How Would You Bid This?

[awm]

Opponents are silent. North deals. How do you bid this hand:

 

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=skq653h84dk764c72&s=sat72hj93datcat83]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

[han]

p - 1C

1S - 2S

pass

 

North is very close to trying for game, which south would obviously accept.

[pclayton]

I might get there after

 

1♣ - 1♥*

2♠**

 

* - spades

** - 4 card support

 

North has a 7 loser hand and a nine card fit. I think he should at least make a game try.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Pass - 1C

1S - 2S (1)

3D (1) - 4S (2)

 

(1) We dont raise on 3 cards regulary

thats why North knows with almost

100% certainty, that the partnership

has a 9 card fit

Add to this, that we dont open garbage

in 3rd seat, and that North has a 7 looser

hand, I would say, that this would induce

North to make a move towards game,

showing diamond values

(2) the diamonds values fit

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cascade]

Pass

 

--- 1♠ 4-card majors opposite a passed hand

 

2NT about 8+ with four or more spades and no singleton

 

--- 3♣ mandatory relay (3♠ would show a singleton club)

 

3♥ maximum with five trumps *

 

--- 4♠

 

* This is a maximum because - points are in the long suits, there are two doubletons and with five trumps we had the option of opening 2♠ with a better hand - I would have opened not vulnerable.

[bhall]

This hinges on the range for the ♠ raise. I believe modern practice is to raise with 4 trump and about 13-16 in support, after a third-seat minor opening. If that is responder's expectation, then he is barely worth a side-suit game try. Replace the ♦K with the A, and it's clear-cut. Exchange opener's red-suit holdings, and even 3♠ could fail.

[jdonn]

It would be double-dummying to say you would reach this game, in standard methods anyway. Even then, taking let's say Cascade's auction, you could rearrange the sidesuits in just about any way and game no longer makes. This is just two maximums that fit well, so a very good although not cold game should be missed.

[Cascade]

It would be double-dummying to say you would reach this game, in standard methods anyway. Even then, taking let's say Cascade's auction, you could rearrange the sidesuits in just about any way and game no longer makes. This is just two maximums that fit well, so a very good although not cold game should be missed.

Of course.

 

I like to aim to get to 23 point games with 5-4 fits especially with a little bit of distribution and a preponderance of aces and kings over queens and jacks.

 

They don't all make but they score well when they do and they make often enough to make this worthwhile.

[Guest Jlall]

It would be double-dummying to say you would reach this game, in standard methods anyway. Even then, taking let's say Cascade's auction, you could rearrange the sidesuits in just about any way and game no longer makes. This is just two maximums that fit well, so a very good although not cold game should be missed.

I dont agree, I think vul at imps north has a game try over a 2S bid.

 

Clearly natural bidders will start:

 

p 1C

1S 2S

?

 

It's just whether you think the north hand is worth another move. I think so, remember south with a min and 3 spades would pass 1S so you will catch 4 spades or extras.

[jdonn]

It would be double-dummying to say you would reach this game, in standard methods anyway. Even then, taking let's say Cascade's auction, you could rearrange the sidesuits in just about any way and game no longer makes. This is just two maximums that fit well, so a very good although not cold game should be missed.

I dont agree, I think vul at imps north has a game try over a 2S bid.

 

Clearly natural bidders will start:

 

p 1C

1S 2S

?

 

It's just whether you think the north hand is worth another move. I think so, remember south with a min and 3 spades would pass 1S so you will catch 4 spades or extras.

Are you saying it's only a game try because partner is 3rd seat and because it's vul at imps? Maybe I could buy that argument, I'm not sure.

 

When you say "extras" don't you really mean "at least 1 point more than a bare minimum"? That's not exactly the same thing.

 

This would probably have been a better problem to just give the 5-4 hand and the auction P - 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♠ - ?. After all if the south hand posted opposite this was AJxx Ax xxx Kxxx (not a bad hand actually! just a bad fit) we both know the peanut gallery would not be nearly so eager to make game tries. I'm not referring to you or to anyone in particular, just to the masses. I know you remember we even did the experiment once ;)

[Guest Jlall]

Are you saying it's only a game try because partner is 3rd seat and because it's vul at imps?

Pretty sure I'd be tempted even if he wasn't 3rd seat, but ya def because it's vul at imps. If it wasn't I'd be a passer since game trying leads to going down in game (or 3S) quite a bit.

 

When you say "extras" don't you really mean "at least 1 point more than a bare minimum"? That's not exactly the same thing.

 

I would pass with a balanced 13 count with 3S after 1S. It would take an unbal 13(of course this is flexible by the degree of unbal and the honor location) or a balanced 14 count with 3 spades, so I think I was trying to say a queen more than a bare minimum.

