I thought it was obvious!

[andy_h]

Agree nigel.

Don't just analyze our hand -quite weak raise, but include opponents finding minor fit!

Essentially two ways to win: H-fit found + their minor missed. 

Loose only if overbid 4H. Or rarely we set 5m now not found.

I take it your partner either bids 4♥ or passes? He never makes a gametry or over-competes and finds himself too high in 3♥? You are a lucky player.

 

BTW, I suspect that many 2/1 players would bid 1N here, in an uncontested auction, intending to bid 2♥ over 2 minor. This is especially true for those who play constructive or semi-constructive raises, so for those players to argue that we had an obvious 1H  2H raise without the interference is nonsense.

 

That, imo, makes pass here certainly a call to be considered, and, imo, the best call.

 

snip

 

Finally, partner knows that we are more likely to stretch to compete after an overcall, and will give some degree of leeway in a situation where we no longer have constructive raise agreements.

 

snip

This I 100% agree with. In contested auctions I think it is very important that you are allowed to bid with lighter values just a tiny deviation from the norm otherwise you just lose out on the tempo of the auction. For example, after 1♥-(1♠) we should strive to bid 2♣ with AKJxxx and out which doesn't have the traditional "10+ points".

[CSGibson]

I just had a thought that makes me like 2♥ a little less - the posters on this thread make the argument that 2♥ makes it harder to find their minor suit fit, but if responder has something like Qx Jxx Axxx Qxxx, then what we've done is give him a descriptive bid (X) making it likely that they compete to the right spot, where previously he would have had a problem auction.

[andy_h]

If the advancer has lengths in both minors then sure he would not find it hard by doubling, but if he is say 5-3 in the minors then he may have a hard time. Or maybe he has a single suiter like AK-6th and out and may be afraid to bid at the 3lvl if it would usually promise more values. 2♥ also precludes a 1NT by the advancer and it also freely allows partner to compete further if he so wishes. I still think it's an obvious 2♥ :)

[straube]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s87642ht76dt3ca93]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(Pass)-1♥-(1♠)-?[/hv]

Mike Lawrence writes regarding the decision to raise after RHO bids one of a suit..."This situation is treated exactly the same as if RHO had passed. You have slightly more information to use but the meanings are the same."

 

He also writes regarding the single raise "This is pretty much the same as the raise of an opening bid. The only difference is that your range changes slightly on both ends. Where you raise an opening bid on from six to some ten counts, you raise an overcall on some five to some elevens.

 

His examples...

 

QJxxx Kxxx Jxx xx raise after 1C (1H)

 

KJxx xx Txxxx xx raise after 1C (1S)

 

xxx KQxx xxx xxx close but pass after 1C (1H) (I want to bid here)

 

xxx AQxxx xxxx x easy raise after 1C (1S)

 

QTx xxx KJxx Qxx pass after 1C (1H) but raise after 1C (1S)

 

I'm guessing with bad three trump and no ruffing value that Mike passes 1S.

[Winstonm]

Mike Lawrence writes regarding the decision to raise after RHO bids one of a suit..."This situation is treated exactly the same as if RHO had passed. You have slightly more information to use but the meanings are the same."

 

Mike cannot here be writing about a 2/1 system where 1N forcing is used to differentiate raises, though.

[straube]

Mike Lawrence writes regarding the decision to raise after RHO bids one of a suit..."This situation is treated exactly the same as if RHO had passed. You have slightly more information to use but the meanings are the same."

 

Mike cannot here be writing about a 2/1 system where 1N forcing is used to differentiate raises, though.

He's talking about advancer's raises...not responder's raises.

[aguahombre]

And thus, not talking about this situation.

[straube]

And thus, not talking about this situation.

My bad. I thought 1H was an overcall.

[aguahombre]

However, we could extend Lawrence to this case. If we do, I suppose there are five dummy points.

[Jlall]

We don't just have an ace and 3 trumps, we have a doubleton. That is very useful, especially since partner is unlikely to be doubleton there also given our spade length. I would pass with 4333 but definitely raise with this.

[Free]

IMO 2♥ = 10, _P = 7, 2♣ = 4, 2♦ = 2.

Why on earth would you give any points to 2♣ and even to 2♦??? :o Those calls are just plain wrong, shape and strength!

 

2♥ for me, could live with pass.

[nige1]

IMO 2♥ = 10, _P = 7, 2♣ = 4, 2♦ = 2.

Why on earth would you give any points to 2♣ and even to 2♦???  :blink:  Those calls are just plain wrong, shape and strength! 2♥ for me, could live with pass.

I wouldn't make either call but considered both as amusing tactical options. For example, 2♣ is superfically atttractive. Not only could it pick off their suit but also a ♣ lead may be preferrable to a ♥. Although either might work, I rejected both, as being too dangerous, vulnerable at IMPs. I finally chose 2♥ as more descriptive, pre-emptive, and co-operative. And less likely to incur the wrath of partner and team-mates.

[gwnn]

Again nige 1, why don't you include 1NT in your funnyoptions? :blink:

[gwnn]

BTW, I suspect that many 2/1 players would bid 1N here, in an uncontested auction, intending to bid 2♥ over 2 minor. This is especially true for those who play constructive or semi-constructive raises, so for those players to argue that we had an obvious 1H  2H raise without the interference is nonsense.

Indeed people who would not bid 2H over 1H and claim they would are talking nonsense. But why don't you trust what they say? Not saying it's rude or something, but I think it's definitely impractical.

[nige1]

Again nige 1, why don't you include 1NT in your funnyoptions? :blink:

I give marks to options that I consider and I think might work. Initially, I didn't consider 1N although, perhaps, I should have added it later as a deprecated option. I deemed 1N to serve little useful purpose as it wrongsiding, misdescriptive, and uses up minimal bidding space. I concede that 1N may have merit, if it is an artificial force in your peculiar methods, and conventionally allows you to make a weak ♥ raise.

[gwnn]

no but I think 1NT is not worse than 2♦ :blink:

[dake50]

To CSGibson,

Is 3H -1 overcompeted verses 3m=, +1, +2? Vul 100 vs 110, 130, 150/400/600.

So 3H -2 is overcompeting? Vul 200 vs 110, 130, 150/400/600.

 

This is my alluded 4H-2 may lose to 3m=/+1 or they overbid 5m-1 set we no longer get.

[helene_t]

no but I think 1NT is not worse than 2♦ :blink:

1NT is a classic psyche, opps are more likely to read it than they are to read 2♦. Then again, so is partner.

 

Oh well, maybe we don't psyche at this vulnerability. I would give 0 to both options.

[Rossoneri]

2♥, for the reasons Nigel gave above.

 

No comments about the psyche, I am no flair player.

[kgr]

I play that 2♦ is a good 2♥ and 2♥ a bad one. That makes 2♥ easy.