[goobers]

IMPs, all vul

4th seat:
♠KJTxx ♥Axx ♣Q9 ♦JT8

Partner opens.

1♦ - 1♠
1N - 2♣*
2♠

*New minor forcing
2♠ shows a minimum, 3 spades, and denies 4 hearts.

I just decided to pass here. Almost the entire rest of the field was in 4♠. (making, kinda. It doesn't make double dummy though. I don't think I'd find the killing defense, but then, I'm not very good.)

Should I just shoot the vully game at imps?

[the hog]

"Should I just shoot the vully game at imps? "

No.

[jchiu]

No. It is partially a question of methods. If you play one-way new minor forcing, then partner should jump to 3♠ with a maximum weak notrump and three-card support. This nuance of new minor forcing is very important. Discuss it with your regular partners.

Also, you may choose to adopt 2-way NMF. Here, 2♣ puppets 2♦ and is used with invitational hands after 1Suit-1Other-1N. And opener responds to the game-forcing 2♦ as before. This method loses the possibility to play in 2♦, but removes doubt as to the forcing-ness of a subsequent bid.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

assuming 2C was new minor forcing,
2S showed a min. opener with 3 spades,
hence I would simply pass.

I dont think, that game has a lot of chances
opposite a bal. 12-13 count.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

I wouldn't write off 3NT as a possible game on this hand. Yes you have a 5-3 Spade fit, but balanced hands with high point count and high losing trick count can indicate NT.

I agree that if 2S shows a minimum opener and a Spade fit there is a disincentive to upping the risks by bidding again to disturb what you know is a safe spot only to end in what might prove to be a more risky partscore.

If a 2NT followup over 2S can be relied upon to be based on a 5th Spade then at this vul and scoring I think I would do it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. On another day pass will get you a good plus.

[helene_t]

You have 8 LTC (according to my formula) so pass 2♠ seems normal.

1eyedjack's comment about 3NT makes a lot of sense, though.

[BillHiggin]

You asked about judgment, lets talk about judgment.
Certainly any game will be sketchy at best, but vul at IMP scoring favors aggressive games more than any other scoring or vulnerability.
Things you do know from the auction so far:
Partner has 3 spades and at least as many diamonds as clubs.
How well do you know your partner and your agreements?
My agreements about NMF here would require partner to bid 2 (or 3)♥ with 4 hearts and 3 spades (others may have different agreements) so I would know that partner does not have 4 hearts.
Both JT holdings are well placed - in suits where they rate to be useful. I would certainly say that the two holdings combined are worth more than the 2 HCP basic count. The ♣Q is more of an issue - it might not have any value at all. But 3-2-4-4 shape may be a possiblily (it would not be in my advanced partnerships, but then we would be using 2-way checkback rather than NMF). Opposite that shape, all your cards are well placed.
If your partner has 5 diamonds and 3 spades, then the club holding is possibly wasted (but the diamond holding is still golden).

How well do you know your partner? If he is aggressive, then the 2♠ rebid is more discouraging. But if he would tend to take a pessimistic view of most 13 HCP hands AND you believe he cannot hold 4 hearts, then this could be worth another try (just because the scoring and vulnerability are so favorable).

How well do you know yourself? I see indications of self doubt (well outright statements actually). I won't try to guess whether it is better for you to place yourself in more challenging situations or not. But that is a factor.

Pass rates to be correct. But there are possible reasons to take a more optimistic view of this hand.

[Al_U_Card]

With no solid agreements or extensive knowledge of pard's predilictions.....I would bid 2NT and if he passes or retreats to 3S (or 3H which I would correct to 3S), then we play it there......seek and ye shall find.

[Apollo81]

When I looked at this hand I was deciding whether to invite or force game, and I think I would just bid 4♠ since it's red/imps.



edit: if 2♠ shows a minimum I would bid 3♠

[inquiry]

It depends. Fourth seat opening bids are usually sound. Your holding in the minors are likely to be working. Did 2♣ promise 5♠? If so, I would bid 2 NT as another game try. Even if not, my gut feeling is that if your partner would have raised to 2S with 3442, 3244, 3253, and 3352, then 3NT is probably the correct spot if you sare going to bid game. So 2NT as a 2nd game try seems right. Ohterwise, raise to 3S.

[goobers]

There seems to be a tiny bit of confusion here.

Okay, you're 4th seat, partner's second seat and opens.

2C is NMF, 2S shows a stone minimum with 3 spades, and denies 4 hearts.

This is my regular partner, I trust that she will jump with a maximum.

[goobers]

jchiu, on Feb 23 2007, 03:46 AM, said:

Also, you may choose to adopt 2-way NMF. Here, 2♣ puppets 2♦ and is used with invitational hands after 1Suit-1Other-1N. And opener responds to the game-forcing 2♦ as before. This method loses the possibility to play in 2♦, but removes doubt as to the forcing-ness of a subsequent bid.

Wait, doesn't it lose the ability to play in 2♣, not 2♦?

