Pass, invite, game?

[awm]

You hold:

 

♠xxx ♥AQxxx ♦Qxx ♣Qx

 

Partner opens 1♦ (standard), you bid 1♥ and partner raises to 2♥.

 

Now what?

[Guest Jlall]

What is the form of game? I would bid 4H at imps vul and make some kind of invite at MP/imps NV.

[Echognome]

I'd make a game try. 3♦ if it shows I have 5♥, otherwise whatever game try is available in the system.

 

I might bid game if 2♥ showed 4♥.

[Guest Jlall]

I might bid game if 2♥ showed 4♥.

Yeah I guess it's relevant how often partner raises with a 3 card heart suit in a balanced hand (if he has raised with 3 and an unbal hand I still like my hand a lot). My answer is assuming "normal" tendencies, that is...normal to me :P

[awm]

The actual hand was at IMPs, vulnerable. But I'm interested how the form of scoring effects people's choice too.

[jdonn]

I would want to stop short if partner could be a balanced min with 3, and I can find all that out. If I can't I'll just bid game.

[P_Marlowe]

Game try.

 

Playing MP, you may convince me to pass.

The LTC count is 8, the Queens are indicating

a downgrade, partner showes a min, i.e. 7-8 LTC

count, given that you play strong NT, 8 is an real

option, hence 2 may be the limit.

Throw in regular 3 card raises, and you may have

made your case, ... playing MP.

 

Playing IMPs, I would not want to explain 2H+2,

even if I am convinced that it would be the long

time winner, may tell you something about me

and my complementaries.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pclayton]

I think pard will bid game when it is right at all forms, and I don't feel the need to bid his hand for him. So a game try for me, but which one? If we have a Kokish available, I'd make that, otherwise I think I would try 3♦.

[mike777]

KISS

 

3D

[jdonn]

KISS

 

3D

Lol Wouldn't KISS dictate just bid game and try to make it, rather than make a game invitation that forces partner to evaluate, and one on which there isn't even complete consensus whether it's forcing or not?

[Lobowolf]

I think pard will bid game when it is right at all forms, and I don't feel the need to bid his hand for him. So a game try for me, but which one? If we have a Kokish available, I'd make that, otherwise I think I would try 3♦.

What Phil said.

[mr1303]

About the whole "Vul @ IMPs" thing, surely partner knows it's Vul @ IMPs as well.

 

Game try for me.

[han]

Gametry.

[peachy]

KISS

 

3D

Lol Wouldn't KISS dictate just bid game and try to make it, rather than make a game invitation that forces partner to evaluate, and one on which there isn't even complete consensus whether it's forcing or not?

I have known since the "beginning of time" that zig-zag auction is forcing (them silent, 1D-1H-2H-3D). Surprised very much to hear jdonn think that there is no consensus whether it is forcing. Is the non-forcing idea something totally new?

[jdonn]

KISS

 

3D

Lol Wouldn't KISS dictate just bid game and try to make it, rather than make a game invitation that forces partner to evaluate, and one on which there isn't even complete consensus whether it's forcing or not?

I have known since the "beginning of time" that zig-zag auction is forcing (them silent, 1D-1H-2H-3D). Surprised very much to hear jdonn think that there is no consensus whether it is forcing. Is the non-forcing idea something totally new?

I have always believe forcing is standard, but past threads (and experience) show that not everyone agrees. In any case that wasn't really my point. He said "KISS" then chose the more complicated option.

[awm]

On the actual hand, I tried 3♥ (invite). Partner declined with:

 

♠A9xx ♥KJx ♦Kxxx ♣xx

 

I was fairly lucky to get out for down one. The hand passed out at the other table, lose three.

[mike777]

On the actual hand, I tried 3♥ (invite). Partner declined with:

 

♠A9xx ♥KJx ♦Kxxx ♣xx

 

I was fairly lucky to get out for down one. The hand passed out at the other table, lose three.

