1H-(2S)-4H

[CSGibson]

A friend and I had an argument over what 4♥ should mean in the auction 1♥-(2♠)-4♥. We've agreed fit jumps, and we don't play negative free bids in a standard 2/1 system. 2♠ by opponent is assumed to be a preemptive bid in spades. 2N would be natural in this auction for us.

 

One of us said that 4 hearts is a preemptive bid/law of total tricks bid, which does not promise much in the way of values, and that all limit raise or better hands which don't qualify for fit jumps go through a 3♠ cuebid. The other said that 3♥ should be a general raise (constructivish), 4♥ should be all limit raises that don't fit within our defined standards for fit jumps, and 3♠ should be stronger than 4♥, showing a legitimate 2/1 call, based on the theory that you shouldn't preempt a preempt.

 

What is the consensus on this auction?

[ArtK78]

4♥ is a game try - bid game and try to make it.

 

Seriously, it shows playing power - values and trumps. The more trumps, the less in values, and vice versa. No slam interest (due to the failure to cue bid).

 

Calling this a total tricks raise with preemptive values is not quite accurate, because the values could be close to a limit raise.

[Jlall]

4H is the equivalent of a good limit raise or bad GF hand. This means you can bid it with x Kxxxx Axx xxxx but not x Kxxxx xxx xxxx.

[Apollo81]

The difference between 3♠ and 4♥ is that 3♠ creates a forcing auction and 4♥ doesn't.

[Phil]

4H is the equivalent of a good limit raise or bad GF hand. This means you can bid it with x Kxxxx Axx xxxx but not x Kxxxx xxx xxxx.

Yes. We discussed this one around three years ago and also talked about 3♥ was better than 3 pieces and a 7 count.

[CSGibson]

[hv=s=sxhjt9dkt753caj97]133|100|[/hv]

 

Follow up - would this hand fall within the acceptable range for a 4 heart bid?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

it showes trumps, and it is a two way shot, either

you can make 4H, or it is a cheap sac, so I voted

other.

 

And it does not create a forcing pass situation.

 

In the context of fit jumps, it would also deny a good

5 card suit on the side, because if you have one, you

would have bid it.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: The hand you gave would certainly not qualify for

a 4H bid, the hand is at best a limit raise and a not a

particular good one.

You best bet would be to make a neg. X, followed by

a delayed 3H bid, or 4H bid, if partner showes some life.

If you think the hand qualifies for a 4H bid, than I would

say 4D is clearly better, at least it tells partner something

about your shape.

[Phil]

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ x ♥ JT9 ♦ KT753 ♣ AJ97

 

Follow up - would this hand fall within the acceptable range for a 4 heart bid?

Yes. This is a limit raise by anyone's standards.

 

Edit: Agree with almost all of Uwe's comments, except I think this is a minimum 4♥ call and 4♥ isn't a two-way bid (i.e., cheap sac). How else can partner know whether or not to bid on?

 

Normally I would call this a below average limit raise but that stiff spade is a great holding and justifies an upgrade.

[Jlall]

[hv=s=sxhjt9dkt753caj97]133|100|[/hv]

 

Follow up - would this hand fall within the acceptable range for a 4 heart bid?

yes

[awm]

What's your call over 1♥-(2♠) with x Kxxxx xxxx xxx?

 

If partner has a fairly minimum hand with long spades you could even be making 4♥; take an example like Qxxx Axxxx Kx Ax; nothing special and yet 4♥ is actually a pretty good contract.

 

With this shape (4522) partner will not balance over 2♠ even with substantial extras, so you could even add a couple queens to partner's hand to make 4♥ cold and if you pass 2♠ it still probably passes out.

 

I've always played that the 4♥ jump just has a wide range. Admittedly this means partner has to guess sometimes what to do, but it's not that common for partner to have a slam try opposite a limit raise; I think it's much more frequent that we need to bid a "shape" game or that it's important for me to describe my degree of fit right away so partner can make a reasonable decision over 4♠ from the opponents.

[mikeh]

The point is that the opps have consumed some of the bidding space. Thus, we will want/need to compete to 3♥ on hands on which, unobstructed, we had a goodish 2♥ raise. we can't afford to pass on such hands since partner may not be able to reopen, and/or 4th seat may advance the preempt, and partner can't bid intelligently lacking information from us.

 

In addition, we lose the ability to make various well-defined constructive/limit bids, whether we, in uncontested auctions, use Bergen, or forcing 1N then 3♥, and so on. All that careful system work that allows us to make well-defined raises is largely out of the window now.

 

So we lower the minimum level of the 3♥ call...

 

We could do this while preserving a gf raise (either 3♠ or 4♥) to be opening hand or better, but this puts too much of a load on opener... he would have to guess whether your 3♥ call was lower than normal or a full limit... and whichever way he went, he'd go wrong too often. The range for the 3♥ bid would be unworkably wide.

