18-19 balanced with a fit?

[miamijd]

I don't see what is so awful about the pedestrian 4H bid. Sure, 3NT could play better, but a 3NT call directly shows excellent clubs and a hand that hopes to run nine tricks, not a moose.

 

As for 2NT or 3H, you can't make those bids at IMPs, where you gotta bid your games. If you bid 2NT or 3H, you deserve to play there when partner tables:

 

xxx Kxxxx x QTxx

 

Best,

Mike

[billyjef]

I don't see what is so awful about the pedestrian 4H bid. Sure, 3NT could play better, but a 3NT call directly shows excellent clubs and a hand that hopes to run nine tricks, not a moose.

 

As for 2NT or 3H, you can't make those bids at IMPs, where you gotta bid your games. If you bid 2NT or 3H, you deserve to play there when partner tables:

 

xxx Kxxxx x QTxx

 

Best,

Mike

 

Vulnerable, teams, I doubt I'd have the power to not bid 4♥. Away from the table, objectively, I don't see the hand as 19 points, rather a poor 18. That all said, remove one of the minor suit jacks, where 4♥ isn't as tempting, what would more accurately describe the hand, 2N or 3♥? Just curious.

[gwnn]

I don't see what is so awful about the pedestrian 4H bid. Sure, 3NT could play better, but a 3NT call directly shows excellent clubs and a hand that hopes to run nine tricks, not a moose.

 

As for 2NT or 3H, you can't make those bids at IMPs, where you gotta bid your games. If you bid 2NT or 3H, you deserve to play there when partner tables:

 

xxx Kxxxx x QTxx

 

Best,

Mike

That's a pretty obvious 4H bid (over 1C-1H; 3H) to me. You have a singleton and 5 trumps. There's nothing contradictory about accepting an invitation on a minimum response. This is a minimum 3514 (which should accept), not a minimum 3433 (which should not accept).

 

to clarify, though, I think 4H is by no means awful, it is my second choice.

[wank]

it's 3h without a toy. you can use 3d for this hand type though.

[nullve]

deleted T-Walsh

[sultro]

4333 hand i would bid 2nt. you have no distributional values to add. if partner has distribution, he can still take another bid. that bidding is pretty old fashioned, but it works. jump in nt shows more than an opening no trump, and opening nt distributions. so, it perfectly describes this hand. change even one card so that you are 4432, and 4 hearts gets a lot more attractive.

[msjennifer]

You have no ruffing values it is true but partner likely does. 4H can easily make when 3N down when partner is short in a suit where your stoppers aren't good enough. There is also a possibility of 6H, if you rebid 2N it will make finding 6H much harder.

 

Also, partner is allowed to pass 2N. Without knowing you have 4-hearts partner won't know his hearts are running or 1-loser so may pass close hand that will make game.

 

If you have convention that shows balanced 4-card support then great but without it you need to show your support.

And why should we “presume” that he may be unbalanced? If indeed he has one he shall certainly make a checkback in which case one can easily jump to four heart.We don’t IMAGINE that partner “ likely” has ruffing values!And if one has not discussed

 

 

how to bid further on this sequence then the best bid is 3H. However such a suit jump only shows that the opener has a SIX loser hand as played in a heart contract whereas this hand has 7 losers.It is possible that partner has a 9 loser hand and does not know what to do over 3H, with a 3433 pattern.Of course then it becomes easier to blame him if his bid proves to be disastrous!

[msjennifer]

At the worst, opener does have an option of bidding again after 2NT, whereas after 3♥ he doesn't. I agree bidding 2NT is not pretty, but if partner does use checkback there's nothing to say opener cannot bid 4♦ or 4♥as a response.

 

It is an automatic response to raise from 1M to 2M with 4 card support, but when opener is stronger, and there might be an advantage to him playing the hand, the forcing 2NT rebid defining the hand shape perfectly, even with 4 card support does at least allow a 'second bite of the cherry' for opener. I'd rather raise to 3M/4M immediately with a shapelier hand than this pudding of a 3343.

I fully agree.

[gwnn]

We don't presume anything (why do you put the word in quotes when nobody else said it, anyway?), we just raise partner's response with a fit.

[Joe_Old]

With 19 HCP and an 8 card fit I would normally say 4♥ is the only bid under consideration in a 2/1 or SAYC auction. But not here. Opposite a minimum, this hand will play very poorly if you need a lot of transportation to take your finesses. That is, if partner has a lot of entries, you already have enough tricks to make game, if partner doesn't have many entries, 2NT may be too high.

 

Therefore, being a team game, I bid 2NT because it's a 3433 hand with a lot of quacks.