Late night I bet I should not ask this but I do sigh.......

This is an honest question.

 

 

Is one d really standard expert opening in first seat?

 

 

Yes I know this is a fine lite opening bid...just wonder if otherwise standard opening.

I open this playing 2/1 =14 hcp but I do not think that is expert standard on bbo forums.

[awm]

Is one d really standard expert opening?

I will say that I was somewhat disappointed with partner's hand, and that I would not have opened this hand in first chair playing 2/1. Note that if you add the ♦J to partner's hand then 3♥ has an outside shot at making and at least going down more than one is unlikely.

 

Hard to say what "standard expert" means of course.

[skjaeran]

On the actual hand, I tried 3♥ (invite). Partner declined with:

 

♠A9xx ♥KJx ♦Kxxx ♣xx

 

I was fairly lucky to get out for down one. The hand passed out at the other table, lose three.

Late night I bet I should not ask this but I do sigh.......

This is an honest question.

 

 

Is one d really standard expert opening in first seat?

 

 

Yes I know this is a fine lite opening bid...just wonder if otherwise standard opening.

No, it's not standard. It's a style question. Among experts there are light openers and solid openers. Helness-Helgemo would pass this, for example.

 

I'm far from in their league, but with my latter partner this was an obvious opening - 1♣ (2+) in our methods. With another previous partner, where we had a very solid opening style, this was far from an opening bid.

[mike777]

This may be off topic if so ignore but playing lite opening:

1d=1h

1s=1nt(not good enough to invite)

p

[skjaeran]

With ♠A9xx ♥KJx ♦Kxxx ♣xx

vs ♠xxx ♥AQxxx ♦Qxx ♣Qx

 

Our bidding would be:

1♣ - 1♦

1♥ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♥

pass

 

1♣=11-14/18-19 bal or nat

1♦=♥

1♥=any hand with 3c♥, some with 4c♥

2♣=xyz, puppet to 2♦

2♦=11-14, 3c♥ (2♥ would show 13-14 and 4c♥, 2NT 18-19 and 3c♥, 3♥ a minimum 18-19 with 4c♥)

2♥=5+♥ inv

[jdonn]

Yes it's obviously a great hand for transfer responses with any decent followups, mine would be 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♥ (1♥ is any hand with three hearts, 1♠ is asking, 1NT is balanced minimum). As for the given problem, I don't open hand's like partners, nor do I raise on them, and in addition I would be able to find out partner has a min with three, so that's all my excuses for why this wouldn't happen to me :huh:

[brianshark]

I'd invite with the south hand always so I guess I'd be in 3 aswell.

 

It would never occur to me that 3♦ is NF though...

[skjaeran]

I'd invite with the south hand always so I guess I'd be in 3 aswell.

 

It would never occur to me that 3♦ is NF though...

Why not?

 

If you bid 1♥ on four and partner raised with say 1354, you'd prefer to play 3♦ instead of 3♥, at least at IMPs.

 

I prefer raise of partner's suit after 1m-1M-2M to show exactly four in my suit, thus partner will know when to play in the minor. I've got other ways to invite holding five (or no fit for partner's suit).

[SoTired]

I'd invite with the south hand always so I guess I'd be in 3 aswell.

 

It would never occur to me that 3♦ is NF though...

Why not?

 

If you bid 1♥ on four and partner raised with say 1354, you'd prefer to play 3♦ instead of 3♥, at least at IMPs.

Completely disagree. If you have a min response with 4♥, it makes no sense that you would want to leave a probable 4-4 major fit at the 2-level to play in a minor contract at the 3-level. So the only reason why you would want to bid 3D is a game-try showing a double fit. True, you could be 4♥5♦ and if opener wants to reject the game-try, playing a 5-4 3D fit is superior to playing a 4-3 3H contract. But that particular situation is rare, so it does not make sense catering to it and therefore losing all the other game-try (or even slam-try) cases when you want 3D to be forcing.