a 5-5 minimum like:

 

♠Kxxxx

♥AKxxx

♦xx

♣x

 

Game is quite good. Then again, opposite a nice 5-4 hand like:

 

♠KQJTx

♥AKxx

♦Qx

♣xx

 

You cannot make 4♥ and may well go down in 3♥ if the trumps break 3-1.

 

There is also the issue that you would probably bid 3♥ with:

 

♠A

♥KJxxx

♦Qxxx

♣xxx

 

I'm sure there are people who bid game on these cards, but it's pretty easy to construct fairly robust openings for partner where you don't have much play (♠KQJxx ♥AQxx and 2-2 in the minors, even with the club queen). This hand is a full trick better than the hand we were originally given; it seems weird to bid 3♥ on both...

 

Anyways I'm not convinced there's a good answer. I'd be much happier if playing Gazzilli or a strong club method (pass becomes a big favorite if partner can't have a 14 hcp 5-5 hand or a 17 hcp hand of any variety). I'd also be happier playing a method like standard american or acol where my initial 1NT limits my hand (bidding 3♥ becomes safer, because partner won't expect some ten-count that could make a 2/1 call).

 

Assuming a 2/1-style system, I'd bid 3♥ at IMPs and pass at MPs, without much confidence. Perhaps the odds of partner holding a "perfect" 5-5 minimum are reduced by the lack of bidding from the opponents...

[pclayton]

I'd raise. I'll take my chances with a random max.

 

Meckstroth bids 4♥...

[mikeh]

I would have passed, that will teach me :)

 

Closer to 4♥ than pass? So you think 4♥ is making more than half the time? That's pretty bold.

That's not what was meant (I think) :)

 

If partner accepts the invitation, then I'd expect partner to make game about half the time. If he passes the invitation, I'd expect to make 3♥ about half the time.

 

So I invite, while not being happy about the mess we're in due to methods. I'm not complaining, because these are the methods I happen to play as well :P Maybe I'll learn Gazilli eventually.

 

I do think that the ability of one's partner is a relevant factor here, especially at mps. In a very strong field, I think pass is correct, but in most fields, if your partner is a relatively good declarer and the opps are not significantly stronger than the field, I think that the raise is made a little more attractive by the fact that you may be allowed to make 3♥ (or 4♥) when you really shouldn't, or partner may find the tricky line of play that works. We all know that many, many contracts that have 'no play' are allowed to come home, and this hand has all the hallmarks of such a hand. Imagine RHO on lead with length and strength in spades and leading a trump... almost certainly the lead we'd like to see and often the lead made by those who learned 'when in doubt, lead trump'.

[han]

If partner accepts the invitation, then I'd expect partner to make game about half the time. If he passes the invitation, I'd expect to make 3♥ about half the time.

 

So I invite...

Surely you did not mean this, it makes no sense. Or does it?

[655321]

umm... I'm closer to bidding 4H than passing.

What Frances said.

[655321]

If partner accepts the invitation, then I'd expect partner to make game about half the time. If he passes the invitation, I'd expect to make 3♥ about half the time.

 

So I invite...

Surely you did not mean this, it makes no sense. Or does it?

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

[dake50]

Got to top scoring MP partial --bet 2H outscores any other -- isn't that enough on this hand? ?

[Guest Jlall]

Closer to 4♥ than pass? So you think 4♥ is making more than half the time? That's pretty bold.

Yes I think this. I definitely think that opposite hands that accept a move game will make a lot (enough to make up for going down in 3H).

 

There is also the issue that you would probably bid 3♥ with:

 

♠A

♥KJxxx

♦Qxxx

♣xxx

 

No offense but I think that bidding 3H with this hand is insane. Yes maybe game will go down but I would bet that of hands passing a 3H bid game will make a majority of the time. It may well be that you and I have different standards of what will bid over 3H because we have different standards for a 3H bid apparantly (which came first the chicken or the egg?) To use a Fred-like argument I would definitely guess that most experts consider this a 4H bid.

 

I agree that this is a problem because of the huge range of the 2H bid, but barring any artificiality you are going to miss game too much by passing 2H with this hand in my opinion.

[Guest Jlall]

Perhaps the odds of partner holding a "perfect" 5-5 minimum are reduced by the lack of bidding from the opponents...

Agreed but his average HCP holding also goes up because of the opponents silence.