[mikeh]

I will add to the minority position: to me, this is a minimum, altho it is close.

I have aces and I have a stiff, but I only have 3 trump and I have promised more than a minimum already... by raising to 2♥. BTW, I agree with the raise because this hand is far more forward-going than would be suggested by a 2♣ call, and I could not imagine pass.

Furthermore, this is matchpoints and we rate to score quite well if we have found our 4-3 fit and it plays well. +170 will be at least average most of the time and a minus score will be very bad.

In a large field, as the posts suggest, there will be a few passouts and a few 2♣ contracts, so just reaching ♥s will get us some matchpoints.

Much tougher at imps, especially if vulnerable: then I think I'd upgrade.

[Halo]

I would have bid 2♣, because I prefer not to push on the rebid. Wouldn't object to any partner bidding 2♥.

If I have bid 2♥, I would definitely bid 3♣ now. My whole auction is forward going, and this shows my shape (as far as possible) and limitations.

[mikeh]

Halo, on May 20 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

I would have bid 2♣, because I prefer not to push on the rebid.  Wouldn't object to any partner bidding 2♥.

If I have bid 2♥, I would definitely bid 3♣ now.  My whole auction is forward going, and this shows my shape (as far as possible) and limitations.

I suspect that 3♣ is not available as a natural bid. The OP suggested your choice was to show a min or a max 3 card raise, via 3♣ or 3♦.

This suggests the use of a common, simple but effective relay system over 1x 1Major 2Major sequence: 3♣ = min with 3 trump, 3♦ max with 3 trump, 3♥ min with 4 trump, 3♠ max with 4 trump, higher bids show specific maximums (ie 4 new suit = splinter, 3N = max with 4333, 4 card trump)

If 3♣ were available to show this hand-type, then it would be attractive since it would represent a middle-ground between min and max acceptance of ♥s, and might allow us to play a 6-3 ♣ fit rather than a 4-3 ♥ fit, but it is not available.

BTW, if you had rebid 2♣, the odds are exceptionally high that partner will NOT bid ♥s again: he almost certainly lacks 6 of them, and he will be very, very leery of bidding a 5 card suit after you show an unbalanced hand with long ♣s and moderate values: this is why the ♥ raise seems so strongly indicated.

Further BTW, to the posters who opt to show a max: construct hands where game is good opposite a non-opening with 5♥ that was not strong enough to bid game over the (mildly encouraging) immediate raise. I tried, not for a long time, but found that there were more hands on which we got too high if I showed a max than hands on which we missed a good game by showing a min.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on May 20 2007, 01:03 PM, said:

I will add to the minority position: to me, this is a minimum, altho it is close.

I have aces and I have a stiff, but I only have 3 trump and I have promised more than a minimum already... by raising to 2♥.

I don't understand why you bring "only 3 trumps" into play - my assumption is that our reply will tell "3 trumps min" or "3 trumps max" so we don't need to downgrade for having 3 trumps only, partner will know that.

[gwnn]

xx
AJxxx
JTx
Kxx

?

[mikeh]

gwnn, on May 21 2007, 12:12 AM, said:

xx
AJxxx
JTx
Kxx

?

The opps hold 10 great ♠s and outside values and pass throughout? Where do you (or I) find these suckers?

[gwnn]

OK so he doesn't hold xx but Tx in spades

But seriously, here's one with spade wastage:

Qxx
KJxxx
Kxx
xx

Shouldn't lose more than 1, 1, 0, 1. Shouldn't just bid game with a random 12 count opposite.

[jdonn]

Kxxx AJTxx JTx x? I didn't need to give him both red tens, but then again I didn't need to give him the king of my singleton as opposed to the ace and a mere 9 count either. In any case, I'll take my chances. Qxx KJTxx Kxx Qx is also not unreasonable. I don't claim that there are certainly more such hands than hands that would bid game and go down, but I feel it's probably true that if partner bids game it will be at worst decent. I will let partner bring his spectacular judgement into play.

[Fluffy]

Hannie, on May 19 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

I agree with those that say that this is a clear max.

I agree with those that say that raising with 3 cards is ridicoulous.

Doh!, didn't find anyone

[pclayton]

My last word on this is I don't think there's a lot of utility in over-defining actions by the 4th hand or 3rd hand. Take 1♥ - 1N - 2♥. I think you can get wrapped in thinking, "hmm, he didn't PASS originally, and he didn't open a WEAK 2 in 4th, so he *must* have exactly a 14-15 count"... I suppose, but have you discussed this with your pard?

My pard and I have decided that 3♣ is a min (i.e., 7 losers) and 3♦ is a max (6), no matter what the position. This hand would qualify as a max, but pard should evaluate on that basis and not get wrapped up the subtleties of opener being a 3rd or 4th chair opener. Does this mean that we wouldn't bid 3♣ as often? Sure, but its just not worth the bandwidth to differentiate this much.

If I recall, it was a very lucky game. He held JTx of spades, so there wasn't a lot of duplication, and we made 170 at MPs. Along with the rest of the field. We still won

We did decide that since 1x - 1y - 2y - 3z is a slam try by an unpassed hand, that it becomes a natural game try, but specifically denying 5 of the major.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on May 20 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

I have aces and I have a stiff, but I only have 3 trump and I have promised more than a minimum already... by raising to 2♥.

Huh.

I don't see how raising to 2♥ shows a non-minimum. Passing 1♥ looks to be a 0. The opponents have an easy balance, and I see no reason why they'd fail to make 2♠. Any hand not strong enough to raise to 2♥ should pass it out and go on to the next board.

Just my humble opinion, as always.

[helene_t]

I would not have opened this hand although I would have considered 3♣. As it is, I think it's a minimum since with a real minimum I would have passed 1♥. Now partner will expect my singleton to be in diamonds since I wouldn't have opened in 4th seat with a minimum and a singleton spades. This will may partner too optimistic since he doesn't realize that the spade values he must have are vasted. In other words, it probably doesn't matter what message I send, but at least partner can pass 3♣ if he wants.

[pclayton]

jtfanclub, on May 21 2007, 05:08 AM, said:

mikeh, on May 20 2007, 02:03 PM, said:

I have aces and I have a stiff, but I only have 3 trump and I have promised more than a minimum already... by raising to 2♥.

Huh.

I don't see how raising to 2♥ shows a non-minimum. Passing 1♥ looks to be a 0. The opponents have an easy balance, and I see no reason why they'd fail to make 2♠. Any hand not strong enough to raise to 2♥ should pass it out and go on to the next board.

Just my humble opinion, as always.

I disagree.

Pard could have tossed the deal in for no score. Why should we have to preempt two passed opponents (that sounds familiar)? Perhaps 1♥ is our best spot.

Would you be mad at pard for passing 1♥ with a hand like: AQxx, Qxx, Qxxxx, x? Maybe pard has already won the board by opening this.

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on May 21 2007, 08:26 AM, said:

Would you be mad at pard for passing 1♥ with a hand like: AQxx, Qxx, Qxxxx, x? Maybe pard has already won the board by opening this.

I didn't mean to say that partner should never pass 1♥. I meant to say that 2♥ doesn't show a stronger hand than passing. I wouldn't be mad at partner for opening that crud and then backing off, but I would expect a worse result than if he'd passed.

Quote

Why should we have to preempt two passed opponents (that sounds familiar)?

Ummmm...at the one level? At MPs? Surely at some point it's worth balancing for the opponents.

Edited to add: I agree that partner could have dumped it for no score, so he has more than the minimum to open it 3rd hand.