[flytoox]

Red all, pd opens 1H. You hold:

S: J9874
H: KQT
D: TX
C: KJT

What do you repsond and what is your plan for continuation? HOw good is this hand? DOes it worht an invitation?

[hrothgar]

I'd respond 1♠, planning to show heart support at my next opportunity.
I will not (immediately) treat this as a 3 card limit raise.

[inquiry]

Some negative factors. 5332 is not a great distribution
Lack of an ACE
HCP in your shorter suit
Only 10 hcp

Some Positive Factors
Three honors in partner suits
KJT is a nice combination

So this hand boils down to a single qustion.
Is this a constructive raise to 2H (1H-2H), or are you willing to show this as too good for the constructive raise, and therefore you will show it as a three card limit raise.

IF you use ZAR Fit points, you will see that this hand has 10 hcp, 2 control points, 11 distributional points, and two fit points (for KQ of hearts). That comes to 25 ZAR points. So the combines hands have 51 at a minimum. Zar mgiht suggest just force to game here. However, the minus suggest caution. Still, the hand is too good for a constructive raise to 2H imho.

[pclayton]

If I was convinced ♥'s was the correct strain (or if I played flannery), I'd make a limit raise. Spades may play better, especially if pard has to ruff diamonds with my high trump.

The problem with 1♠ is that pard may not like her short spades, which might be the key to the hand in 4♥. But 1♠ looks normal.

[whereagles]

I used to always bid 1♠ with hands like these, but these days I'm beginning to wonder whether immediate support is better.

The point is it sucks if the auction continues

1♥ (pass) 1♠ (2m)
pass (3m) ??

or

1♥ . (pass) 1♠ (3m)
pass (pass) ??

If this happens, pard would be much better placed if it had gone

1♥ (pass) 2♥ (3m)

The situation is very similar to the usual 2/1 problem of having to bid a forcing 1NT with a hand of the non-constructive raise type, e.g. hands of 5-7 hcp and 3 card M support.

If you hold a hand that knows it wants to bid 3♥ over an opponent 3m, then bidding 1♥-1♠ should be superior. Otherwise I'm not so sure....

[bid_em_up]

There is absolutely no good reason to make an immediate limit raise with this hand that I can see.

If instead you simply bid 1♠, think about the following sequences and how you will like/dislike them:

1♥-1♠-1N? Ok, partner is limited, probably 2-5-3-3, but now I would make the limit raise of 3♥. A good partner will bid 3 spades if they happened to be 3-5-3-2 (and your partnership does not raise on 3 card support).

1♥-1♠-2♣ ? This hand improves tremendously with the good fitting honors in your hand. Now I do not stop at less than 4♥.

1♥-1♠-2♠ ? Fantastic. Even if your partnership is prone to raising on 3 card support in this sequence, you should be in game.

1♥-1♠-2N (or higher)? Great. Game is assured, somewhere.

Ok, so whats the one sequence that can present a "real" problem?

1♥-1♠-2♦ . This is the only call that gives you cause for concern, imo. In this sequence, your black suit cards are probably not pulling their full weight. At the table, I would be inclined to bid 2N to show the club stops , and let partner make his next call. If partner raises to 3N, I will pass, the heart suit will still take tricks in NT. If partner bids anything else (3C, 3D, 3H, 3S), I will bid 4H.

If he passes 2N?!!, he opened a dog and we are probably high enough.

(Oh, and as a notation to whereagles comments above.....this hand should always compete to 3♥.)

[pclayton]

whereagles, on Sep 12 2006, 07:26 AM, said:

I used to always bid 1♠ with hands like these, but these days I'm beginning to wonder whether immediate support is better.

The point is it sucks if the auction continues

1♥ (pass) 1♠ (2m)
pass (3m) ??

or

1♥ . (pass) 1♠ (3m)
pass (pass) ??

If this happens, pard would be much better placed if it had gone

1♥ (pass) 2♥ (3m)

The situation is very similar to the usual 2/1 problem of having to bid a forcing 1NT with a hand of the non-constructive raise type, e.g. hands of 5-7 hcp and 3 card M support.

If you hold a hand that knows it wants to bid 3♥ over an opponent 3m, then bidding 1♥-1♠ should be superior. Otherwise I'm not so sure....

Why am I worried about making a call at the 3 level after interference? Pard won't play me for a weak hand with belated support, since those hands raise ♥'s at R1.

If I have to make a call at the 4 level, I'll be more concerned.

[whereagles]

pclayton, on Sep 12 2006, 04:35 PM, said:

Why am I worried about making a call at the 3 level after interference? Pard won't play me for a weak hand with belated support, since those hands raise ♥'s at R1.

As I said, if you judge this hand to be worth a limit raise, by all means bid 1♠.

[SoTired]

If one of my kings was in the spade suit, I would treat this as 3-card limit raise and bid 1♠ followed by 3♥. I want partner to ungrade ♠Qx.

But with this lousy spade suit, I don't want to bid 1♠ because I don't want partner to upgrade spade honors.

Next question: Is this a 3-card LR (1NT followed by 3♥ or immeidate 3H depending on your system) or a constructive 2♥ raise.

I think this a 3-card LR.

[HeartA]

Well, if I want to be aggressive, I would treat it as 3-card LR. If I feel conservative, I would raise to 2H only.

[arrows]

if one plays constructive raise, this is a perfect hand for 2H, showing roughly 10-11 playing points.

if one doesn't play constructive raise, 2H looks a bit conservative, but definitely acceptable.

