[ArcLight]

Match Points non Vul vs. Vul

In 2nd seat pard opens 1 ♥ (2/1)

What is your response with:

♠x x x
♥K 7 6 4
♦A J x
♣A x x

What are your thoughts?

[P_Marlowe]

I would sell the hand as inv.
with 4 card support.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

Nasty hand that seems on the cusp of many widely disparate bids...

1. If you're using strict loser count, this hand has nine losers and isn't even strong enough for a limit raise

2. Using simple HCPs, 12 opposite 12 suggests forcing to game

3. If you split the difference you could treat it as a 4 card limit raise

I think that overbidding has more upside than underbidding. Playing 2/1 I'd like to force to game, but keep NT in the picture (this is MP after all). Mark me down for an aggressive 2♣

[P_Marlowe]

hrothgar, on Aug 31 2006, 10:41 AM, said:

Nasty hand that seems on the cusp of many widely disparate bids...

1. If you're using strict loser count, this hand has nine losers and isn't even strong enough for a limit raise
<snip>

Hi,

I do use LTC, but with the given hand, I
would simply count the cover cards I have,
and I have 3.
A standard opener has 7 Looser, I cover 3,
makes 4 Looser, i.e. an inv. raise.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I agree, that it is close between inv. and force,
and depends on the opening style of partner.

[kenrexford]

Given systemic freedom, 3♣, showing a values raise.

Partner can inquire (3♦), in which case I'll show a maximum limit raise with good controls (3NT). If partner signs off, I'll respect that (he opens on trash).

With a more sound opening, I'll try 2♣, maintaining flexibility to try 3NT. This is also my route if not using 3♣.

Simply put, despite the four-card fit, I want to keep 3NT in the picture. Plus, the control count gets me upgrading.

[awm]

Limit raise for me. With this number of controls and four-card support, a single raise is kind of ridiculous. Losing trick count should deduct half losers for aces, making this an 8-loser hand.

On the other hand, it's important that the scoring is matchpoints. There's no reason to push for borderline games. Even if game is 50% we do not need to be there, and I've seen 4333 hands play pretty badly in the past. I don't believe I need to be in game with 12 opposite 12 and two flat hands at matchpoints.

One of the nice features of 2/1 is that you can distinguish between good (4-card) and bad (3-card) limit raises. I'd sell this as the 4-card variety even though it's 3433, because I like the aces. I want partner to bid game on a 12-count with a singleton somewhere, because I know I'll have the right holding opposite the stiff (three small or ace-empty). Partner will normally do this opposite a 4-card limit raise, but might not opposite a 3-card limit raise.

[SoTired]

4-card limit raise, Upper Bergen if you play that. I would not force to game playing MP. Most players bid game opposite a limit raise with any opener that has a singleton. That is perfect opposite this hand. If opener is min with no singleton, this hand will unlikely produce game.

Like: KQx AQxxx xx Jxx and opener has troubles making 3H
But: KQx AQxxx x Jxxx and 4H has good chances

[neilkaz]

This looks like a 4 card limit raise to me. OK I probably have no ruffing value and don't like 3 spade losers, but I have 2 aces and 12 HCP. The 4333 nature of my hand means that I won't insist upon game, and even though PD is in 2nd seat, I don't want to hang him if he stretched to open.

Playing my preferred Rev, Bergen, I bid 3♣ and this means PD can make a game try with 3♦ and since I have a max for my limit raise I'll happily accept and carry on to 4♥.

Perhaps 3NT is better, but I fear a spade lead, and think my aces and lack of slow tricks look superior for 4♥ on a 9 card fit.

An alternate approach is to treat the hand as a 3 card limit raise and start with a forcing NT. If opener rebids 2♥, I'll just carry on to 4, and perhaps he can bid 3NT over my 3♥ after his likely 2m rebid. Hopefully if he does, 3NT plays better than 4♥.

However, I prefer my original 4 card limit raise idea and if not playing Bergen, I'll just bid 3♥.

.. neilkaz ..

[HeartA]

Jacoby 2NT, forces to game.

