Invite?

[mtvesuvius]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sxxxhaktxdqjxcxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

N     S

1♦ - 1♥

2♥ - ?[/hv]

[Echognome]

I feel I'm closer to bidding game than passing. I would invite though.

 

If you put my QJx in a black suit instead, it would be a lot closer.

[rogerclee]

Easy pass.

[jdonn]

The almighty Joe Grue passed on this auction with Axx Axxx Axx xxx. And I think his partner made 2.

[Echognome]

I guess I'll have to reread my hand evaluation books, but we have all our values in partner's suits. We have sterile shape (a definite minus), but everything else is a plus.

[Tomi2]

this realy depends on your general bidding style.

playing my fav. system (polish club) this sequence shows 5 dias and 4 hearts, that makes our hand worth much more then some 4432 from partner for example playing standard or some normal hands with 4 dias.

So if you open 1♦ only on good suits/5 cards your hand gets better.

On the other hand with most of my regular pd's we invite "light" having 5 dias and 4 hearts - since pd only raised its unlikely that he has a real good hand - so I would invite

If then partner frequently raises to 2h with 3 cards even on balanced hands you should think about beeing more conservative - then I would pass this

If partner opens light frequently I would also pass

 

So I am torn between bidding game, inviting or pass depending on who I play with and his bidding style.

[kenrexford]

Pass, with an addendum.

 

This is a perfecto sequence. If you consider this hand marginal, you have the perfect conditions for a back-door invite. You have bid two suits and have agreed on the one immediately above the other. So, if you opt low and the opponents balance, you are guaranteed a chance for a second invite. In other words, whether the opponents settle post-balance on clubs or spades, either way you can bid 3♦ as a second invite.

 

With a different scenario, like a club opening, you do not have that backup plan, as the opponents could balance to 3♦. In that event, stretching for the invite might have that slight little tactical reasoning.

 

But, in this situation, more of the hands where game makes but you decline to move will result in game being found because of the perfect sequence.

[JanM]

Pass, with an addendum.

 

This is a perfecto sequence.  If you consider this hand marginal, you have the perfect conditions for a back-door invite.  You have bid two suits and have agreed on the one immediately above the other.  So, if you opt low and the opponents balance, you are guaranteed a chance for a second invite.  In other words, whether the opponents settle post-balance on clubs or spades, either way you can bid 3♦ as a second invite.

 

With a different scenario, like a club opening, you do not have that backup plan, as the opponents could balance to 3♦.  In that event, stretching for the invite might have that slight little tactical reasoning.

 

But, in this situation, more of the hands where game makes but you decline to move will result in game being found because of the perfect sequence.

This makes no sense to me. If I pass after 1♦-1♥-2♥ and then the opponents balance and I bid 3♦ it doesn't mean I all at once decided I had an invitational hand, it means I want to compete and think that maybe diamonds will be better than hearts.

I think that whether to bid to begin with might depend on your methods. If you play (as I do) that 1♦ promises an unbalanced hand with real diamonds and 2♥ promises 4 hearts, it's a lot more attractive to bid than if 1♦ can be a minimum balanced hand and 2♥ can be that same minimum balanced hand with 3 hearts. If partner has something like Ax, Qxxx, AKxxx, xx, 4♥ is very good. But that's a perfect maximum; opposite Kx, QJxx, Kxxxx, Ax, I'm going to need the spade onside if they lead one and maybe even if they don't; x,Jxxx,AKxxx,Kxx or x,Jxxx,Axxxx,AQx are going to need a lot of luck. A bad minimum like xx,QJxx,Axxxx,Kx has almost no play for 4 and might go down in 3. I had about convinced myself to invite, when I noticed it's matchpoints, so if we will go down in 3 once for every time we bid and make 4 when I invite, inviting is a losing proposition (because I trust we will play the dummy better than some of the other pairs). Now I'm not so sure. If this is a qualifying session, I think it's probably wrong to invite (we aren't going for tops, just a nice steady game; the "standard" players in the field aren't going to invite, because their partner could have a balanced minimum where 3 would be seriously at risk). If it's the finals, it probably is right, given that our methods give us a chance for a very good board, with relatively little risk of a bad one.

[Codo]

I agree with the minority vote of inviting. Yes the shape is horrible, but the honour location is great.

[flytoox]

I will pass. If pd is balanced 4432, we are not going anywhere.

[whereagles]

It's a 9 loser hand... that suggests a pass. Since this is MPs, I'd pass.

[Fluffy]

I think it is important to point out if ou play 2♥ can be 3 cards. For me it shows exactly 4. And I still pass.

[hotShot]

worst case: 4432 or 3442 or 2443 shape and 10 points of his minimum in the red suits and some 2-4 points in J's and Q's in the black suits. We are lucky if we get more than 7 tricks.

 

one of the good cases:

2452 or 1453 or 3451 shape it should often be possible to make 9 tricks

 

best case:

0454 or 4450 shape 4♥ should have chances.

 

Unfortunately hands close to the worst case are much more likely.

 

I think the percentage action is to pass. (But I might invite at the table....)

