How interested are you...

[bd71]

...in bidding on with this hand and sequence, playing matchpoints and standard 2/1:

 

[hv=pc=n&e=skjt5haj2daq965c9&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1dp1hp1sp1np2hp2sp]133|200[/hv]

 

Specific questions:

 

1. What does the 2S bid mean to you?

2. What is your bid?

[mgoetze]

Does 1♠ promise an unbalanced hand? If it could be a 4342, then I can just barely imagine partner bidding 1NT at matchpoints despite having 4 spades.

 

For me, 1♠ promised an unbalanced hand and therefore partner having 4 spades is absolutely out of the question. There's no reason for partner to prefer one 4-3 fit to another, so that leaves only one sensible meaning for 2♠ ... a game try in hearts. Partner should have 5 hearts and Qx(x) in spades. That fits our hand well and we are far from minimum in any case, so we should have a clear 4♥ bid here.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=skjt5haj2daq965c9&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1dp1hp1sp1np2hp2sp]133|200|

...in bidding on with this hand and sequence, playing matchpoints and standard 2/1:

Specific questions:

1. What does the 2S bid mean to you?

2. What is your bid?

[/hv]

IMO

1. NAT NF but constructive, 3 ♠s and 4 poor ♥s e.g. ♠ A x x ♥ x x x x ♦ K x ♣ Q J x x
2. 3N = 10, 2N = 8, Pass = 6. If partner is torturing you with 5 ♥s, then he can convert.

[kenrexford]

This seems like a situation for an "impossible 2S" call. Responder can pass to play hearts or can raise to invite hearts. Clubs, not so much. He needs a 3C call to play, with 2S as the invite in clubs.

 

I would need to be in a good partnership to trust that, though.

 

I understand that partner has diamonds. But, I am discussing the parallel auction because I like consistent structure. If 2S is a club invite in the parallel auction, then I do the same in this sequence. Sure, 3C here as a diamond invite makes sense, but for consistent treatment.

 

The bid of the other minor in the clubs scenario (bidding 3D as the other minor) only makes sense as a major - centered invite. So, in the diamond sequence, 3C is the major focus call.

[whereagles]

opener 4351

responder 3415

 

maybe? preferring to play spades instead of hearts?

[bd71]

Does 1♠ promise an unbalanced hand?

 

Yes. Apologies for not anticipating that question.

[mike777]

1) 2s=3 card support and less than inv. A typical hand might be: Axx...xxxx...xx.....Axxx

2) pass at MP.

[gszes]

Does 1♠ promise an unbalanced hand? If it could be a 4342, then I can just barely imagine partner bidding 1NT at matchpoints despite having 4 spades.

 

For me, 1♠ promised an unbalanced hand and therefore partner having 4 spades is absolutely out of the question. There's no reason for partner to prefer one 4-3 fit to another, so that leaves only one sensible meaning for 2♠ ... a game try in hearts. Partner should have 5 hearts and Qx(x) in spades. That fits our hand well and we are far from minimum in any case, so we should have a clear 4♥ bid here.

 

there is a very real possibility that partner has a hand like Axx xxxx K xxxxx and realizing that a spade contract

could play much better than hearts since they can ruff dia (if needed) with small spades and club ruffs will at least

be from a 4 card suit whereas in hearts if clubs are ruffed it probably will have to be with honors setting up more tricks

for the opps.

 

I agree responder should have 3 spades

[Trump Echo]

1. I'd see it as a preference bid showing 3 Spades.

 

2. I'd pass.

[Jinksy]

We don't normally allow room for bids in constructive auctions solely to improve the denomination unless both hands are strictly limited and it doesn't interfere with our game bidding.

 

Here 2♠ 'to play' would cost us a game try in ♠s with a potentially 16-point hand maybe (I guess opener could try 2♣ or 2N with a max for his 1♠) opposite a potentially 9-point one, and just for the sake of correcting a Moyesian to another Moyesian. That seems like totally misaligned priorities to me.

 

So I agree with mgoetze - this bid should be a game try (albeit obviously a NF one), and we have a clear accept.

