What is this hand worth?

Winstonm · July 3, 2005

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skj3h753dkjcq10843]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Partner opens 1H and RHO passes. Your system is a basic 2/1 structure. What do you bid and what are your reasons?[/hv]

Elianna · July 3, 2005

I think that my hand is worth a limit raise (though against some bbo people, it might not be), and if I'm forced to play basic 2/1, I must do that by bidding 1NT (forcing) first, followed by 3!h. Note that I hate having 1NT have the limit raise hand, too, and play that 3!d would be a "bad" limit raise here, which is what I think that I have.

I do NOT have a game force to bid 2♣, and I think that having five clubs and the ♣T balances out having KJ tight in ♦. I just spent 24 hours travelling (flying this time) so I may be somewhat out of it, but I don't really see the problem here at all.

mike777 · July 3, 2005

2h easy

Is this not why we play constructive raises in basic 2/1?

hrothgar · July 3, 2005

I'm bidding 2♥ as a "constructive" heart raise...

The hand evaluates as 9 losers (8 losers + 1 for the ace deficit), so I'm leery about a limit raise.

KnR treats this as 8.5 HCP, which also suggests being conservative...

Winstonm · July 3, 2005

Just to add a little fuel to the debate: I chose 2H for a plethora of reasons - the main one being I didn't like my hand a whole lot, LoL. Another reason is that at imps partner is going to stretch to try to get to game vulnerable, so if he does pass we more than likely haven't missed much - WRONG!

We missed game when partner held a "soft" 13-count that meshed perfectly.

He held: Q96, AKQ532, Q43, 6. Perhaps vul with a 5-loser hand he should make a try, but it's hard to fault the pass too much with such a shabby group. Notice that not only did my two kings pull full weight but so did both jacks - is anyone at fault here or is it just "one of those hands"?

WinstonM

hrothgar · July 3, 2005

Just to add a little fuel to the debate: I chose 2H for a plethora of reasons - the main one being I didn't like my hand a whole lot, LoL. Another reason is that at imps partner is going to stretch to try to get to game vulnerable, so if he does pass we more than likely haven't missed much - WRONG!

We missed game when partner held a "soft" 13-count that meshed perfectly.

He held: Q96, AKQ532, Q43, 6. Perhaps vul with a 5-loser hand he should make a try, but it's hard to fault the pass too much with such a shabby group. Notice that not only did my two kings pull full weight but so did both jacks - is anyone at fault here or is it just "one of those hands"?

WinstonM

Your constructive raise shows 9 losers

Your partner has 5 losers

This suggests that your partnership can make 10 tricks...

I know where I would place blame...

Winstonm · July 3, 2005

Let me take a little heat off partner here: our agreement is that we don't play strict constructive raises - more of a judgement decision - 1M-2M is simply a hand that won't be too bid of disappointment at the 3 level if partner makes a game try. It's more the flat, featureless, 3-card support hands where we utilize forcing NT.

However, I kind of like Hrothgar's assertion that the raise should be based on loser count - have to admit we haven't done this. I'm more familiar and more of a believer in LTC than is partner, although I've got him thinking that way more and more - in fact, I've got him to play a LTC ask over our weak 2H/2S and it seems to be more accurate than any other method we've tried.

So maybe this is something we should adopt.

WinstonM

mike777 · July 3, 2005

ya, at the very least have opener make a short suit game try in clubs via:

1H=2H

2S=2NT (FORCED)

3C=4H (SHORT SUIT GAME TRY IN CLUBS).

flytoox · July 3, 2005

I like starting with 1N, then rebid 3H or 2N depending on pd's rebid.

MickyB · July 3, 2005

Your partner has 5 losers

Qxx AKQxxx Qxx x is a pretty minging 5 loser hand. Raw LTC evaluates aces the same as queens and ignores smaller cards, so this looks like 6 losers to me - you have two queens more than you have aces, and no jacks or tens. In fact, the only reason I consider it to be as few as 6 losers is because it has no 4 or 5 card suits - LTC assumes that the 4th and 5th cards will be winners, and they are often not.

You are both fairly max for your actions, you've only got a queen wasted between you, you are going to miss games occasionally when that happens. The important thing is to never play in 3♥ :P

luke warm · July 3, 2005

i would bid 2h as responder, then 3c as kokish short suit try as opener

cherdano · July 3, 2005

I think I would usually bid this 1♥-2♥-AP. Everybody being honest pls join me :P

Only exception may be when I can make a short suit game try in clubs, because in that case I have good hopes that partner will make the right decision between 3♥, 3NT and 4♥ (and 3♥ is not a disaster with 9 trumps between us).

Arend

mikestar · July 4, 2005

I think I would usually bid this 1♥-2♥-AP. Everybody being honest pls join me ;)

Agreed. This isn't a limit raise and partner doesn't have a game try. Too many hands with these combined values have no play for 4♥ and are in jeopardy in 3♥. If your never miss a laydown game when you have an undiagnosable perfect fit, your are being too agressive, even vul at IMPs.

pigpenz · July 4, 2005

old syle 2/1, 2♥ would be a constructive raise showing 8-10hcp and 3 card support

Elianna · July 4, 2005

old syle 2/1, 2♥ would be a constructive raise showing 8-10hcp and 3 card support

And I guess that's why my bid is different than everyone else's: I do not play constructive raises with any of my partners. It didn't even occur to me that it's part of "basic 2/1" as stated in the original post. ;)

beatrix45 · July 4, 2005

;) You have a classic 'bad ten'. To me, 2♥ is an underbid, and 1NT followed by 3♥ is a slight overbid. If I bid 1NT and partner bids 2♣, I will feel OK bidding 3♥ with two eight card fits. If I bid 1NT and partner bids 2♦, then 2NT feels OK, better than 3♥ and my awkward diamond honours will be pulling some weight. If I bid 1NT and partner bids 2♥, then 3♥ feels OK with a nine card trump suit. So, 1NT (forcing) it is.

HeartA · July 5, 2005

I like starting with 1N, then rebid 3H or 2N depending on pd's rebid.

That's my thought, too.

luis · July 5, 2005

I bid 1NT, I refuse to suppor hearts with this 3 cards I have.

Winstonm · July 6, 2005

:) You have a classic 'bad ten'. To me, 2♥ is an underbid, and 1NT followed by 3♥ is a slight overbid. If I bid 1NT and partner bids 2♣, I will feel OK bidding 3♥ with two eight card fits. If I bid 1NT and partner bids 2♦, then 2NT feels OK, better than 3♥ and my awkward diamond honours will be pulling some weight. If I bid 1NT and partner bids 2♥, then 3♥ feels OK with a nine card trump suit. So, 1NT (forcing) it is.

I think this is a pretty good solution; if pard bids 2C and then raises 3H to 4 it shouldn't be too much of a disaster; however, if pard bids 2D I'm still in a quandry and to follow with 2N is too much of an overbid for my thinking. If pard bids 2H I'm better placed to make a 3H bid. So, with 2 out of 3 potential rebids by partner O.K., it might be better to start with 1N. But if he bids 2D, I'm afraid I'd still be sitting there.