How much?

[gerry]

[hv=pc=n&n=saq96hk987654d9c6&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1cp1hp2cp]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPs, All. What now?

[mike777]

3h

 

 

 

1c AND 2C CAN BE on ten points for me.

 

--

 

otoh if 1c shows a solid old fashion opener then easy 4h now.

[the hog]

[hv=pc=n&n=saq96hk987654d9c6&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1cp1hp2cp]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPs, All. What now?

 

2H which should be constructive. The heart suit is certainly not good enough for 3 or 4 hearts.

[Vampyr]

2H which should be constructive. The heart suit is certainly not good enough for 3 or 4 hearts.

Agree with all this.

[mtvesuvius]

Clear 3♥, unless you play Weak Jumps here, 2♥ could be very weak.

[Vampyr]

Clear 3♥, unless you play Weak Jumps here, 2♥ could be very weak.

As you have seen, some of us play 2♥ as constructive, so it can't be very weak. Even without Weak Jumps (I don't play them.)

[mtvesuvius]

OK so then what do you do with a weak hand and hearts?

[Vampyr]

OK so then what do you do with a weak hand and hearts?

If I have enough to respond I bid 1♥. After that I pass.

[mtvesuvius]

That just seems unnecessarily restrictive... Why would you want to be forced into passing when holding short clubs and 7♥ or something? Even if 2♥ is constructive, I think this hand is far too good for it.

[655321]

If 3♥ is invitational it seems ideal.

 

We want partner to bid 4♥ with any excuse, I don't see the point in scoring up 170 and saying 'but my bid was constructive partner'.

[Vampyr]

That just seems unnecessarily restrictive... Why would you want to be forced into passing when holding short clubs and 7♥ or something?

 

With 7 lousy hearts and a weak hand I am delighted to pass. My hearts are poor, partner's clubs are probably good; either clubs is a better place to play or there is not much in it. The hand in question is a potential misfit, and there are just too many hands on which 2♣ is an easy make and 3(!) ♥ gets sawn off. 2♥ is plenty, and, importantly, it allows partner to go back to clubs with a long, good club suit, short hearts, and a subminimum opening hand.

 

 

Even if 2♥ is constructive, I think this hand is far too good for it.

 

If you think this hand is too good for a constructive bid, OK, horses for courses, but do you really think it is safe to suggest hearts at the 3 level with that suit quality?

 

 

If 3♥ is invitational it seems ideal.We want partner to bid 4♥ with any excuse, I don't see the point in scoring up 170 and saying 'but my bid was constructive partner'.

 

The point is that partner plays it as constructive too, so he will know to go to game with a suitable hand, or try for game with a medium hand, and we will not be playing 3♥ when his hand is unsuitable.

[mtvesuvius]

Are you saying you'd pass holding xxxxx AKQ AKQ AK becuase you are afraid of playing in spades? I think your reasoning here is a bit off. I'm not uncomfortable playing in hearts with this suit, and if partner has a couple hearts, guess what? They will include at least one honour almost always.

[Vampyr]

Are you saying you'd pass holding xxxxx AKQ AKQ AK becuase you are afraid of playing in spades? I think your reasoning here is a bit off. I'm not uncomfortable playing in hearts with this suit, and if partner has a couple hearts, guess what? They will include at least one honour almost always.

 

Afraid of playing in hearts? I answered 2♥ to the poll.

[andy_h]

I like 4H, 7-4 and all, hope they're leading a spade

[rhm]

If 3♥ is invitational it seems ideal.

 

We want partner to bid 4♥ with any excuse, I don't see the point in scoring up 170 and saying 'but my bid was constructive partner'.

Agree with all that. I play weak jumps, but consider this hand too strong for 2♥. 2♥ would be right with a ♥ card less and a minor suit card more.

Of course jump rebidding your suit to invite is always dangerous.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

With 7 lousy hearts and a weak hand I am delighted to pass. My hearts are poor, partner's clubs are probably good; either clubs is a better place to play or there is not much in it. The hand in question is a potential misfit, and there are just too many hands on which 2♣ is an easy make and 3(!) ♥ gets sawn off. 2♥ is plenty, and, importantly, it allows partner to go back to clubs with a long, good club suit, short hearts, and a subminimum opening hand.

 

 

 

 

If you think this hand is too good for a constructive bid, OK, horses for courses, but do you really think it is safe to suggest hearts at the 3 level with that suit quality?

 

 

 

 

The point is that partner plays it as constructive too, so he will know to go to game with a suitable hand, or try for game with a medium hand, and we will not be playing 3♥ when his hand is unsuitable.

 

I totally agree with all this. Why on earth would you bid on over 2C with a bad hand. Partner showed at least 6C with that bid.

