How is this handled?

[Cascade]

Dealer: South Vul: EW Scoring: IMP ♠ AQJ82 ♥ KJT8 ♦ ♣ AQ87

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     1♠

 Pass  1NT   Pass  ?

 

If your solution involves bidding 2♥ then what is a minimum hand for partner that would raise 2♥ with four trumps? with five trumps?

[gwnn]

3♥, no gadget.

[P_Marlowe]

2H, followed by 3C, if partner bids 2S.

 

This will show a 5-4-3-? shape and a highly inv. hand,

I guess this is pretty close to what I actually hold.

 

I would raise 2H with 8HCP and 4 card support, make it

more distriutional and the HCP count can drop.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[aguahombre]

Really hate 3H. Forget gadgets like 2C, since OP stated no gadgets. That leaves 2H. 8 and five trumps would be my rock minimum for a raise to 3H. this hand is so rare, compared with all the other hands that would rebid 2H, that it might be resulting to lower the "raise" standards here. All minor suit quacks are suspect, so I guess Aces and major suit honors should be considered if deciding whether to make a raise.

[nigel_k]

2♥.

 

This is a horrible situation with a heart fit because opener and responder both have an enormous range so bidding is going to be inaccurate. For that reason I don't hate 3♥ but I still wouldn't do it.

 

I would almost always raise to 3♥ with five card support. With four card support, 8 HCP sounds about right if they are working. Something like xx AQxx Qxxx xxx would be a pass, but add ♦J and it's a raise. We're going to get too high quite often unfortunately.

[neilkaz]

This is not a fun hand for S/A sans a gadget. 3♥ is GF and seems a bit optimistic. I'd not mind 3♥ if my ♠8 were the 10 and if my ♣8 also were the ♣10 then I'd go for 3♥ for sure.

 

As it stands, a cautious 2♥.

 

I'd raise 2♥ to 3♥ with 4 card support and a working 8 count..ie honors I expect to take or help take tricks with.

[peachy]

2C will be unlikely to be passed if pd is weak while 2H might be passed with hands where 4H is cold. Really hate not showing hearts but hate even more JS in hearts.

[Fluffy]

2NT GF, showing 4 hearts latter. I get to hide the clubs.

 

If not playing these methods it is clsoe between 2 and 3 hearts (2 clubs leaves you stuck opposite a most common response of 2 spades). I would go with 3.

[Codo]

1 ♠ 2♥ 3♣ sounds like a good idea.

[skjaeran]

Playing with a recent partner:

 

1♠ - 1NT

2♦

Transfer, planning to rebid 3♣.

 

With other partners:

1♠ - 1NT

2NT

GF relay

[pooltuna]

3♥, no gadget.

This gets my vote

[pooltuna]

This is not a fun hand for S/A sans a gadget. 3♥ is GF and seems a bit optimistic. I'd not mind 3♥ if my ♠8 were the 10 and if my ♣8 also were the ♣10 then I'd go for 3♥ for sure.

 

As it stands, a cautious 2♥.

 

I'd raise 2♥ to 3♥ with 4 card support and a working 8 count..ie honors I expect to take or help take tricks with.

K&R Hand Evaluator

This will run the Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator (knr). Type in a hand, something like

KQxxx QJT2 --- Ak102, and I'll tell you how many points they think it's worth.

 

New feature: this also prints Danny Kleinman's HCP evaluation.

 

K&R (AQJ82 KJT8 --- AQ87) = 20.90

DK = 18-

 

i.e. 3♥ is a no-brainer. Can something go wrong. Sure, you could get out of bed and walk out your front door and get hit by a bus too.

[Cascade]

This is not a fun hand for S/A sans a gadget.  3♥ is GF and seems a bit optimistic. I'd not mind 3♥ if my ♠8 were the 10 and if my ♣8 also were the ♣10 then I'd go for 3♥ for sure.

 

As it stands, a cautious 2♥.

 

I'd raise 2♥ to 3♥ with 4 card support and a working 8 count..ie honors I expect to take or help take tricks with.

K&R Hand Evaluator

This will run the Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator (knr). Type in a hand, something like

KQxxx QJT2 --- Ak102, and I'll tell you how many points they think it's worth.

 

New feature: this also prints Danny Kleinman's HCP evaluation.

 

K&R (AQJ82 KJT8 --- AQ87) = 20.90

DK = 18-

 

i.e. 3♥ is a no-brainer. Can something go wrong. Sure, you could get out of bed and walk out your front door and get hit by a bus too.

This sort of argument is flawed:

 

1. K&R is not proven to be an accurate hand evaluator

 

2. There is no account of the bidding. K&R is attempting to evaluate a hand in a vacuum. Whatever the hand was worth initially it has gone down in value when partner could not raise spades nor voluntarily introduce one of our other suits.

[ONEferBRID]

1S  - 1NTF

2C* - 2D ( expected )

2H ( should describe this hand )

_____________________

* 2C could be as few as 3 cards

[Cascade]

1S  - 1NTF

2C* - 2D ( expected )

2H ( should describe this hand )

_____________________

* 2C could be as few as 3 cards

... and this is standard?

