Raise to 3?

[plaur]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sq986hak4d8caj632]133|100|Scoring: XIMP

1CL - 1HE - 1SP - 2HE

?[/hv]

(opps bidding ♥)

 

Playing acol (danish bridgevejen) I count the south hand as 16 points (14 HCP and single ♦) and bid 3♠ showing 16-18.

I would bid 3♠ at MP's with p showing 4+ spades. This is IMP's across the field, partner has shown 5 spades, competive auction and we are red, so I want to push for game and thus need to show values right now.

 

At a teaching session in BIL the teacher choose 2♠. Where am I going wrong here? Is it because this is SA(YC) bidding?

 

Peter Laursen

[pbleighton]

A few things:

 

1) In light of pd's 5+ spades, I value this at 17 - 3 for the singleton, though I have no quarrel with 16.

2) In SAYC, 3S shows 17-18. When SAYC was invented, openers were sounder than they are today. A 2S response showed 13-16 then, today it would be a wider range. 16 counts are tough to rebid with lighter openers. He may also not be assuming negative doubles, for this class, though it is part of SAYC.

3) Many of those who teach beginners teach them to bid conservatively, in order to compensate for trouble with declarer play.

 

I think 3S and 2S are both reasonable. Your spades are shabby, but there is a 9+ fit, and the AKx of hearts means no heart losers.

 

Peter

[Walddk]

I think 2♠ is an underbid. If no other agreement, I think 3♠ is just fine in any natural system, also after interference. That is what this hand is worth. You have a very good hand in the 16-18 point range, whether you count your singleton as 2 or 3 points.

 

Roland

[hotShot]

You should be carefull adding those points for the single ♦. Ask yourself who is going to hold the ♦ values. If your LHO had a 2 suited hand, he might have doubled, So he might hold only 3. That leaves 9 cards for your partner and your RHO. Both could not show a ♦ length. So you might be counting values for ♦ twice.

If your opponents hold a 9+ card fit, your partner might have upgraded his hand because of his ♥ single or void. Never expecting you to hold massive values there.

I think both 2 and 3 ♠ bids are ok here. With a sound partner i would bid 3.

[fred]

I would bid 3S. Here is a principle that has served me well:

 

If you can construct a "normal" hand for partner that contains no more than honor-fifth of spades and offers a reasonable play for game, then jump raise.

 

Applying this principle, give partner:

 

[hv=s=skxxxxhxxdxxxxcxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

You are not necessarily a favorite to make 4S, but that contract certainly has chances. If you are generous and give partner as little as the 10 or J of spades (or really generous and give the the Queen of clubs) in addition, all of a sudden 4S becomes a very attractive proposition.

 

If I had to choose between 2S and 4S, I would bid 4S. Fortunately there is make this choice since 3S seems just right to me.

 

If you find this argument appealling, please note that it contains no reference to how many points this hand is worth.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[HeartA]

2♠? no way. I am choosing between 3♠ or 4♠.

[Guest Jlall]

textbook 3S.

[ochinko]

3♠ for me too, without a second thought.

 

The reason is simple. I have 6 losers, so I have to invite. 2♠ would show 7. 4♠ would show 5 losers. With only four losers I'd explore a slam.

[pclayton]

Easy 3♠

 

I'll bid 4♠ if Meckstroth is channeling through me.

[Walddk]

With only four losers I'd explore a slam.

I don't think that a hand that opened at the 1-level can ever explore slam opposite a 1-o-1 response. Invite slam if responder has a good hand, yes, but not take any initiative itself. A couple of examples:

 

1mi - 1♠

4♠

 

1♦ - 1♠

4♥ (splinter, void for many)

 

Both show strong hands, but it must be up to responder to explore slam.

 

Roland

[ochinko]

With only four losers I'd explore a slam.

I don't think that a hand that opened at the 1-level can ever explore slam opposite a 1-o-1 response. Invite slam if responder has a good hand, yes, but not take any initiative itself. A couple of examples:

 

1mi - 1♠

4♠

 

1♦ - 1♠

4♥ (splinter, void for many)

 

Both show strong hands, but it must be up to responder to explore slam.

 

Roland

[hv=s=sqj109hakj10dcak1098]133|100|[/hv]

 

1♣ - 1♠

5♦ (voidwood)

 

What else would you open here? 2♣ with a 3-suit hand and _only_ 18 points? I don't think so. Yes, three 10's and two 9's may seem unrealistic but still... :)

 

Petko

[awm]

I actually held the following hand yesterday in the Los Angeles semis for grand national teams:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxhadaqt98cakqjxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Pretty good hand, but if I open 2♣ I'm not going to have an easy time describing both suits and their relative lengths at a useful level. So I opened 1♣. What's my next bid if partner responds 1♦? Looks like keycard to me... and I tend to be hesitant to bid keycard in general. So certainly hands exist where you look for slam after a one-level response.

 

The actual auction at the table was 1♣-2♣-2♠; two clubs was michaels and 2♠ was a forcing diamond bid... at this point I bid keycard and stopped in a small slam on discovering the missing spade ace.

[the hog]

â™  Q986

♥ AK4

D 8

♣ AJ632

 

This is too good for a simple raise and not nearly good enough for a raise to game. 3S fits the bill admirably.

[luke warm]

ok guys, help me out here... is something terribly wrong with 4♦ (aside from the fact that it propels us to game)? i mean, isn't slam at least possible? i know a lot of people (ben is one of them) who would raise to 2♥ in this auction with very few, if any, points

[the hog]

Terribly wrong? No Jimmy, but it is an overbid. If pd has nothing much in C and an average hand he may well not make 4.

 

If you would bid 4D on this, try to construct hands on which you would only make an invitational raise and see how they play opposite an average 1S response. The point is that 3S allows partner to be involved in the decision. Is 4 such a good contract opposite Kxxx xx KJxx xxx

 

Incidentally Jimmy, I take no notice of the 2H raise, it is my hand that I am worried about.

[Guest Jlall]

ok guys, help me out here... is something terribly wrong with 4♦ (aside from the fact that it propels us to game)?

Answered your own question. Would also not call it "terribly wrong" though just an overbid.

[jdulmage]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sq986hak4d8caj632]133|100|Scoring: XIMP

1CL - 1HE - 1SP - 2HE

?[/hv]

(opps bidding ♥)

 

Playing acol (danish bridgevejen) I count the south hand as 16 points (14 HCP and single ♦) and bid 3♠ showing 16-18.

I would bid 3♠ at MP's with p showing 4+ spades. This is IMP's across the field, partner has shown 5 spades, competive auction and we are red, so I want to push for game and thus need to show values right now.

 

At a teaching session in BIL the teacher choose 2♠. Where am I going wrong here? Is it because this is SA(YC) bidding?

 

Peter Laursen

You have no heart losers, 1 diamond loser possible, probably only 1 spade loser, etc.

 

3♠ call for sure with this hand. 4♠ in IMPs, to hell with it! lol

[joker_gib]

16-18 range = 3♠ WTP ? :)