[billw55]

I think 2♥ is actually a weaker bid than 2♠. So if you are worried about missing game, this call won't help.

Also, agree that forcing 1NT by a passed hand is part of the problem.

[Jinksy]

m1cha, on 2014-October-09, 04:35, said:

Opposite a partner who has exactly 5 spades and denied 4 hearts, I expect the following number of cards in hearts:
3 (42.4 %)
2 (38.3 %)
1 (16.6 %)
0 ( 2.7 %)

I would like to see the calculation for this. It seems very hard to believe, when you allow that P has also shown at least 3 (maybe at least 4, depending on exact agreements) ♦s. I don't know how to do the sum, but he has five cards to draw (subject to those contraints) from an available 7♦s, 10♣s and 8♥s. Naively, I would expect marginally fewer than 5/3 ♥s in his hand.

I don't agree with Billw55 that 2♥ has fewer HCP than 2♠, and I think you're right that 2♥ can be on a five card suit and a misfit (what do you do with eg x AQTxx xx Kxxxx? Are you supposed to jump to 3♥?), but the misfit is the key point. You're telling P that the hands probably have no little communication and will have trouble establishing suits. Thus he's very unlikely to bid again with eg a balanced 17-18 count - which is what you want him to do here.

[msjennifer]

2 Spade is the only logical bid on this hand if the 1NT bid is 100% forcing for one round.And if partner invites with 3S,I will not hesitate to bid 4S looking at that lovely DQ and the J10 of spade and two kings will be useful in 3 NT if partner invites with 2NT.

[silvr bull]

m1cha, on 2014-October-09, 04:35, said:

I guess N hat a hand such as (a) 5-0-5-3 or (b) 6-0-4-3, passed, and things went real weird.

Remind me to not play poker against m1cha, because his guesses are much too good for me. Here is the full hand:

---

Since the "system" requires that partner pass a 2♥ bid (because of the high risk that my weak hand with a long ♥ suit is a likely misfit), he saluted like a loyal trooper and passed as commanded (thereby locking us into a serious misfit). I managed to take 6 tricks for a score of -100 (-5.5 IMPs). Several Norths were plus in 1 or 2 or 3♠, 2 pairs took 10 tricks in ♦, and 3 N-S pairs took 9 tricks in NT.

I am not sure, but I think the fine print in the "system" contract may have been changed during my absence from the game over two decades. I do not remember from my years of playing money bridge in the 1980s having a system that focused on stopping abruptly at 2♥, instead of allowing a player to look for possible game bids when he has forward going values. I will ask partner for forgiveness from my transgression and also ask that he grant me special dispensation to look for possible game in comparable situations in the future. For example, my 2♥ bid might have had better luck if North's round suits were reversed.

[m1cha]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-09, 06:43, said:

I would like to see the calculation for this. It seems very hard to believe, when you allow that P has also shown at least 3 (maybe at least 4, depending on exact agreements) ♦s. I don't know how to do the sum, but he has five cards to draw (subject to those contraints) from an available 7♦s, 10♣s and 8♥s. Naively, I would expect marginally fewer than 5/3 ♥s in his hand.

Actually, we're both wrong. Sorry, I was hasty. I applied a calculation I happened to do yesterday for this different purpose but that calculation did not take account of the fact that less ♥ cards than ♣s or ♦s are available to the players. Anyway, what I did was: Write down the all hand pattern probabilities for hands with a 5-card suit (from Wikipedia), normalize the probabilities to 100 %. For 3 cards then, add up the normalized probabilities for all patterns containing 3 cards (multiplied with 2 if the pattern has two 3-card suits). Do the same for all other numbers of cards, you should get a total sum of 300 %. Then remove the numbers for 4 or more cards (for if the player had 4 ♥s, he would bid 2♥ rather than 2♦) and renormalize again to 100 %. That is how the numbers were generated.