 

So we choose instead to bid 4♥ with good limit raises, or with good playing strength hands. This will sometimes mean we bid too much, but that's why people preempt. This approach has been found to be effective, which is evident in the fact that it is standard treatment.

 

For similar reasons, the 3♠ bid is reserved for gf hands with a little extra.. the type of hand that might afford slam opportunities if partner has some working extras. We can't wait for it to be a true slam-interest hand, since they come along so rarely... and we need to define the range of the 4♥ call, so that it is not too wide.

 

Sorry if this is too basic for most readers :lol:

[jdonn]

What's your call over 1♥-(2♠) with x Kxxxx xxxx xxx?

 

If partner has a fairly minimum hand with long spades you could even be making 4♥; take an example like Qxxx Axxxx Kx Ax; nothing special and yet 4♥ is actually a pretty good contract.

The opponents are cold for 4♠ or 5♠. I think that will be true on almost all the hands partner can have opposite x Kxxxx xxxx xxx where we make game but he wouldn't bid it over 3♥. I think you are quite safe bidding 3♥ on this hand.

[ArtK78]

The point is that the opps have consumed some of the bidding space. Thus, we will want/need to compete to 3♥ on hands on which, unobstructed, we had a goodish 2♥ raise. we can't afford to pass on such hands since partner may not be able to reopen, and/or 4th seat may advance the preempt, and partner can't bid intelligently lacking information from us.

 

In addition, we lose the ability to make various well-defined constructive/limit bids, whether we, in uncontested auctions, use Bergen, or forcing 1N then 3♥, and so on. All that careful system work that allows us to make well-defined raises is largely out of the window now.

A suggestion to ponder:

 

Use 2NT in competition as a limit raise. The use of 2NT in competition as natural and invitational is not very important on a frequency basis; on the other hand, as pointed out by this discussion, having 2NT available as a real limit raise allows you to bid 3♥ competitively and even 4♥ competitively (you can bid 2NT then 4♥ on a hand with real limit raise values with long hearts).

[jdonn]

2NT as a limit raise seems wrong to me on a space basis. Instead of a natural 2NT you don't want to bid 3NT since partner needs room to bid second suits or rebid his suit, and the cuebid below 3NT can be useful for him too. Over a limit raise you really don't need any room, partner almost always just knows to bid game or not.

[gnasher]

I'd bid 4♥ with any limit raise, and leave them to guess whether to save. I'd do the same with x Kxxxx xxxx xxx, because the thought of doing any less repels me. If they then bid 4♠, I'd double with a limit raise, but not with the shapely three-count.

 

That leaves 3♠ to show a high-card raise to game, and 3♥ to show a competitive hand.

 

This approach (which I suspect is neither standard nor American) isn't particularly good for finding slams, but does help in judging what to do in the face of further competition.

[Jlall]

This approach (which I suspect is neither standard nor American) isn't particularly good for finding slams, but does help in judging what to do in the face of further competition.

Your partner always passes after 1H 2S 4H 4S? It seems like you put him in a pretty horrible spot to judge what to do.

[Fluffy]

I play rubenshol here, with 2NT and higher as transfers.

 

 

Appart from the fact that you can show weak long minors this lets you show 4 ranges at the 3 level. 3♦ = weak, 3♥ = limit, 3♠ = GF, 3♦+cue= very strong (this last one has proven useful). Of course you also have 4♥ and 4m avaible for the shapy hands.

[mikeh]

The point is that the opps have consumed some of the bidding space. Thus, we will want/need to compete to 3♥ on hands on which, unobstructed, we had a goodish 2♥ raise. we can't afford to pass on such hands since partner may not be able to reopen, and/or 4th seat may advance the preempt, and partner can't bid intelligently lacking information from us.

 

In addition, we lose the ability to make various well-defined constructive/limit bids, whether we, in uncontested auctions, use Bergen, or forcing 1N then 3♥, and so on. All that careful system work that allows us to make well-defined raises is largely out of the window now.

A suggestion to ponder:

 

Use 2NT in competition as a limit raise. The use of 2NT in competition as natural and invitational is not very important on a frequency basis; on the other hand, as pointed out by this discussion, having 2NT available as a real limit raise allows you to bid 3♥ competitively and even 4♥ competitively (you can bid 2NT then 4♥ on a hand with real limit raise values with long hearts).

I know that there are players who do this, either here or in analogous situations: I haven't tried it enough to know if it is a valid usage... as josh points out, there are downsides to the treatment as well as upsides.. but this would definitely NOT be standard, however one defines standard... and when someone posts a question inviting a 'bridge' answer, they are not usually asking for esoteric ideas.. they want to know what the mainstream treatment is.... and I think, but would not swear, that what I described was either the orthodox treatment, or very close to it.

