Good Enough?

[mohitz]

Interesting idea Jdonn. I never thought about it. Thanks

[the hog]

Well Josh, this is a slight thread hijack....Would you not agree that an artificial 2NT bid, which included strong balanced hands AND 3 card support for responder in this type of hand, would be a better weapon in your armoury? That is amusing, of course, that you think the original hand would have the values for that bid.

[dbsboy]

I like jdonn's idea, but I think there is a disadvantage too: If responder is weak and have say 4-4-3-2, he would bid 2N leb and try to signoff in 3♥, but in this case, playing 3♥ or 3♠ is usually worse than the 6-2 fit 3♣ (where he would pass 1♣-1♠-3♣).

 

I think I would bid 3♣ at the table, for the reasons:

1) It is already a jump, a very encouraging bid given my 14 HCP

2) Rebidding 3♣ does not stop us in playing ♠

3) My ♣ are really strong

4) I am not used to reversing with 3 card suits when I have an alternative.

[jdonn]

Even though I ran with it I wasn't particularly arguing for bidding 2♥, just that 2♥>3♣. I can understand making a minimum rebid on this hand.

 

And responder can't be 4432!!! If he has 4 hearts he has 5+ spades. You can never be forced to end in a 4-3 heart fit unless responder has an awful hand and judges to pass the forcing 2♥.

[hanp]

Wait but Josh, what if responder jumps to 4H? :unsure:

[Free]

Wait but Josh, what if responder jumps to 4H? :unsure:

autosplinter? :P

[Fluffy]

my dad's book says 4♥ minimum 3♥ slam try, but then I play GF 2NT rebid :unsure:

[hanp]

For the record, I voted 2H before reading the comments.

 

Like Josh, I don't think it is very clear, but 2H seems a bit better than 3C, the plurality vote. 2C is a bit of an underbid, especially with such good support for spades. 2S seems like both an underbid and a misbid.

 

It didn't really occur to me that 2H could cause problems with partner insisting on hearts. The only question is whether we are strong enough.