[aguahombre]

1S  - 1NTF

2C* - 2D ( expected )

2H ( should describe this hand )

_____________________

* 2C could be as few as 3 cards

... and this is standard?

yes, in a forum.

[ONEferBRID]

1S  - 1NTF

2C* - 2D ( expected )

2H ( should describe this hand )

_____________________

* 2C could be as few as 3 cards

... and this is standard?

What part didn't you like?

....the 2C rebid after a forcing 1NT ?

( I agree w/Peachy that 2C is "less likely to be passed out" )

[P_Marlowe]

1S  - 1NTF

2C* - 2D ( expected )

2H ( should describe this hand )

_____________________

* 2C could be as few as 3 cards

Brilliant idea.

 

What do you think partner will bid, if he happens to hold

the highly unusal 2-4-5-2 pattern?

If he bids D, he should go back to BI clase lesson, he will

bid 2S.

2D in this seq. showes a 6 carder, and the main task

for partner is to show a preference for my suits.

 

You have the chance to show 9 cards, and you choose the bid

which showes 8.

 

I can understand the 3H bidders, you can upgrade this hand to

a game force, I wont do it, but it is ok, but 2C is just ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: And I currently ignoring the issue about the meaning of 2H

in this seq., at least in some parts of Europe 2H would be FSF,

it is natural in NA, but there are some smaller continents on

the over shores of the oceans, which may play 2H different.

[ONEferBRID]

You " can understand the 3H bidders, you can upgrade this hand ( 17 hcp ) to

a game force, I wont do it, but it is ok" ( having a pretty good feeling that partner has Diam ) .

.. So, instead of having a suit preference of 3 suits shown at the 2-level ( btw, 2H is never 4SF in this auction ... but it should not only show this shape, but "extras" for such a bid), you prefer only showing 2 suits at the same 2-level or GF at the 3-level...... although, I have no problem with the immediate 2H re-bid.

 

Let's see what partner's hand is ...

[marcD]

Really hate 3H. Forget gadgets like 2C, since OP stated no gadgets. That leaves 2H. 8 and five trumps would be my rock minimum for a raise to 3H. this hand is so rare, compared with all the other hands that would rebid 2H, that it might be resulting to lower the "raise" standards here. All minor suit quacks are suspect, so I guess Aces and major suit honors should be considered if deciding whether to make a raise.

Hate 3♥ too but if I rebid 2♥ (the "reasonnable" choice) there are too many hands where partner is going to pass and 4♥ has some play or is cold . I think 3♥ is the practical bid under the system conditions.

[Cascade]

1S  - 1NTF

2C* - 2D ( expected )

2H ( should describe this hand )

_____________________

* 2C could be as few as 3 cards

... and this is standard?

What part didn't you like?

....the 2C rebid after a forcing 1NT ?

( I agree w/Peachy that 2C is "less likely to be passed out" )

1. The problem didn't involve a forcing 1NT. I didn't notice the "F" in your post earlier. So I didn't expect 2♣ showing three to be standard.

 

2. I would expect standard would bid 2♥ rather than 2♣.

 

3. 2♣ won't produce 2♦ all of the time and some other continuations will be awkward e.g. 2♠, which maybe more frequent, preference possibly false. Then if you take another move it will be 3♥ and then if partner dislikes your majors you have forced to the four-level.

 

4. I am not so sure that 2♣ is less likely to be passed out. Over 2♥ at least there is a temptation of a 10 trick game whereas over 2♣ with clubs and distribution not only is the game an extra trick but we might not even have a real fit. Both are factors that will dissuade us from bidding.

[hrothgar]

This is an ugly problem

 

Looking at my hand, I have a strong expectation that partner is sitting on a six+ card diamond suit without enough strength to bid an immediate 2♦.

 

If we have a fit, its probably either a 5-2 spade fit or a 4-3 fit in either hearts or clubs.

 

I expect that I am going to get labelled a wimp, however, I am strogly tempted to bid 2♣ and then PASS the expected 2♦ rebid. I'm willing to gamble that partner has seven diamonds and that his hand is worth a lot more in Diamonds than in some other suit.

 

If partner surprises me by bidding 2♥ or 2♠, life is easy.

The big risk here is that partner might pass 2♣ and 5♣ might roll home.

[gordontd]

2C will be unlikely to be passed if pd is weak while 2H might be passed with hands where 4H is cold. Really hate not showing hearts but hate even more JS in hearts.

Your concern about missing the heart game leads you to start by suppressing the heart suit? It sounds like the worse of both worlds.

[Fluffy]

I am completelly sure that if partner bids 2♣ then any number of hearts I will think that he has 5314 or 5305, no other shape is possible.

[oxyde]

2♥

 

Partner will raise with 8HCP 4 cards or any 5 card.

Good 5 cards fit go straight to game.

 

 

The main issue with bidding 3♥ is that it is closing to many doors.

- it excludes my best 4 card suit : ♣ which could lead to a slam facing not that much (Kx Qx xxxx Kxxxx makes easy 6♣, so any high card less would lead to 5♣).

 

- it also excludes ♦, which could be played if partner has a strong misfit and long ♦ : I would pass a 3♦ bid. Such a hand is highly possible (see hrothgar comment)

In such a case 3♥ leads you to an horrible penalty