 

(I am learning to hedge my statements as to what is 'standard' :rolleyes: )

[gnasher]

If you're willing to give up 2NT in a natural sense, you should play something like:

 

2NT/3♣ = transfer

3♦ = hearts, competitive or game-forcing

3♥ = hearts, invitational

3♠ = splinter

 

or

 

2NT/3♣ = transfer

3♦ = 3-card hearts, competitive or a slam try

3♥ = hearts, invitational

3♠ = hearts, just game values

 

Edit: I see that Fluffy got there before me.

[jdonn]

I'd bid 4♥ with any limit raise, and leave them to guess whether to save. I'd do the same with x Kxxxx xxxx xxx, because the thought of doing any less repels me. If they then bid 4♠, I'd double with a limit raise, but not with the shapely three-count.

 

That leaves 3♠ to show a high-card raise to game, and 3♥ to show a competitive hand.

 

This approach (which I suspect is neither standard nor American) isn't particularly good for finding slams, but does help in judging what to do in the face of further competition.

Doesn't this approach do exactly the opposite of helping to judge what to do in the face of further competition? You could have a balanced 16 count with 3 trumps or an unbalanced 3 count with 5 trumps. Partner may want to know which. It seems the advantage is in making the opponents guess, not in helping your side make the best decisions.

[RichMor]

I think many would use 2NT in the sequence

1♥ - (2♠) - 2NT

as something other than natural (and non forcing ?)

 

As Fluffy mentions, you can play Rubensohl (transfers). Or you can play some form of good/bad 2NT which distinguishes between direct and delayed Heart raises.

 

So it's hard to say what a 'standard' treatment is among scientific bidders.

 

RichM

[gnasher]

This approach (which I suspect is neither standard nor American) isn't particularly good for finding slams, but does help in judging what to do in the face of further competition.

Your partner always passes after 1H 2S 4H 4S? It seems like you put him in a pretty horrible spot to judge what to do.

What sort of problem are you envisaging?

 

If opener thinks he can make 5♥ opposite the weaker variety, he bids. If he thinks they're going down opposite the weaker variety, he doubles. Otherwise, he passes. If responder has a limit raise, opener will find out about it on the next round and may then reconsider.

 

The only thing we can't do is finding a sacrifice when responder is weak, but I don't think our methods should be geared to saving after our side has opened the bidding and then made the opponents guess. Anyway, you're not going to be any better placed if your style obliges you to start with 3♥ on this hand-type.

 

Of course, in reality responder doesn't have one of two distinct types, but a continuous range of hands of similar offensive strength but varying defensive strength. That makes it harder to cope than the above would suggest, but it usually seems to work out OK.

[gnasher]

Doesn't this approach do exactly the opposite of helping to judge what to do in the face of further competition? You could have a balanced 16 count with 3 trumps or an unbalanced 3 count with 5 trumps. Partner may want to know which. It seems the advantage is in making the opponents guess, not in helping your side make the best decisions.

Sorry, I don't understand. With a balanced 16-count and three trumps, responder would bid 3♠, not 4♥.

[jdonn]

Doesn't this approach do exactly the opposite of helping to judge what to do in the face of further competition? You could have a balanced 16 count with 3 trumps or an unbalanced 3 count with 5 trumps. Partner may want to know which. It seems the advantage is in making the opponents guess, not in helping your side make the best decisions.

Sorry, I don't understand. With a balanced 16-count and three trumps, responder would bid 3♠, not 4♥.

Yes sorry that was careless of me. My point is that I believe you are misstating the advantage of your methods. Bidding 4♥ on more hands obviously (by definition?) makes both sides guess more, it doesn't help your side judge what to do in competition. In your response to Justin's post you talk about what opener can do opposite the weaker variety. But you have widened the range of that type of hand considerably, opener will often have real problems. As will the opponents more often.

[gnasher]

True, I have more hands bidding 4♥ than Justin does. However, what I'm trying to do is to get the effect of an extra bid, by making maximum use of the distinction between 4♥ followed by double, and 4♥ followed by pass (or 5♥).

 

If 4♥ shows from a maximum limit raise to a minimum game raise, responder is rarely going to defend 4♠ undoubled. (In fact, there's a good case for playing this 4♥ as setting up a forcing pass.) Responder's options after they bid 4♠ allow you to divide responder's already fairly narrow range of hands into those that will double 4♠ and those that will bid 5♥.

 

By making 4♥ cover a wider range of hands, straddling the threshold for doubling 4♠, I make better use of responder's second-round options. I also gain by narrowing the range of 3♥.

 

One other thing: this style works better if you can do something else with the three-card limit raises. That considerably reduces the range, in terms of defensive strength, of 4♥.

 

In case it wasn't obvious, I'm not expounding any deeply thought-out ideas, just rationalising what I actually do. And it's true that I don't mind situations where both sides are partly guessing, as long as they face more uncertainty than we do.