[mikeh]

Your choices appear to me to be pass (normal, but a trifle conservative) and 2N... counting hcp is a little misleading when you hold good interior spots and that Q9 of partner's suit. Having said that, I strongly suspect that I'd pass... and any thought I have that I wouldn't is coloured by now 'knowing' that game made. I do recommend changing to 2-way nmf, where you'd puppet to 2♦ via 2♣ and then bid 2♠ to show an invitational hand with 5+♠s. But it sounds as if that would be irrelevant: partner will probably pass anyway! If partner has a hand on which she would not pass that auction, then she shouldn't have bid 2♠ over 2♣

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Feb 23 2007, 12:13 PM, said:

Your choices appear to me to be pass (normal, but a trifle conservative) and 2N... counting hcp is a little misleading when you hold good interior spots and that Q9 of partner's suit. Having said that, I strongly suspect that I'd pass... and any thought I have that I wouldn't is coloured by now 'knowing' that game made. I do recommend changing to 2-way nmf, where you'd puppet to 2♦ via 2♣ and then bid 2♠ to show an invitational hand with 5+♠s. But it sounds as if that would be irrelevant: partner will probably pass anyway! If partner has a hand on which she would not pass that auction, then she shouldn't have bid 2♠ over 2♣

That sounds logical, but I wonder whether it is. As 2♣ doesn't show 5 spades, what if partner has a hand that is very good opposite 5 spades, but not so great for other contracts (3N)?

Okok I know the answer, that hand would have bid 2♠ not 1N But in general I find that a big problem with unspecified invitations, when partner has to decide whether to show minimum or acceptance before knowing what contract I am inviting to.

[P_Marlowe]

1eyedjack, on Feb 23 2007, 05:40 AM, said:

I wouldn't write off 3NT as a possible game on this hand.  Yes you have a 5-3 Spade fit, but balanced hands with high point count and high losing trick count can indicate NT.

I agree that if 2S shows a minimum opener and a Spade fit there is a disincentive to upping the risks by bidding again to disturb what you know is a safe spot only to end in what might prove to be a more risky partscore.

If a 2NT followup over 2S can be relied upon to be based on a 5th Spade then at this vul and scoring I think I would do it.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  On another day pass will get you a good plus.

The main trouble is, that in the given
seq. 2NT is forcing.

And it is certainly fairly aggressive to force
to game with the given hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[BillHiggin]

goobers, on Feb 23 2007, 12:48 PM, said:

jchiu, on Feb 23 2007, 03:46 AM, said:

Also, you may choose to adopt 2-way NMF.  Here, 2♣ puppets 2♦ and is used with invitational hands after 1Suit-1Other-1N.  And opener responds to the game-forcing 2♦ as before.  This method loses the possibility to play in 2♦, but removes doubt as to the forcing-ness of a subsequent bid.

Wait, doesn't it lose the ability to play in 2♣, not 2♦?

Playing two way checkback (xyz) does prevent 2♣ as a suggestion of final contract - you can get out at 3♣. Yous pays yous money and yous takes yous chances.

Responder can unilateraly get out at 2♦, just pass the forced 2♦ opener bid. Somewhat common after a 1♦ opening, rarer but no unheard of when the diamond suit has not been mentioned yet (Walsh response to 1♣ with a weak hand, a 4 card major and a 6 card diamond suit).

[fred]

BillHiggin, on Feb 23 2007, 01:57 PM, said:

You asked about judgment, lets talk about judgment.
Certainly any game will be sketchy at best, but vul at IMP scoring favors aggressive games more than any other scoring or vulnerability.
Things you do know from the auction so far:
Partner has 3 spades and at least as many diamonds as clubs.
How well do you know your partner and your agreements?
My agreements about NMF here would require partner to bid 2 (or 3)♥ with 4 hearts and 3 spades (others may have different agreements) so I would know that partner does not have 4 hearts.
Both JT holdings are well placed - in suits where they rate to be useful. I would certainly say that the two holdings combined are worth more than the 2 HCP basic count. The ♣Q is more of an issue - it might not have any value at all. But 3-2-4-4 shape may be a possiblily (it would not be in my advanced partnerships, but then we would be using 2-way checkback rather than NMF). Opposite that shape, all your cards are well placed.
If your partner has 5 diamonds and 3 spades, then the club holding is possibly wasted (but the diamond holding is still golden).

How well do you know your partner? If he is aggressive, then the 2♠ rebid is more discouraging. But if he would tend to take a pessimistic view of most 13 HCP hands AND you believe he cannot hold 4 hearts, then this could be worth another try (just because the scoring and vulnerability are so favorable).

How well do you know yourself? I see indications of self doubt (well outright statements actually). I won't try to guess whether it is better for you to place yourself in more challenging situations or not. But that is a factor.

Pass rates to be correct. But there are possible reasons to take a more optimistic view of this hand.

I was thinking about this problem, then I read this post and thought, "this is what you should be thinking".

Bill makes a good case for why it is reasonable to give partner one more chance to bid a game. The J10s in spades and diamonds are indeed strong cards.

Another way to come to the conclusion is to try to construct some random 12 counts that partner could have where 4S is a good spot. You will see that it is easy to construct such example hands - another indication that bidding on is reasonable. Of course it is even easier if partner could still have 13 HCP (mine could).

Playing with my regular partner (who doesn't open most balanced 11s and occasionally passes balanced 12s) I would bid 3S. Playing with a person who opens most balanced 11s I would be more inclined to Pass.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com