Let me try an approximate correction of the numbers. They were generated assuming 28 cards in even distribution, that is 28/3 cards per suit, but actually only 8 ♥ cards are available, so the numbers before the probability values must be multiplied with 24/28. That makes a probability of 42 % for 2.57 ♥cards, for instance. This is obviously not a very useful value because the number of cards should be a whole number but unfortunately this is all I can offer in a short time.

Your approach will not work either, I'm afraid. Your figures would be too low because you overestimate the number of ♦ cards. You would get very few patterns with just 3 ♦ cards in the N hand. You should distribute cards first, then remove the invalid patterns.

I'm sure the math can be done correctly but I cannot do it in a short time. Sorry to all.

[Bbradley62]

I'd blame East for not opening in first seat.

PS: If your ♥10 had been the ♥J, would you have bid 2♥ over 1♠?

[Stephen Tu]

Although standard is that 2♥ strongly implies 6 and opener supposed to pass on a stiff, I think it's not unreasonable to play it as showing 5 and opener expected to pull with stiff. Purely for frequency reasons; one is dealt so many more 5 cd heart suits than 6 cds, and finding 5-3 and 5-2 fits in responder's suit tends to do well (weaker hand's long suit as trumps = usu good). But it's something I'd want to do only with discussion.

After all people do this over 2♣ rebid using Bart convention (though can show both 5 cd heart and 6cd heart over 2♣), so why not over 2♦? As a passed hand I think it's even better to do this as you cut out a ton of the weak 2 6cd heart hands even if there are some bad suits you wouldn't open.

[WellSpyder]

fourdad, on 2014-October-09, 04:05, said:

This is only a problem because 1NT is forcing as a passed hand!

While I agree that this probably isn't a very good agreement, I'm not sure I understand why it is responsible for the problem. How would the choice between 2♥ and 2♠ (or anything else) differ if partner didn't have to bid over 1NT? Or are you saying you would not have bid 1NT without the agreement that it is F?

[Stephen Tu]

WellSpyder, on 2014-October-09, 10:21, said:

While I agree that this probably isn't a very good agreement, I'm not sure I understand why it is responsible for the problem. How would the choice between 2♥ and 2♠ (or anything else) differ if partner didn't have to bid over 1NT? Or are you saying you would not have bid 1NT without the agreement that it is F?

1nt being non-forcing makes 2♥ less attractive because it cuts out a bunch of hands of 5332 shape where hearts rates to do well.

[DAVDJ1]

Jacoby 2NT: 1S-2NT 4CL-4NT ending in 6S

[ggwhiz]

Bbradley62, on 2014-October-08, 15:00, said:

If we're not careful, we may set a BBO Forums record for the highest number of unanimous votes.

Edit: Seriously? Within an hour of my post someone voted for 2♥??

In my partnership I would (er could) bid 2♥ too. Opener is not supposed to pass with a stiff and it's a matchpoint oriented agreement. Granted with the actual major suits this is a clear 2♠ bid.

[danmathies]

this hand not worthy of any discussion. p has 2 suits so go back to spades. 2nt would show 10/11 any other bid means u cant trust p to play the hand and youd rather mastermind. deserve a dad result.

[GrahamJson]

Those who criticise 2H overstate their case. After a 1nt response a new suit at the 3 level should certainly be a good 6+ carder but 2h need only be 5 (a quick google will show several decent sites which agree on this). If opener has no fit he can remove. After all, what should you do with x AQJxx xxx Qxxx for example? Pass and possibly play in a 3-3 fit instead of 5-3 or 5-2?

To some extent it is a matter of style, but 2h showing 5+ makes sense to me.

[GrahamJson]

One other thing. Anyone who thinks that 2H is one of the worst bids ever can not have watched much BBO. I have seen plenty of;

Players pre-empting then bidding again opposite a passing partner.
Players making a TO double then getting highly excited on a minimum just because he has 4 card support for partner's one level response.
Making a one level response to a TO double despite holding 8+ points (this and the last one tend to cancel each other out).
Opening 2C and forcing to slam opposite a partner who has nothing but minimum bids.

Plus lots of cases where one partner makes a unilateral decision, such as pulling a penalty double, when they have already shown their hand and they know nothing about their partner's.