[rhm]

I totally agree with all this. Why on earth would you bid on over 2C with a bad hand. Partner showed at least 6C with that bid.

 

I can see a lot of reasons:

 

1) All else being equal it is almost always much better to play in the long suit of the weaker hand. Dummy may be worthless in a ♣ contract. The opposite is not true.

 

2) A major is usually preferred to a minor. Saying that 2♥ is constructive means partner is expected to move only with Hx in ♥ and more than a minimum opening. For example I would not expect opener to move over 2♥ with ♠JTx,♥Qx,♦Ax,♣ATxxxx, a hand which might make six.

 

3) We seem to agree that a jump rebid over 2♣ would still be invitational. Holding the same hand but KJTxxxx in ♥ I think few would want to rebid anything but 4♥. So how wrong can 3♥ be?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Vampyr]

I can see a lot of reasons:

 

1) All else being equal it is almost always much better to play in the long suit of the weaker hand. Dummy may be worthless in a ♣ contract. The opposite is not true.

 

This may well not apply in a case like this, especially if the hand turns out to be a total misfit. Imagine, (OK, perhaps an extreme example) the same hand with four small spades. You are going to have a lot of trouble getting to partner's hands to enjoy the clubs, in the meantime losing several heart tricks. Whereas in clubs partner can pull trumps with few (or no!) losers and then take whatever side tricks are coming.

 

2) A major is usually preferred to a minor. Saying that 2♥ is constructive means partner is expected to move only with Hx in ♥ and more than a minimum opening. For example I would not expect opener to move over 2♥ with ♠JTx,♥Qx,♦Ax,♣ATxxxx, a hand which might make six.

Come on, this is a perfecta, six needs a very lucky lie of the cards, and partner might well bid with those aces, which are the best holdings in side suits. Change them to KQs and even 2 hearts is in danger. And partner is likely to have more of his hand in clubs, since it is his 6+ card suit.

 

3) We seem to agree that a jump rebid over 2♣ would still be invitational. Holding the same hand but KJTxxxx in ♥ I think few would want to rebid anything but 4♥. So how wrong can 3♥ be?

 

Well, the main problem with jumping to any level on the OP hand is the quality of the hearts.

[mtvesuvius]

Rainer's example may be a bit contrived, but there are so many hands that partner won't even begin to move over 2♥ with, where game is excellent, if not cold. Rainer's example might even pass 3♥! Facing anything but terrible wastage in both minors, game rates to be a fairly good contract, and 3♥ should be fine when partner passes.

 

I still don't see the point of 2♥ though, we're not getting too high that often.

[gwnn]

I can see a lot of reasons:

 

1) All else being equal it is almost always much better to play in the long suit of the weaker hand. Dummy may be worthless in a ♣ contract. The opposite is not true.

 

2) A major is usually preferred to a minor. Saying that 2♥ is constructive means partner is expected to move only with Hx in ♥ and more than a minimum opening. For example I would not expect opener to move over 2♥ with ♠JTx,♥Qx,♦Ax,♣ATxxxx, a hand which might make six.

 

3) We seem to agree that a jump rebid over 2♣ would still be invitational. Holding the same hand but KJTxxxx in ♥ I think few would want to rebid anything but 4♥. So how wrong can 3♥ be?

 

Rainer Herrmann

As usual, agree 100% with Rainer. I hope we can be friends again. :)

[Phil]

3♥ but its close. This has has a lot of red flags - bad suit, short in partner's suit, non-fitting spades, and opponents that didn't bid diamonds. It might be a screaming misfit, and 3N will go for many 100's.

 

By the way, a lot of hands that are just 'weak with hearts' pass 2♥, but do I really need to pass 2♣ with xxx KJTxxx xxxx void? . Only if I played WJS, would I ever take 2♥ as constructive.

[Zelandakh]

Partner showed at least 6C with that bid.

 

Really? What was the rebid with xx/AQ/xxxx/AQJxx? 1NT perhaps? Or do you open 1D? Saying that partner has promised 6 clubs in standard is incorrect. Better to say that partner usually has 6 clubs but that 5 decent ones with 4 diamonds is also possible. I do understand there are different styles in this context but nothing in the OP leads us to believe anything unusual is being played.

[gwnn]

1♣ promises 6. If you bid it with 5 that's your problem. Another good argument for minus votes.

[gnasher]

In some styles 2♣ promises six, in others it doesn't. In Steve Robinson's survey 18 of the 36 panelists said they sometimes rebid 2♣ on a five-card suit here.

 

 

 

[gwnn]

Sometimes bidding 2♣ with 5 and showing 6 (or even promising 6) are not mutually exclusive.