[whereagles]

By the way, these days people tend to bid 3♥ on shapely mins, like, say,

 

Kxx

Qxxx

AKxxx

x

 

So this sort of hand is kind of out.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

On the plus side, you have QJ in partners suit,

on the down side, you have a 4333 distribution.

 

I usually use the LTC to decide in close sitiuation,

and in the given you have a hand with 9 loosers,

facing a min opener.

Since you play strong NT (?), partner can still hold

a bal. 12-14 count, i.e. the min opener we are facing

could still be based on a hand with 8 loosers.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I did not notice until reading the comments, but

since you are playing MP, going a bit more conservative

is also a good idea, i.e. in close cases, dont invite.

[kenrexford]

Pass, with an addendum.

 

This is a perfecto sequence.  If you consider this hand marginal, you have the perfect conditions for a back-door invite.  You have bid two suits and have agreed on the one immediately above the other.  So, if you opt low and the opponents balance, you are guaranteed a chance for a second invite.  In other words, whether the opponents settle post-balance on clubs or spades, either way you can bid 3♦ as a second invite.

 

With a different scenario, like a club opening, you do not have that backup plan, as the opponents could balance to 3♦.  In that event, stretching for the invite might have that slight little tactical reasoning.

 

But, in this situation, more of the hands where game makes but you decline to move will result in game being found because of the perfect sequence.

This makes no sense to me. If I pass after 1♦-1♥-2♥ and then the opponents balance and I bid 3♦ it doesn't mean I all at once decided I had an invitational hand, it means I want to compete and think that maybe diamonds will be better than hearts.

It does not really matter whether your call would or would not be defined as an "invite." The point is the sequence.

 

1♦-P-1♥-P-

2♥-P-P*-X-

P-something-3♦-P

4♥

 

*Pass, because not good enough to invite game

 

This sequence happens. Or, at least it happens for me. Opener might be sitting there with some sort of undecided maximum, the kind of hand where game would make opposite what we have. When he hears 3♦, he now knows that Responder only has four hearts, else why not bid 3♥? He knows that Responder has values to play at the 3-level competitively, despite the known mere 8-fit in hearts. He knows about the help in diamonds, and he is fairly certain that Responder has a COV. So, Opener knows just about everything about Responder's hand correctly.

 

You would be right to point out the risk of a pass by Opener, thinking that Responder has 4-4 or even 5♦/4♥ for this sequence. But, that risk is mitigated, IMO, by the possibility of finding game and by the strong inducement to insist nonetheless on the major fit.

[MFA]

The almighty Joe Grue passed on this auction with Axx Axxx Axx xxx. And I think his partner made 2.

Aha, Grue the Almighty, even able to solve his partner's problems and bid his hands for him. A great player indeed. <_<

[neilkaz]

I just can't invite with the 4333 distribution, and xxx in both Black suits, one of which will likely be lead thru whatever strength opener has in them.

 

Reluctant pass

[skjaeran]

Easy pass, IMO.

[Echognome]

It's a 9 loser hand... that suggests a pass. Since this is MPs, I'd pass.

This is the one argument I hate.

 

ATx xxxx xxx KQJ is also a 9 loser hand and is nowhere close in evaluation to the given hand. I think relying on the loser count here ... is a losing proposition. What about our in-and-out evaluation?

 

On the other hand, I find your other argument that this is MP's to be a completely valid consideration.

[oldman5757]

Easy pass, and I'll very happily take +170 right now, and will bet that even +140 will be average or better. I'd invite V at IMPs by bidding 3 ♦, but the risk of a minus is just too great on these cards at MPs. :)

[fromageGB]

This really does depend on your methods. With one partner it may be a 3442 shape, and then I see absolutely no reason to invite. With another partner where we open 1♣ on balanced hands, that bid of 2♥ shows a black shortage (singleton or void) 3 suiter, or alternatively 6 diamonds. NOW I am interested ...

[lexlogan]

Visualize partner with a perfect minimum, such as

AKx Qxxx K10xx xx .

 

Game is pretty much a laydown if trumps break 3-2 and has good chances if they don't. I'm going to invite -- partner would presumably pass with the hand shown, but the hands he accepts on will be stronger and should also have good play.

 

My one problem is that the obvious invitation, 2NT, looks bad; and 3D is typically played as forcing. So I'll break a rule and invite via 3H despite only 4 trumps. If partner raised on 3, these are the right hands for a Moysian fit.

 

Describing this hand as "9 losers" is, IMO, absurd. 3+ cover cards looks more like it.

[the hog]

Easy pass. 9 losers and even possibly 3 card support.

[mike777]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sxxxhaktxdqjxcxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

N     S

1♦ - 1♥

2♥ - ?[/hv]

1) Not sure why saying 9 losers is absurd...it looks like 9 losers. If you hate this method and you have a better method ok.....but lets say what it means.

 

2) Looks like In=out valuation tells us poor hand.

 

 

3) Pard may only have 3 trumps.

 

 

4) With all that said...easy invite if partner opens very sound in first seat, but no one does in BBF.