The problem of 1S first, is no good bid next round.

[mike777]

2h constructive. 7-10 hcp for me. This hand is not worth 12 support pts which is how I play 3 card limit raises.

If anything using in-and-out valuation ala Secrets of Winning Bridge would make this hand a slight negative since most of your honors are in hearts as opposed to outside the trump suit.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

1S.

The nice thing is, I have a bid,
which describes my hand, and
gives me the chance to hear what
partner has to say.
In other words, I can wait with the
decision to invite or not.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

whereagles, on Sep 12 2006, 10:26 AM, said:

I used to always bid 1♠ with hands like these, but these days I'm beginning to wonder whether immediate support is better.

The point is it sucks if the auction continues

1♥ (pass) 1♠ (2m)
pass (3m) ??

or

1♥ . (pass) 1♠ (3m)
pass (pass) ??
<snip>

Hi,

in the first auction you know, that partner
has at most 2 spades, since he did not
make a suppX, does this bother you?
No, your spade suit is just a 5 carder with
out wasted values.

You can bid either 3H or 4H depending if the
minor is clubs or diamonds.

In the 2nd auction you dont know about the
spade shortage, but you still know, if your
values in clubs work or not.

There are hands, where you are better placed
if you did show the support direct, but I doubt
it is this specific hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdeegan]

2♥. Nice problem hand. An awkward hand to bid, so I think by taking the slightly pessimistic view with a mild underbid, I may gain an advantage.

[the hog]

1S even though I don't like it that much. I will bid Hearts at 3 level next, particularly at Imps as you cannot afford to miss game, particularly vulnerable.
At MPs there is a lot to be said for a 1H 2H bid. (Good hand for pauses in the auction showing extra values.)

[EricK]

This hand is easily worth an invitation vulnerable at IMPS. If we are not playing 2/1 as GF then I quite fancy a 2♣ response. If partner has 4 ♠ we might still find out about them. If he has only 3 then we might be as well off in ♥ as in ♠. If he has a singleton ♠ we don't want him to devalue it which he might if we mention ♠, but if he has a singelton ♣ then we do want him to devalue it.

[bid_em_up]

EricK, on Sep 13 2006, 12:55 PM, said:

This hand is easily worth an invitation vulnerable at IMPS. If we are not playing 2/1 as GF then I quite fancy a 2♣ response. If partner has 4 ♠ we might still find out about them. If he has only 3 then we might be as well off in ♥ as in ♠. If he has a singleton ♠ we don't want him to devalue it which he might if we mention ♠, but if he has a singelton ♣  then we do want him to devalue it.

Why mastermind when simple is best?

Just bid the hand naturally for cryin out loud.

Geez.

[EricK]

bid_em_up, on Sep 13 2006, 06:55 PM, said:

EricK, on Sep 13 2006, 12:55 PM, said:

This hand is easily worth an invitation vulnerable at IMPS. If we are not playing 2/1 as GF then I quite fancy a 2♣ response. If partner has 4 ♠ we might still find out about them. If he has only 3 then we might be as well off in ♥ as in ♠. If he has a singleton ♠ we don't want him to devalue it which he might if we mention ♠, but if he has a singelton ♣  then we do want him to devalue it.

Why mastermind when simple is best?

Just bid the hand naturally for cryin out loud.

Geez.

Why is this masterminding? We are playing this hand in ♥ unless partner has got ♠ which are good enough to mention, and I am giving him information which can help him make the correct decision. That is co-operation, not masterminding.

[bid_em_up]

EricK, on Sep 13 2006, 02:05 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Sep 13 2006, 06:55 PM, said:

EricK, on Sep 13 2006, 12:55 PM, said:

This hand is easily worth an invitation vulnerable at IMPS. If we are not playing 2/1 as GF then I quite fancy a 2♣ response. If partner has 4 ♠ we might still find out about them. If he has only 3 then we might be as well off in ♥ as in ♠. If he has a singleton ♠ we don't want him to devalue it which he might if we mention ♠, but if he has a singelton ♣  then we do want him to devalue it.

Why mastermind when simple is best?

Just bid the hand naturally for cryin out loud.

Geez.

Why is this masterminding? We are playing this hand in ♥ unless partner has got ♠ which are good enough to mention, and I am giving him information which can help him make the correct decision. That is co-operation, not masterminding.

It is masterminding because:

1) it will require partner to hold a hand good enough to reverse to be able to show his spades (give partner AQxx Axxxx Ax xx or KQx Axxxx xxx Ax) and what does he bid? And will he now accept an invite?

2) You DO want him to devalue a stiff spade (ruffs in the long trump hand are apt to be useless).

3) You distort the shape of your hand, presenting partner with the illusion of possible (yet, non-existent) pitches available in your hand on a club suit that doesnt exist.

4) We have no reason to believe that he needs to devalue a short club. Give partner AQx Axxxxx Axx x. Why should he devalue his singleton club when we bid 3H? If anything, its an asset.

5) It makes it harder to bid on the next round and gauge what to do.

6) You fool partner with your holdings, now can he ever believe you again?

7) The whole key to the hand is how well do these two hands fit together. Which sequence do you think you are more apt to find it out on,

1♥-1♠-? where you get to hear partners next call? (Partner next raises spades or bids clubs themselves)

1♥-2♣-? and holding 3-5-3-2 partner is ill-placed for a bid, or holding 2-5-2-4 now raises to 3♣, and will accept automatically over your 3♥ call on the supposedly known double fit?!

Theres lots more, but do I really need to continue?