[MickyB]

Scoring: XIMP

1♠:1N
2♥:?

What's your call?
What changes to a hand of this shape would persuade you to switch between pass, 2♠ and 3♥?

---

[whereagles]

Seems like an easy 2♠ to me. Not perfect, but surely it must have a play for.

Pass without one of the aces, 3♥ with an heart more. Just straight down the middle.

[ArcLight]

Pass.


100% pard has 4 hearts and 5 spades, or is 5-5.
With 3 hearts tehy would bid a different suit.

Pard didn't make a strong rebid, you don't have a great fit (4-3), you have length in suits pard is short in, and they are not especially good.
3NT is unlikely.

Pass in 2H and ruff a spade or 2.

[Blofeld]

2♠.

I pass if you change one of the aces to a Q.

I was going to say that I never bid 3♥ with a hand of this shape, but I don't think that's quite true. Still, my default bid with this shape but more strength will be 2NT.

Give me:
♠A
♥AKx
♦xxxxx
♣xxxx
and I suppose I'll raise hearts.

[Apollo81]

2♠. Pass if you make the hand weaker. 3♥ if you change a small heart to the ♥Q or change a small minor suit card to a heart.

[hrothgar]

This is a nasty problem...

From my perspective, the key issue here is one regarding strength, not shape.

If partner is playing a light opening style, and his minimum rebid could be a 5=4=1=3 10 count then pass seems clear. (alternatively, the 2♥ rebid might limit his hand in some way)

Alternatively, if partner is playing a very sound opening style, those two bullets might be enough to explore game, in which case you probably want to bid 2N. Hopefully, this is artifical. (Even if its not, you'll find out if partner has any extra shape which might be more important than range)

For what its worth, 2♠ makes no sense what-so-ever to me... 2♠ doesn't suggest any extra values. It simply expresses a preference between Hearts and Spades. You aren't clarifying your range and you are misrepresenting strain...

[awm]

Pass.... obviously this is the sort of hand where playing a strong club system or some version of Gazzilli is a big win.

Assuming those types of conventions aren't in use, I think it's best to make the bid that (probabilistically) will usually be right. Admittedly there could be a game, but what do we need? Partner has to have a good hand with 5-5 in the majors, or a really good hand with 5-4. Something like KQxxx AKxxx x xx doesn't really make game so good (basically needs spades 4-3 and hearts 3-2). Add the heart queen and game is reasonable but not cold (note that is exactly the hand where precision bidders will be jumping to 3♥). With only 5-4 things are much uglier, as it will be hard to get suits to run on the seeming misfit.

Keeping in mind that more balanced hands are more common than less balanced hands, and that weaker hands are more common than stronger hands, I don't think the odds of a game are all that good here. On the other hand, when partner is minimum I expect 2♥ to usually make and 2♠ to frequently fail.

[Apollo81]

awm, on Nov 1 2006, 11:11 AM, said:

Pass.... obviously this is the sort of hand where playing a strong club system or some version of Gazzilli is a big win.

Assuming those types of conventions aren't in use, I think it's best to make the bid that (probabilistically) will usually be right. Admittedly there could be a game, but what do we need? Partner has to have a good hand with 5-5 in the majors, or a really good hand with 5-4. Something like KQxxx AKxxx x xx doesn't really make game so good (basically needs spades 4-3 and hearts 3-2). Add the heart queen and game is reasonable but not cold (note that is exactly the hand where precision bidders will be jumping to 3♥). With only 5-4 things are much uglier, as it will be hard to get suits to run on the seeming misfit.

Keeping in mind that more balanced hands are more common than less balanced hands, and that weaker hands are more common than stronger hands, I don't think the odds of a game are all that good here. On the other hand, when partner is minimum I expect 2♥ to usually make and 2♠ to frequently fail.

Partner could also be 6-4, and if partner is just 5-4 spades might play better, although I admit this isnt as likely as hearts being better. We may also get to a (legitimately or otherwise) makable 3NT or 4M.

As you said, playing Precision would help and responder could comfortably pass.

[pclayton]

Pass at MPs, 2♠ at IMPs.

[flytoox]

I think game is still possible. I will try 2N.

[mikeh]

This is a remarkably tough choice.

Pass: if we belong in a part score, the odds are that 2♥ is at least as good as any. Especially since I expect a trump lead, and that will actually probably help us if partner is 5-4 or 5-5, since he will often gain a tempo.

Yes, he could be 6-4 but so what? He probably isn't and when he is, 2♥ will usually still play as well as 2♠.

2♠: clearly wrong, most of the time, if he passes, as he will most of the time. We run a very high risk of offending Burns Law of Total Trump... the opps will hold more trump than we do. However, 2♠ keeps the auction alive in case he has some 5422 17 count... now 3N will be a good imp spot. Question: given that 2♠ maximizes the frequency of loss, compared to 2♥, does the size of the infrequent gain justify the bid? Bear in mind that partner, with a good hand, may also be bidding 3♥ (we raise to 4♥) or 3♠ (we pass and hope not to go down).

