One of my blind spots

[jonottawa]

Sorry if this subject has been hashed out before, no doubt it has. I was stumped what to do here. I'm primarily curious what 'standard expert' is but if you have a specific nonstandard agreement (maybe double or 3N,) do share.

 

All red, IMPs

 

♠T62 ♥J6 ♦KJT4 ♣AQ93

 

P - P - 1♠ - 3♥

 

?

 

Edit: Hmmm, unanimous conservatism so far. If you're a 3♠ bidder are you also a 3♠ bidder with JT6 62 in the majors?

[billw55]

I assume at the table it went 3♠ p p p, +170? Chalk it up to preempts working. Double is for other things.

[jonottawa]

I assume at the table it went 3♠ p p p, +170? Chalk it up to preempts working. Double is for other things.

Spoiler (Is this as invisible as it gets these days or did I forget how to do this?)

 

Actually at the table it went 3♠ p p p, +140 But rather than be stumped, ultimately uncertain and break tempo again the next time this comes up I'd like to add it to my pattern recognition collection and make the 'correct' (even if losing on any particular hand) bid in tempo next time.

[heyrocky]

If the auction were uncontested, you would push to 3♠, using, for example, 1NT forcing in a 2/1 structure, so bidding it here directly makes sense to me. Is this the cutoff for bidding 3♠ directly in this auction, or if not, how much less would be allowable?

[bluecalm]

Is this the cutoff for bidding 3♠ directly in this auction, or if not, how much less would be allowable?

 

This is the cutoff but from other side. I think without Q♣ most would bid 3♠ anyway.

If you make it: Txx xx KTxx ATxx then we are talking and I think you would have trouble finding "expert consensus"

[BunnyGo]

Spoiler (Is this as invisible as it gets these days or did I forget how to do this?)

 

Actually at the table it went 3♠ p p p, +140 But rather than be stumped, ultimately uncertain and break tempo again the next time this comes up I'd like to add it to my pattern recognition collection and make the 'correct' (even if losing on any particular hand) bid in tempo next time.

 

If you use the full editor (not just the "reply" at the bottom then under "other styles" you have the option of spoiler:

 

like this!

 

 

You can also get it by adding "(spoiler)" (with hard brackets) in front of the spoiler text and "(/spoiler)" (with hard brackets) at the end.

[nigel_k]

I bid 3♠ but it's close. With JTx xx in the majors instead it would be a minimum 4♠ bid for me. I don't think you have a blind spot if you find it hard to make a choice when your hand is right on the margin.

[jonottawa]

If you ...

 

Muchas gracias. I was looking for 'invisible' so missed the 'spoiler' option.

[jonottawa]

I bid 3♠ but it's close. With JTx xx in the majors instead it would be a minimum 4♠ bid for me. I don't think you have a blind spot if you find it hard to make a choice when your hand is right on the margin.

I consider it a blind spot because I've always thought that with a respectable invite and no invite available you bid game red at IMPs. But I just couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger here (in part because my trumps were so bad, in part because pard might have opened light and in part because I wasn't sure if I was going to force game whether 4♥ or 4♠ was right.)

 

I'm sure I wouldn't have settled for 3♠ with JTx xx in the majors. Do some folks here consider that categorically wrongheaded? Do we reserve 4♥ for a hand that we now upgrade to an opening hand then or does it show a 'good' limit raise to differentiate it from a weaker distributional 4♠ bid or are we reluctant to bid 4♥ because it seldom helps us and is more likely to let the opponents find the right lead?

 

Or am I just overthinking this hand?

[dake50]

May I have a maximum overcall double here?

They preempted, so not penalty.

Leave a minors negX to partner reopening double.

After all finding a maxpass 5m perfecto that partner

won't reopen is a mighty small target.

[nige1]

Sorry if this subject has been hashed out before, no doubt it has. I was stumped what to do here. I'm primarily curious what 'standard expert' is but if you have a specific nonstandard agreement (maybe double or 3N,) do share. All red, IMPs ♠ T62 ♥ J6 ♦ KJT4 ♣ AQ93

P - P - 1♠ - 3♥

?

As an ordinary player (not an expert and certainly not a consensus expert) IMO 4♠ = 10, 3♠ = 9, 4♥ = 7, _X = 6, _P = 4.

Even if you eventually reject 4♠, IMO, you should have seriously considered it, because with borderline hands, you should be aggressive..

IMO, 3♠ is just competitive, not really constructive.

[gwnn]

I will just bid 4 from here. 3 at non vul.

[jonottawa]

I will just bid 4 from here. 3 at non vul.

The last 2 replies are one side that I thought would show up for this hand that until now have not. I'd still like to know what 4♥ would show and why it's clear to bid 4♠ instead of 4♥ (is it a lack of ♥ control or a lead issue or does 4♥ show a hand I now wished I'd opened maybe JTx AQ ATxx xxxx or QTx x AJTx KT9xx or similar?)