 

After all if the south hand posted opposite this was AJxx Ax xxx Kxxx (not a bad hand actually! just a bad fit) we both know the peanut gallery would not be nearly so eager to make game tries. I'm not referring to you or to anyone in particular, just to the masses.

 

Agree, but I can tell you that I am not resulting when I say I would make a game try. You have played with me enough and seen enough retarded game tries/bids in the name of vul at imps to know that's true ;) I think most people would not make a game try with this but w/e I think it's right.

[Apollo81]

I agree with Justin on this one. I think the North hand is a little better than other people seem to and South could have passed 1♠ so his hand can't be that bad.

[cjames]

I might get there after

 

1♣ - 1♥*

2♠**

 

* - spades

** - 4 card support

 

North has a 7 loser hand and a nine card fit. I think he should at least make a game try.

I think this auction is nice and that north should make a game try.

[the hog]

1C 1S 2S

Wouldn't get to game - stiff!

[Roupoil]

I like to play Muyderberg weak twos for this type of hands (ok, 5422 is not great, but honor location is nice). Here, I would open the north hand 2♠, and game won't be missed after that.

[whereagles]

Using the Losing Trick Count, North has 1+2+2+2 = 7 losers. Even discounting 1 loser for the lack of controls, this is a clear invite in LTC methods.

 

But I agree the North hand doesn't "feel" like an invite... lol.

[Fluffy]

After a sure 4 card raise North's hand is so close, picturing partner's diamond doubleton is very likelly given that nobody is bidding hearts.

 

I can't tell what I would do without seeing the cards.

[Codo]

To pass 2 Spade is lazy.

 

Like Fluffy I have no idea what I had done at the table without seeing Souts cards. I hope I had make a try but it is very close.

[Finch]

I agree with Justin that North, just, has a game try opposite a 3rd/4th seat raise to 2S.

 

I've been making game tries on these hands more often recently and it seems to work. However it's very close indeed. I'd really like, say, the D10 (or even the CJ) in addition.

 

If partner opens 1C on all weak NTs (including 4243) a game try is more tempting as we're more likely to have a diamond fit.

[SchTsch]

3♦ by north seems fine

[awm]

If partner opens 1C on all weak NTs (including 4243) a game try is more tempting as we're more likely to have a diamond fit.

It is funny that this seems to suggest opening 1♣ with all weak notrumps will help you get to the good light hcp game.

 

After all, if partner opens longer/better minor then you know whether you have a secondary minor suit fit. This should really help you evaluate more accurately don't you think?

[TimG]

Clearly natural bidders will start:

 

p 1C

Won't some natural bidders start: P-1♠ or P-1NT?

[Guest Jlall]

Clearly natural bidders will start:

 

p 1C

Won't some natural bidders start: P-1♠ or P-1NT?

What is the point of this post? "natural" was not the optimal word and I should have said "strong NT + 5 card majors" sorry lol. Thanks for your post I feel it contributed greatly to the thread. People like you should have your own forum so you can mastrubate to your oh-so-carefully constructed sentences while not ruining other threads.

[mikeh]

I'm not at all convinced that North can read anything into the raise by South.

 

I used to play that such a raise showed a non-minimum, in that all minimums would pass 1♠. But then I noticed that the opps never passed out 1♠...

 

Sometimes they'd find a magic fit and be able to make 3-red suit, and other times, they'd be -50 in 3 red when we were cold for 110... and don't tell me that we can push the board by doubling a close partscore into game B)

 

So now, I raise as third hand with any hand with which I would have opened in 1st or 2nd, and this means that responder needs a touch more, than he has here, in order to make a game try.

 

Opposite AJxx Ax xxx A10xx, the same high card strength, and the same shape, and we have no 3 level safety. And, using the approach I have indicated, he needn't be that strong.

 

Note that whenever South is 4=2=3=4 or 4=3=2=4 with a minimum, the opps can almost always make 2 or even 3♥, so passing 1♠ with a hand such as this, but weaker, is losing bridge.

 

So, this is another missed game for me, unless I was in Heat One, where everything we bid makes.

[TimG]

Clearly natural bidders will start:

 

p 1C

Won't some natural bidders start: P-1♠ or P-1NT?

What is the point of this post?

The point is that many in North America misuse "natural" to mean "standard" or "normal for this region" when the methods they describing are not necessarily natural. Nor are they necessarily superior to more natural methods. I think this misuse of "natural" also highlights the one-way-to-do-things, homogenized thinking of many in ACBL-land. I don't think this one way of looking at things is a good thing for bridge.

 

Anyway, sorry to have raised your ire. I meant to be constructive in the don't-get-caught-inside-the-box sort of way.