Evaluation problem

[bluecalm]

Playing more or less standard 2/1 with forcing 1NT and jumps as natural invitational.

 

1♠ - 1NT

2♦ - 2♥

?

 

[hv=s=sat954hkqdkt643ck]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

It's not hard to visualize a game if partner has Axxxxx !♥ it's even easier to visualize going down in 3♥.

What do you bid ? Does vulnerability change your answer?

[MFA]

I have never played 2/1 really, but it looks like a 3♥ bid to me.

[mike777]

3h for me

 

 

2h is quite a wide range for me. push at imps.

[dellache]

I'd always pass nonvul, I'm at the 2 level, and game is surely borderline at best. +110 is sure, I protect my plus score, and don't try to get the 6 extra imps.

 

I'd bid 3♥ VUL though.

[hanp]

Pass NV, 3H vul.

[pooltuna]

Playing more or less standard 2/1 with forcing 1NT and jumps as natural invitational.

 

1♠ - 1NT

2♦ - 2♥

?

 

[hv=s=sat954hkqdkt643ck]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

It's not hard to visualize a game if partner has Axxxxx !♥ it's even easier to visualize going down in 3♥.

What do you bid ? Does vulnerability change your answer?

3♥ all colors

[jdonn]

I'd just pass, partner sometimes has 5 hearts too.

[Winstonm]

You say this is a evaluation problem but it looks more like a systemic problem to me. The problem is we have only two methods to show a non-game forcing hand with hearts: immediate jump shift or 1N and then bid hearts.

 

The question to answer is which has more importance: to be able to play 2H when responder is weak or to seperate 6+ card length game tries from exactly 5-card length game tries? The sequence of 1S-1N-2m-2H cannot be both weak and invitational unless you simply enjoy guessing. A choice is necessary, and after the choice is made you have to ignore bad results from not having the excluded bid available.

 

With either choice made, the posted hand becomes much easier to evaluate.