[gwnn]

[Stephen Tu]

And why should we "presume" that he may be unbalanced? If indeed he has one he shall certainly make a checkback in which case one can easily jump to four heart.We don't IMAGINE that partner " likely" has ruffing values!And if one has not discussed

 

People keep on saying that partner will checkback if unbalanced, but this is simply untrue if partner has 4 hearts unbalanced without 4 spades. Checkback systems are designed to check back for FIVE - THREE fits in responder's first major (or 4-4 in the OTHER major), not FOUR-FOUR fits which 2nt ostensibly denies for 99.9% of natural system players. If opener can have 4 cd support, you have to make your checkback system a lot more complicated.

 

With Kxx KTxx xx Axx are you going to checkback or bid 3nt? Surely you bid 3nt, which is more vulnerable on diamond lead than 4H. Even stiff diamond, Kxx KTxx x Qxxxx you aren't checking back, because you fear something like 1c-1h-2nt-3d!-3s-3nt-4h when opener has 3 cd support.

 

Denying 4 can also complicate things when responder has borderline slam values, he will think no 4-4 fit, so no extra trick with a ruff, that can discourage a slam exploration when it's there.

 

Partner is simply more likely to have a ruffing value somewhere than be exactly 3433, that is why we "presume" he is at least slightly unbalanced. If partner offers 3nt after 1c-1h-3h, of course we can pass, if you aren't playing 3nt as conventional. Might be easier to reach if playing the 3d = 18-19 bal raise gadget. Or maybe one can get to 3nt via 1c-1h-3h-3s!-3nt where 3S is a shortness ask, then 3nt shows the bal hand, and partner can pass. But to deny 4cd support as your first bid, when the auction will go 1c-1h-2nt-3nt all pass A LOT when 4H is better, with partner unbalanced and 4 hearts, or bal with a small doubleton in a minor, to me is anti-percentage.

[miamijd]

That's a pretty obvious 4H bid (over 1C-1H; 3H) to me. You have a singleton and 5 trumps. There's nothing contradictory about accepting an invitation on a minimum response. This is a minimum 3514 (which should accept), not a minimum 3433 (which should not accept).

 

to clarify, though, I think 4H is by no means awful, it is my second choice.

 

Your 3H bids must be a lot stronger than mine. After 1C - 1H (opps passing), I would bid 3H with

 

AQx

QJxx

x

Axxxx

 

which doesn't play very well at all for 4H opposite the hand I gave earlier. But that's just me.

 

Cheers,

mike

[miamijd]

I dunno. A lot of folks here seem to want to be extremely careful not to bid games that don't make. To me, that's losing bridge. I'd much rather bid a game that doesn't make than miss one that does. At IMPs, of course, the rewards for game outweigh the downside of overbidding. But even at MPs, declarer play is a whole lot easier than defense Meckwell has shown that for decades.

[Stephen Tu]

Your 3H bids must be a lot stronger than mine. After 1C - 1H (opps passing), I would bid 3H with

 

AQx

QJxx

x

Axxxx

 

which doesn't play very well at all for 4H opposite the hand I gave earlier. But that's just me.

 

Cheers,

mike

 

You are positing opponents who have more than half the deck and 11 cd diamond fit who keep quiet.

 

I think our point is that responder can see the vulnerability also, so should raise 3 to 4 on not much of excuse. Why should opener be the one to stretch when responder is unlimited and it's not the last call of auction? Bidding 4H might cause responder to get to 5 level or 6 level down 1 sometimes, canceling out some of the games you might reach that we don't by bidding 3H (not all of which make, anyway).

[gwnn]

Your 3H bids must be a lot stronger than mine. After 1C - 1H (opps passing), I would bid 3H with

 

AQx

QJxx

x

Axxxx

 

which doesn't play very well at all for 4H opposite the hand I gave earlier. But that's just me.

 

Cheers,

mike

So your best counterargument is to someone telling you your bid being second favorite instead of first favorite is us going down 4H-2 instead of 3H-1 on 18 HCP together? Are you sure you've thought this through?

 

Are you contesting the idea that a 3514 is a much stronger distribution than 3433 or are you just wasting everyone's time?

[miamijd]

So your best counterargument is to someone telling you your bid being second favorite instead of first favorite is us going down 4H-2 instead of 3H-1 on 18 HCP together? Are you sure you've thought this through?

 

Are you contesting the idea that a 3514 is a much stronger distribution than 3433 or are you just wasting everyone's time?

 

I think you are taking my example too literally. My point is that downgrading a hand in a non competitive auction at IMPs is not winning bridge. As for partner going on over 4h he shouldn't without an opening bid of his own. If you have a true moose you need a bid other than a raise to game to handle it. There are lots of alternatives. 4h shouldn't be bid on 19 good ones and a stiff for example.