[nigel_k]

Do we reserve 4♥ for a hand that we now upgrade to an opening hand then or does it show a 'good' limit raise to differentiate it from a weaker distributional 4♠ bid or are we reluctant to bid 4♥ because it seldom helps us and is more likely to let the opponents find the right lead?

This is a good question and I don't really know what is standard. In my view we are always bidding constructively here so we cannot tactically jump to 4♠ on a hand with offensive value less than a limit raise. The cue bid is reserved for hands with full game values and four trumps, or maybe three trumps if you cannot stand a penalty pass, i.e.

 

3♠ Decent single raise up to bad limit raise

4♠ Normal limit raise to minimum game raise

4♥ Good raise to game with four trumps

X then 4♠ Good raise to game with three trumps

[helene_t]

If the auction were uncontested, you would push to 3♠, using, for example, 1NT forcing in a 2/1 structure, so bidding it here directly makes sense to me. Is this the cutoff for bidding 3♠ directly in this auction, or if not, how much less would be allowable?

If I were an unpassed hand then this would be the case. And then I would bid 4♠ (or maybe 4♥) because 3♠ is a stretch bid.

 

But I am a passed hand and without the intervention I would not have forced to 3♠ but have used Drury. Partner might have opened light and I don't want to hang him. Does this mean that my 3♠ bid shows more when I am a passed hand? I think slightly more, yes. Even so, it is a problem that I have to bid 3♠ with this hand as well as with significantly less. Dake50's idea that double should show this hand (applies only when we are a passed hand) is too radical for me, I also want to double with a 22(54) 10-count. Even so, I think it is good agreement that this hand doubles when it is a passed hand.

[gwnn]

4♠ is a limit raise and some sub minimum GF raises. 4♥ is a normal GF raise, with or without heart control.

 

edit: oh yes we're a passed hand. good question. sorry ignore me..

Edited June 15, 2011 by gwnn

[benlessard]

4S WTP, i guess it cost nothing to X first just in case partner can leave it in (v unlikely)

 

4H would show a hand that because of distribution its in the opening range now (stiff void somewhere or 9/10 fit).

[gwnn]

I think 4♥ from a passed hand is a splinter btw. maybe better to use it as a 3 card high card raise and 4♠ as a 4-card raise,but I would tend to think thta this is mere paranoia - they will not usually bid 5 over 4 in this sequence. Of course that's not the only reason why we want to differentiate between raises. but it seems like heart shortness vs not heart shortness seems to be a good distinction now that we can afford it.

[quiddity]

I would have taken 4♥ as a hint that slam might be on opposite the right hand. Since this is a passed hand I'd imagine it must be based on shortness.

 

With the given hand, maybe it's best to double even without agreement? It's a good hand but the trump support is mediocre. If partner is balanced with heart length he'll lean towards defending and perhaps that's what we want. If he has a second suit he'll bid on (again good for us), and if he's light he'll try to pull the double one way or another. I guess this hand isn't so far away from Helene's 2254 10-count after all.

 

On the other hand it gives partner a brutal problem if he has a light 5323 3rd seat opener.

[JLOGIC]

I would bid 3S. With JTx xx I would bid 4S. 3S is usually bid on a constructive raise to bad limit raise (less than a constructive raise passes). 4H is as gwnn described.

[MrAce]

I usually bid game with invitation hands.

 

But in this example, pd is opening in 3rd seat. I dont know how light others open 3rd seat 1 major, i open as light as 1 level overcall. Considering this i would probably just bid 3♠.

[andy_h]

I will just bid 4 from here. 3 at non vul.

Agree with this.

[Free]

Considering the vulnerability, I think this is a clear 3♠ bid. Partner is a 3rd seat opening which may be light, so 3♠ definitely shows some values.

 

With JT6 62 in the Majors I think it's close, but I'd probably still bid 3♠.

[billw55]

Interesting ..

 

I was thinking that since partner is a third seat opener (which could be pretty trashy), 4♠ should be reserved for a more distributional hand, say four trumps and a stiff somewhere. With a genuine sound opener, won't partner realize that he in effect has a little extra? And certainly with a decent 14-15 count.

[gnasher]

I think that, as an unpassed hand:

- Double followed by 4♠ over partner's 4m shows a different hand-type - something like a balanced hand with a doubleton spade, and not enough in hearts to bid 3NT.

- 4♥ shows a raise with opening values.

- 4♠ is either the top half of an invitational raise, or the sort of hand that would have bid 4♠ (or a weak splinter) in an uncontested auction.

 

Regarding what to bid with this hand, one of the reasons for jumping to game with a limit raise is to make the opponents guess. When we have only three spades and LHO is a passed hand, it's much less likely that the opponents will consider competing to the five level, so there is less to gain from bidding 4♠.

Edited June 16, 2011 by gnasher