2N: clearly the most aggressive move. Clearest route to a game, but we are going to hate the sight of dummy if he passes and we will be awaiting the appearance of dummy with trepidation should he raise. If he rebids a suit at the 3-level, we probably raise 3♥ (even tho this 4♥ may be way too high) and pass 3♠. If he bids 3♦, we have a huge hand. If he bids 3♣, we have another tough call.

I began my analysis hating 2♠. After all, why should partner cater to this hand rather than to a more common preference type hand such as xx xx KJxxx QJxx?

I no longer, after reflection, dislike 2♠ as much as I did. In fact, if we were vulnerable, I'd bid it at imps. But being not-vulnerable makes the size of the gain, from bidding a making game, not quite enough to offset the more frequent occurence of a modest loss.

And if I don't like 2♠, I can't like 2N either: it is riskier still, altho the gain is about the same.

So I pass.


I would bid 2N if we changed the ♥ suit to Jxx, but I wouldn't be proud of it.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

I have Max. for my bidding, but so what?

If I hold two spades I would bid 2S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

I don't see the problem: pass. I can't understand why 2♠ would be a better choice, and anything else is really stretching the hand.

[whereagles]

I think the only bad thing of 2♠ is finding pard with a bad 11-13 and 5 jack-high spades. In every other circumstance 2♠ will take you to your best spot:

1♠ 1NT
2♥ 2♠
3m 4m

1♠ 1NT
2♥ 2♠
2NT 3NT

1♠ 1NT
2♥ 2♠
3♥ 4♥

1♠ 1NT
2♥ 2♠
3♠ 3NT

etc...

[FrancesHinden]

I would bid 2S.
I'm not sure I can construct a hand where I would raise hearts.
I would pass with a much weaker hand (take the ace of spades away, for example).

The benefits from bidding 2S are clear.

The downside is when 2S is a worse contract than 2H. This is harder to evaluate, because there are also hands where 2S is a better contract than 2H, even when it's a shorter fit.

[bid_em_up]

whereagles, on Nov 1 2006, 12:15 PM, said:

I think the only bad thing of 2♠ is finding pard with a bad 11-13 and 5 jack-high spades. In every other circumstance 2♠ will take you to your best spot:

1♠ 1NT
2♥ 2♠
3m 4m

1♠ 1NT
2♥ 2♠
2NT 3NT

1♠ 1NT
2♥ 2♠
3♥ 4♥

1♠ 1NT
2♥ 2♠
3♠ 3NT

etc...

You forgot about:

1S-1N-2H-2S-4S probably not that great even though it may make, partner was/is expecting at least 2 spades in your hand.

or

1S-1N-2H-2S-3m-4m-4S-? where partner was just bidding 3m as a forcing bid.

Given that partners likely shape and/values are 11-14/15 and 5-4-3-1 or 5-4-2-2, it is probably best just to pass 2H.

The only time taking a false preference to 2S will win is if partner is 5-5 in the majors, by giving him a chance to bid 3H, imo. The rest are just illusions, imo.

[HeartA]

I will not falsely show preference of ONE card over THREE cards. If you expect partner to pass, which would be worse than 2H 99% of the time, why don't you pass 2H?. If you want to keep the bidding alive, I would prefer the more "aggressive" 2NT, which doesn't use much more space. Yes, 2NT shows a little more than you really have, but it is also a discouraging call, showing non-support for either major.

If I feel conservative, I pass. If I want to be aggressive, I bid 2NT.

[mikestar]

On the probabilties, pass is clearcut. The only time 2♠ or 2NT is likely to win is when partner is 5-5 and strong but not strong enough for 3♥. This is rare in 2/1 and non-existent in Precision or playing Gazzilli. Not passing will at best break even in the other cases.

So though the gain of a game is large it is infrequent and the usually smaller losses are more frequent--and if partner is minimum, there may be large losses if the fit is poor.

Pass only loses to those pairs that are playing a relatively unlimited 2♥ rebid who choose not to pass when it is right. Remember also that opener with 5-5 and invitational values will take the agressive view and force with 3♥ at least half the time--this makes the probabilty that opener has the hand you need even smaller.

IMO if you must bid something, 2NT though dangerous is better than 2♠. While is it possible to describe 2♠ on a stiff when holding 3 hearts as a "false preference", it doesn't seem reasonable. General Sherman could have said "War is unpleasant", but he would be missing the mark.

[mikeh]

mikestar, on Nov 1 2006, 03:25 PM, said:

Remember also that opener with 5-5 and invitational values will take the agressive view and force with 3♥ at least half the time--this makes the probabilty that opener has the hand you need even smaller.

Not if he is a good player.