[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

1♠ (P) ?

---

Your bid

thanks
jb

[hotShot]

Hidden:

Spoiler

4♠
Partner needs to be very strong to put slam in range and i don't want to give opps any chance to learn something about our hand to optimise the defence. This contract may be very close and even that information should be hidden to opps until dummy comes down.

[david_c]

I would say 2♣ is the normal bid.

[Edit: That's assuming you're playing some sort of Standard American. Here 2♣ keeps your options open as to whether to force to game or not. If you're playing 2/1 then you have to make that decision immediately.]

[pbleighton]

2C. I will push to 4S, because of trump quality.

Peter

[whereagles]

Use the methods your system has for showing a limit raise

[jillybean]

whereagles, on Jun 6 2006, 08:02 AM, said:

Use the methods your system has for showing a limit raise

hmm, I promise 4 with a limit raise

[FrancesHinden]

I would evaluate this hand as a 3-card limit raise.

How to show that depends on the methods you are playing.

In an Acol-type system, you have to respond 2C (not very nice) then bid 3S.
In a semi-forcing 1NT 2/1 system, you respond 1NT then bid 3S if partner doesn't pass.
I don't know what you do in SAYC, luckily I never play it!

[JohnnyH7]

I think forcing to game is a massive overbid. 4333 hands are bad enough, but with the spade jack often wasted and the stray club jack, it's even worse. There is nothing to ruff, and you have sub-minimum high cards for a game force to begin with. Add to all of this that the game is MP where you need at least 50 % odds to bid game. I would seriously rather raise to 2S than force to game.

[mike777]

This is barely a 3 card limit raise, ugg forcing to game!

I start with 1nt semiforcing...maybe pard can pass with a balanced 11 -12 hcp hand .

[P_Marlowe]

1NT, assuming you are playing forcing NT,
and also assuming that this is the system bid
to show a limit raise with 3 card support,
... else make the system bid, e.g. 3S.

I would not force to game with this hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

treat this a 3 card limit raise
its closer to a (constructive) single raise than a game force

[jillybean]

I like the sounds of this semi-forcing 1nt.

I dont play 2/1, I assume you lose the ability to show a balanced 6-9?

[FrancesHinden]

"semi-forcing" NT is basically the same as forcing NT, except that opener passes with a minimum 5332. This means that responder cannot put any game forces into the 1NT response.

It's traditionally used in conjunction with 2/1 FG.

[jdonn]

3 card limit raise is completely normal. This is about average for the bid, with the bad shape and potentially wasted jacks.

[pclayton]

This evaluates to a 3 card limit raise. I'd like a ruffing value (maybe there's one buried in one of my 3 card suits), but I really like my strong trump. Maybe there's a dummy reversal here.

At our IMP league match, I treated: KJT, xxx, AKx, xxxx the same way, even though it was wrong (pard had a 5-4-3-1 10 count and chose to open). There's no way I'm downgrading these hands to a 3 card raise, even if I play them as constructive.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jun 6 2006, 11:09 AM, said:

I like the sounds of this semi-forcing 1nt.

I dont play 2/1, I assume you lose the ability to show a balanced 6-9?

Playing standart, you do not have
the ability to show 6-9 bal.

To a certain degree, it boils down to
partnership style, with which hand
does opener pass a 1NT response.

I always showed a side 4 card suit,
and passed only with an opener, who
intended to rebid NT.

If you do the same, you basically play
semi-forcing NT.

Open: how strong the NT response could
be, which gets determined by thestrength
of your 2/1 responses and which NT opener
you play

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I dont think semi-forcing NT is the right
name, either a bid is forcing or non-forcing,
but that is probably pure semantic.

[awm]

There are a lot of ups and downs to playing semi-forcing or forcing 1NT responses. Personally I don't like them, but the reasons are a bit long to go into.

Basically, you need to have a way to show a 3-card limit raise. If you don't distinguish between three and four card raises, then just bid 3♠ with the hand given. If you do have some distinction, there are several ways to make it:

(1) Three-card limit raises start with 1NT. Opener does not pass 1NT unless perhaps very minimum. Then this hand bids 1NT.

(2) Three-card limit raise has to start with a 2/1 call, then preferences the original major at the lowest available level. There are actually a lot of problems with this method, but in any case you would respond 2♣ with this hand and then bid spades as cheaply as possible. Partner will understand that this shows three trumps and is non-forcing, and that 2♣ could be based on a bad four card suit (or even a bad three-card suit as here).

(3) Three-card limit raise makes some jump shift that specifically shows that hand type. This is my personal preference, although perhaps the least mainstream. In any case this hand would make that call.

[foo]

♠AQJ♥Axxx♦xxx♣Jxx

1S-??

The J's rate to be wasted highs and 4333's stink in terms of playing strength.
I'm downgrading this hand and responding 1N, intending to rebid 3S or 4S {for instance 1S-1N;2H improves this hand enormously} if Opener takes a 2nd bid.

If Opener has a 5S332 min and passes, we rate not to have missed anything.