[pclayton]

Here's another from Friday I forgot about.

Pard opens 1♥ and you look at ♠AQx ♥Qxx ♦Kxxx ♣Txx. You decide to treat this a 3 card limit raise so you start with 1N. Pard bids 2♣ - at the time this was undiscussed, but later we decided it was going to show 2+.

Now RHO enters the fray with a double. This really should be takeout, but the table action tells you he has clubs.

Still want to call this a limit raise?

[cherdano]

Yes, I do. Maybe he can't lead them. Showing this as the playing strength of a 5-7 raise is just too much of an underbid.

[helene_t]

Why not pass? If it's intended as t/o and his partner thinks it shows clubs, 2♣X is probably fine.

[Apollo81]

no other call comes close to describing this

[inquiry]

If the choice is between 2♥ and 3♥, 2♥ is such a monumental underbid, I can't see how you would possible consider it for even a fraction of a second.

Perhaps you should have treated your 3343 11 count as a sound constructive raise (subtract one for distribution) and bid 2♥ at first. I use that drury-like convention that I use where 2♣ can be drury or GF and thus would have bid 2♣ over 1♥ and got this hand off my chest with the first bid.

Of course a first/second seat opening bid will always be "real", so the drury like convention just allows you partner to reject the limit raise with three card support at the 2 level, rather than the three level.

[pclayton]

Well, right or wrong, I devalued this. I can't remember exactly what pard held; a 3=5=2=3 13 count with ♥AT9xx and the ♣Axx. 2♥ made exactly on the nose.

Pard, with newfound partnership confidence about using 'judgment' passed a double negative 2♥ with ♠AKxx, ♥AQJxx, ♦KJx, ♣A. Right? WRONG. I held: ♠x, ♥Txx, ♦QT9xx, ♣xxxx. Making only 4, since they found a ♦ ruff, and I attribute this to my super-conservative 2♥ LOL.

[mike777]

Any thought to just using 2H over strong 2c as denying an ace or king but unlimited small points. Sure if you got zero and zero it maybe a problem but then often the opp may overcall and save you.

[jdonn]

Wouldn't 2♥ now instead of 3♥ show the AQ of spades less?

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Mar 5 2007, 11:26 AM, said:

Well, right or wrong, I devalued this. I can't remember exactly what pard held; a 3=5=2=3 13 count with ♥AT9xx and the ♣Axx. 2♥ made exactly on the nose.

Pard, with newfound partnership confidence about using 'judgment' passed a double negative 2♥ with ♠AKxx, ♥AQJxx, ♦KJx, ♣A. Right? WRONG. I held: ♠x, ♥Txx, ♦QT9xx, ♣xxxx. Making only 4, since they found a ♦ ruff, and I attribute this to my super-conservative 2♥ LOL.

jdonn (and I earlier), raised a good point about how huge an underbid 2♥ here, after starting with a forcing 1NT. But what if RHO had not come in and doubled 2♣, would you still have underbid? Of course not, and 3♥ is still down one.

This is where the "Barry Crane-esque" 2♣ as either constructive or limit hand wit raise (I use as 3 card limit raise), or true 2/1 GF comes into play. You stay as low as possible when partner would not bid game opposite a 3-card limit raise. This is a modest plus (avoiding hands like this one). On the plus side, if the bidding goes:

1S-P-2C-P
2S-P-P-?

The 2C bidder can have any of the following hands,
Constructive 3 card raise
Iniviatonal 3 card raise
Balanced good 10-12, no fit (well, 2 card fit).

Opener would not accept game raise. If the opponents balance, it could be very right (you have 3 card support, 8 hcp), or very wrong (you have 2 card fit, and baddish 12 hcp). So the gains on their balancing can be nice too. And if necessary, you can take the push to three of the major.