 

And there is no need to be nasty. If you think I'm wasting your time please be nice and just not respond

 

Mike

[johnu]

I dunno. A lot of folks here seem to want to be extremely careful not to bid games that don't make. To me, that's losing bridge. I'd much rather bid a game that doesn't make than miss one that does. At IMPs, of course, the rewards for game outweigh the downside of overbidding. But even at MPs, declarer play is a whole lot easier than defense Meckwell has shown that for decades.

 

Too bad responder doesn't know that there is game bonus for bidding game :P

[gwnn]

I think you are taking my example too literally. My point is that downgrading a hand in a non competitive auction at IMPs is not winning bridge. As for partner going on over 4h he shouldn't without an opening bid of his own. If you have a true moose you need a bid other than a raise to game to handle it. There are lots of alternatives. 4h shouldn't be bid on 19 good ones and a stiff for example.

 

And there is no need to be nasty. If you think I'm wasting your time please be nice and just not respond

 

Mike

Sorry for being nasty. My point was that a minimum 3433 should not accept the game invite, but a minimum 3514 should. Are you disputing this? Your example was terrible (incredibly unlikely, for one), but that is not really the point. If you seriously are saying that re-evaluating your hand based on later information (such as: we have a 9-card fit and a stiff, and partner has a non-minimum) is out of the question, then I will take your advice and stop responding.

 

Finally, I'm not downgrading anything, I just have a different range than you do. Anyone, on any hand, can say "oh come on guys! there's a game bonus!!", to justify bidding game. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be a limit to it. The two of us are disagreeing on a jack or so. Doesn't make me an underbidder and/or you an overbidder.

[Malachi]

Of course you can consider bidding 1c 1h 3h with

 

AQx

QJxx

x

Axxxx

 

and it will work some of the time, but when your partner bids 4h with

 

xxx

Kxxxx

x

QTxx

 

and you go down, it's because opener's hand is weak, not responder's. Also note that 4H is not hopeless despite the duplication in diamonds, and it's because of responder's excellent hand with 5 trumps and the double-fit, which only responder knows about.

 

It's not necessarily a contradiction to bid 3H with both

 

AQJ

QJxx

AJx

KJx

 

(18pts)

 

and

 

AQx

QJxx

x

Axxxx

 

(16pts)

 

but if I have to eliminate one hand to make the range tighter, it's going to be the second one, not the first.

 

You want to play your invitations so that it's correct to accept them most of the time.

[Phil]

Good discussion.

 

With the 4-trip and tenaces, I prefer 2N, unless playing the 3♦ gadget. Partner knows the value of a game, and knows that there isn't a lot of difference between 2N-1 and 3N or 4♥-2, so I don't have to bid his hand for him. I have 7 losers and a bunch of quacks, so I'm not overjoyed even though its "19 with a fit".

 

With a 5♥332 partner will prefer 3N. That's just fine with me. Oh, we had a 9 card fit? Didn't notice.

 

With an unbalanced hand, I expect partner to checkback.

[cherdano]

Your 3H bids must be a lot stronger than mine. After 1C - 1H (opps passing), I would bid 3H with

 

AQx

QJxx

x

Axxxx

 

which doesn't play very well at all for 4H opposite the hand I gave earlier. But that's just me.

 

Cheers,

mike

 

We should start a list of BBF discussion meta rules.

 

Here is my entry for today: If you need a singleton opposite a singleton to give an example of another poster's bidding style going wrong, then you probably shouldn't post that example.

[gwnn]

Good discussion.

 

With the 4-trip and tenaces, I prefer 2N, unless playing the 3♦ gadget. Partner knows the value of a game, and knows that there isn't a lot of difference between 2N-1 and 3N or 4♥-2, so I don't have to bid his hand for him. I have 7 losers and a bunch of quacks, so I'm not overjoyed even though its "19 with a fit".

 

With a 5♥332 partner will prefer 3N. That's just fine with me. Oh, we had a 9 card fit? Didn't notice.

 

With an unbalanced hand, I expect partner to checkback.

check back for 4-card support if he has a 4432 or 4441 (any order)?

[Malachi]

I get that opener isn't all that excited about the heart fit, but responder needs to know about the heart fit in order to evaluate his hand. Otherwise he passes or bids for the wrong reasons.

 

Is responder really going to "check back" with any imbalanced hand, no matter how few high cards, when opener's 2N bid indicates that responder's shortness will have negative value?

 

Also, a lot is being made of staying out of 4H with 8 and 9 card fits. I know that this can be correct, but don't we also know that this is unusual? Besides, opener's 3H rebid does not go beyond 3N. It is within responder's power, with notrump distribution, to suggest 3N.

[Phil]

check back for 4-card support if he has a 4432 or 4441 (any order)?

 

With 4-4, partner is supposed to bid 3♠. Yes I realize we may miss a good 4-4 heart fit when he is unbalanced with 4.

 

Checkback nominally shows 5M unless there's a surprise somewhere else (like 5m).