[Apollo81]

ArcLight, on Aug 31 2006, 11:23 AM, said:

Match Points non Vul vs. Vul

In 2nd seat pard opens 1 ♥ (2/1)

What is your response with:

♠x x x
♥K 7 6 4
♦A J x
♣A x x

What are your thoughts?

4-card limit raise.

-Noble

[whereagles]

If I'm using a non-silly version of Jacoby, 2NT.

Else 2♣, followed by 2/3♥.

[mike777]

4 card limit raise, barely, could not have a worse hand.

Expect pard to have:
AJx....Jxxxx..Qx...Kxx

[mikeh]

1N, forcing one round... but I am not evaluating this as a limit raise despite the sterile shape... I am going to jump to 4♥ next... unless partner bids something unexpected.

This use of the forcing 1N seems underused... it is a quite common expert treatment in my area, and caters well to this type of hand.

I would never expect partner to play me for 5 controls even if I showed a 4 card limit raise, and showing a 3 card limit is incredible.

I don't Jacoby or bid 2♣ because I don't want partner to get excited... unless he has truly something to get excited about, and, if so, he will tell me that over 1N. There are just too many hands with which I'd expect him to drive beyond safety if I overly encourage him..

As for trying to construct a hand for partner..... wow..... and to construct a dog opposite which even 2♥ goes down...... why bother getting out of bed in the morning?

Now, if partner were half my age, or less, and addicted to adrenaline, such that an opening pass would have been a 4-letter word, I might limit raise... but my partners open 11 counts only with good playing hands, opposite which my Aces will probably be useful.

[Echognome]

Playing 2/1, I make a limit raise. I am not as familiar with Mike's 1N followed by 4♥, but it seems useful on this hand.

[mike777]

Marshall Miles is a big fan of playing 1nt 100% forcing for one round and bidding it with game forcing hands. It makes his 2/1 bids promise 5 card suits. He writes about this style often in his later 2/1 books.

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Aug 31 2006, 03:39 PM, said:

Marshall Miles is a big fan of playing 1nt 100% forcing for one round and bidding it with game forcing hands. It makes his 2/1 bids promise 5 card suits. He writes about this style often in his later 2/1 books.

Hi,

I would also like to put certain 13-15 bal.
hands with fit in the forcing NT response.

Not only will your 2/1 promise 5 cards,
it also makes life simpler, if you have the
add. agreements, that require that a splinter,
2NT and strong jump shifts show 4 card support.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[EricK]

1♠ followed by 3NT anyone?

No? Didn't think so! But it's what the Hideous Hog might do.

I like to play a 3NT response to 1M as a minimum balanced (i.e. no splinter) game raise. Partner can then cue with extras, just bid game or even pass if he fancies 3NT.

I am not stopping this hand short of game unless I need swings. The room is going to be in game so staying in 3♥ is playing for a top or a bottom.

[keylime]

Like Noble and co., a limit raise (with me, Swedish 2NT).

If I wanted to get exotic, I almost have the right spots for an immediately call (LR with honor concentration - analogous to Siebert adjunct).

Without this, I agree with Mike's approach the best. Caters to opener jump-shifting/reversing.

[FrancesHinden]

Looks like a 4-card limit raise to me, with whatever method I have for showing such.

But it depends what you think a minimum 1H opening bid looks like.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Aug 31 2006, 08:27 PM, said:

1N, forcing one round (...) I am going to jump to 4♥ next...

This use of the forcing 1N seems underused... it is a quite common expert treatment in my area, and caters well to this type of hand.

Just a small note: I once saw a french variant of 2/1 that uses

1M 1NT (100% forcing)
2x 4M

as a mixed 5 card raise, e.g. (M = ♠)

Kxxxx
xxx
x
Axxx

The idea is to tell that hand from the same one without the club ace. The latter bids 1M-4M.

I never gave this a serious thought, but right now I think I see a small snag with your approach of 1M-1NT-2x-4M as 12-14 balanced 3 card raise: if opener has around 16-18 with some shape, we'll won't be able to set up a forcing situation below game. That won't normally be a problem, but it may lead to some randomness in slam bidding from time to time.

Still, I think your approach is better than the french one. I only mentioned it so you know some use the bid in another way.