[mgoetze]

there is a very real possibility that partner has a hand like Axx xxxx K xxxxx and realizing that a spade contract

could play much better than hearts since they can ruff dia (if needed) with small spades and club ruffs will at least

be from a 4 card suit whereas in hearts if clubs are ruffed it probably will have to be with honors setting up more tricks

for the opps.

Partner certainly could have that hand but it is not exactly likely. On the other hand, imagine that hand and the auction up to 2♥ had been given as a forum problem. Would you confidently bid 2♠, certain that partner will pass? Or would you hesitate to do so because there is at least a chance partner could take it as, say, a game try in hearts?

[ggwhiz]

Partner has too many other game tries available for me to think they need 2♠ to be one as well.

 

Any hand that has poor hearts and no positional advantage to playing last at trick one in one moyse or the other is my guess and in my partnership this hand is not accepting an invite anyway. We play that patterning out like this is in the 15-17 range.

[Winstonm]

The only thing that makes sense is weak hearts, 4 long, and 3 decent spades - the suggestion here is a better known 4/3 fit. Because of the weak hearts and the continued bidding, I think partner has some club cards. I would think a hand along the lines of Axx, xxxx, xx, KQxx

 

I pass the 2S bid.

[kenrexford]

♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦Kxx ♣AJxx?

 

Should he bid 2♦ after 1♠? That seems wrong to me.

 

Should he jump to 4♦ to invite? Maybe, but why force the four-level?

 

 

 

 

 

[ggwhiz]

♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦Kxx ♣AJxx?

 

Should he bid 2♦ after 1♠? That seems wrong to me.

 

Should he jump to 4♦ to invite? Maybe, but why force the four-level?

 

Right or wrong, that's a 3nt bid in my partnership.

[MrAce]

It is ridiculous to play 2♠ here to improve the partscore.

[wank]

It is ridiculous to play 2♠ here to improve the partscore.

 

i disagree. both hands are quite closely defined. you don't need loads of invitational bids.

 

if you have a crappy heart suit you don't want to play a partscore in a weak 4-3 fit, especially when the strong hand is getting tapped in the 4th suit. i'd expect something like axx xxxx jx qxxx.

[Jinksy]

Surely that hand just passes 1♠? Is it so worried about them competing?

[Winstonm]

It is ridiculous to play 2♠ here to improve the partscore.

 

I always love it when the natural interpretation of a bid is labeled, "ridiculous".

[PhantomSac]

It is ridiculous to play 2♠ here to improve the partscore.

 

So what do you think it is?

 

I mean mgoetze wants it to be game interest with 5 hearts, I have a good bid available for that, 3H. Kenrexford wants it to be effectively a game try in diamonds if I understand correctly, we have 3C available when we have that hand.

 

Partner showed 4351, we have made all non forcing bids so far, it is likely to be a partscore hand, why can't I play the partscore I think to be best opposite a known shape? I have a cuebid, I have a game try in hearts, I have whatever else I need.

[PhantomSac]

Partner certainly could have that hand but it is not exactly likely. On the other hand, imagine that hand and the auction up to 2♥ had been given as a forum problem. Would you confidently bid 2♠, certain that partner will pass? Or would you hesitate to do so because there is at least a chance partner could take it as, say, a game try in hearts?

 

I would have before this thread. It basically blows my mind that you are saying you cannot make a natural 2S bid because partner with no agreements might take it as some weird artificial bid. Have you noticed that everyone in this thread who thinks it should be artificial has had a different meaning?

 

You said 5 hearts game try.

Kenrexford said xx Qxxx Kxx AJxx (strong 3D bid)

Jinksy said non forcing game try in SPADES.

Mrace offers up it's ridiculous to not be natural while giving no suggested meaning.

 

The only people who give the same meaning are the people who think it is natural. What would be better, we never bid 2S ever without an agreement opposite a random partner no matter what because there are 5 possible different meanings, or that we just take bids like this as natural and at least get the utility of that. I know I am just stealing this from Fred but bids that might reasonably be natural are natural is a great way to navigate through the many undiscussed sequences you might have. I also think natural is the right way to play, but that is irrelevant, even if I thought some other meaning was superior I could never bid it undiscussed since as you have seen people who think it should be artificial all think it should be something different from each other, so I would rather have an "inferior" default meaning than never make the bid.

 

I mean come on dude you really think in an undiscussed partnership anyone should be busting out 2S artificial game try with 5 hearts and something in spades?

 

I also don't understand why having 4 bad hearts and not wanting to play a 4-3 with the tap in the (hopefully!) good trump hand is such an unlikely scenario lol. Trump quality definitely matters in a 4-3 fit scenario way more than it does in an 8 card fit scenario because we have to like, try and keep trump control and also score some trump winners + some side tricks.

[MrAce]

i disagree. both hands are quite closely defined. you don't need loads of invitational bids.

 

if you have a crappy heart suit you don't want to play a partscore in a weak 4-3 fit, especially when the strong hand is getting tapped in the 4th suit. i'd expect something like axx xxxx jx qxxx.

 

What are we trying to achieve by correcting 2♥ to 2♠? And how many times in our life will it matter? On the other hand think about this; it is not about re invitation. It is about information. It is not about "pd I am minimum/max" It is not about "You invited me but I am neither min nor max" It is about letting pd know with how many trumps we are going to game. 8 or 7 card fit? We may still have 26 hcp combined but may not be sure which game to play. We may still belong to 3 NT. We have already leaked a lot of information for defense, we may as well look for the best game available for us, instead of trying to find out a deal where 2 sp instead of 2h makes a huge difference, if any at all.

 

I may be under estimating the situation. I saw a lot of part score swings and I am aware of how important they are. I just don't remember too many of them where pairs find two 4-3 fits and one of them gains because they chose one over other intentionally and spare that bid for it in their system.

[mgoetze]

Have you noticed that everyone in this thread who thinks it should be artificial has had a different meaning?

Not really, no...

 

You said 5 hearts game try.

Kenrexford said xx Qxxx Kxx AJxx (strong 3D bid)

Jinksy said non forcing game try in SPADES.

Mrace offers up it's ridiculous to not be natural while giving no suggested meaning.

I'm pretty sure Jinksy and MrAce both agreed with me, they both upvoted my post and only chimed in once more people said it should be to play. Jinksy was just saying that partner should have the option to prefer playing the 4-3 fit at the 2 level rather than the 5-3 fit at the 3 level, if he doesn't want to accept the game try.

 

As for Kenrexford ... I mean this in the nicest possible way but ... we all know he is a visitor from an alternate dimension where people think differently than we do here.

 

I may have been too hasty to say there is no reason whatsoever to ever prefer one 4-3 fit to another, and if you say that it is worthwhile to have a bid for that, it is certainly cause for me to reconsider. But I do think it is very "natural" for the "artificial" alternative to be a help suit game try in hearts. Yes, you do have 3♥. But I would think there is a wider range of hand types with 5 hearts here than hands with exactly Axx-xxxx in the majors, and it might be nice to give partner a bit more information before he decides whether to accept the invitation.

[PhilKing]

I have never said this before - I completely agree with gszes.

 

Partner has described his hand almost exactly, so 2♠ should show a hand that, of all things, wants to play in 2♠ (look at his example hand to see why that could make sense). With a a game force you can, er, bid game, and with a heart try you can raise hearts.

[kenrexford]

In all fairness, my own analysis was caveated heavily. I would take this as natural in any random situation. My point was that in an established partnership with discussion, the parallel situation of a club opening removes 3C as a convenient cue. After 1C-1H-1S-1NT-2H, I would want 2S as a power raise of clubs. In that alternative sequence, 3D would force a higher level and thus would be a cue of some variety supporting hearts.

 

I then stated a preference for consistency. Because of this, I would likely have the same structure, even if it were not theoretically ideal, only because of this preference.

 

This is not the same as what I would interpret blind, out of the stated context.