[pclayton]

Echognome, on Sep 19 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

One thing I noted at the time is that partner's 3♥ must be a fairly good heart suit. He knows we do not have 5♥ (by our failure to bid 2♥ the first time around). So we are going to be contracting for hearts in a Moysian (we know he doesn't have 4♥ or would have bid hearts after the double). Given advancer's failure to raise, this seems a fairly dangerous proposition. The other question is what hands will partner bid 3♥ on versus simply rebidding clubs? Will he always bid 3♥ while holding 3 himself?

I also think pard should have extras for 3♥. With the likely xx, xxx, xxxx in spades, we will need some extra values to make 4♥.

I also doubt 3♥ is simply a suggestion to play.

[mike777]

1) 3clubs if we are opening light( I assume my response shows 12-13 and is not forcing.)
2) 2s and then 3s if we open sound. (game forcing somewhere)

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Sep 19 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

One thing I noted at the time is that partner's 3♥ must be a fairly good heart suit. He knows we do not have 5♥ (by our failure to bid 2♥ the first time around). So we are going to be contracting for hearts in a Moysian (we know he doesn't have 4♥ or would have bid hearts after the double). Given advancer's failure to raise, this seems a fairly dangerous proposition. The other question is what hands will partner bid 3♥ on versus simply rebidding clubs? Will he always bid 3♥ while holding 3 himself?

I don't see why this should be true. If partner has two spades and has to ruff with his three trumps, it matters a lot how good OUR trumps are, not so much how good his trumps are. Of course his trumps shouldn't be very bad but I think KTx would be enough.

I also don't understand why 3♥ should show extras, isn't 2♠ a quasi-GF? (Of course responder can pass any time as opener is limited, but I think it is most practical for opener to assume 2♠ is GF and just searching for the best strain.)

With the actual hand, I find it very tempting to pass 3♥. In 4♥, we may have 2 spade losers and two trump loser, and we might also get forced out all the club length tricks.

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Sep 19 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

Echognome, on Sep 19 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

One thing I noted at the time is that partner's 3♥ must be a fairly good heart suit.  He knows we do not have 5♥ (by our failure to bid 2♥ the first time around).  So we are going to be contracting for hearts in a Moysian (we know he doesn't have 4♥ or would have bid hearts after the double).  Given advancer's failure to raise, this seems a fairly dangerous proposition.  The other question is what hands will partner bid 3♥ on versus simply rebidding clubs?  Will he always bid 3♥ while holding 3 himself?

I don't see why this should be true. If partner has two spades and has to ruff with his three trumps, it matters a lot how good OUR trumps are, not so much how good his trumps are. Of course his trumps shouldn't be very bad but I think KTx would be enough.

I also don't understand why 3♥ should show extras, isn't 2♠ a quasi-GF? (Of course responder can pass any time as opener is limited, but I think it is most practical for opener to assume 2♠ is GF and just searching for the best strain.)

With the actual hand, I find it very tempting to pass 3♥. In 4♥, we may have 2 spade losers and two trump loser, and we might also get forced out all the club length tricks.

I don't think this answers the question at all. The question is, when should opener bid 3♥? What trumps do you expect from him? Isn't this concerning regardless given that our own ♥ are not very solid? If we need good ♥ opposite, they won't do us a whole lot of good ruffing (as you say). So is it the case that *any* hand with 3♥ should be bidding them? If not, why not? Note that opener has already limited his hand with 2♣.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by quasi-GF. Is that like semi-pregnant?

[cherdano]

Echo, I answered pretty much every question already in the post you quoted. Assuming he has a doubleton or singleton spade (otherwise he should hardly ever bid 3♥) I think K9x is enough (he shouldn't do it with xxx as the chance that our combined trump holding is too bad is just too big).

Yes I agree our bad trumps are a concern no matter what his trumps are, that's why I am not bidding 4♥.

I also explained precisely what I meant by quasi-GF.

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Sep 19 2007, 01:05 PM, said:

Echo, I answered pretty much every question already in the post you quoted. Assuming he has a doubleton or singleton spade (otherwise he should hardly ever bid 3♥) I think K9x is enough (he shouldn't do it with xxx as the chance that our combined trump holding is too bad is just too big).

Yes I agree our bad trumps are a concern no matter what his trumps are, that's why I am not bidding 4♥.

I also explained precisely what I meant by quasi-GF.

I asked because I didn't think it was clear. You said it didn't matter how good HIS trumps were, but rather how good OUR trumps were and then said they should be as good as KTx. But fine.

I would also personally call your definition of quasi-GF: F1R. But fine.

[sathyab]

pclayton, on Sep 19 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 19 2007, 10:20 AM, said:

Unlikely that partner's clubs are as good as AKQxxx. With that kind of a suit and a good hand, he should probably be trying to get to 3nt himself instead of bidding 2c.

What is wrong with a 2♣ rebid on these cards? All partner knows at this point is we have 4+ hearts and 6-7 points.

Quote

Over 2s, he'd have bid 2nt holding a full stopper. So I'm ruling out a hand with solid clubs and no stopper, as also a hand with good clubs and a full stopper.

After the 2♠ cue, we are certainly encouraged, but there isn't any reason to go nuts since we are in a forcing auction.

Ok, 2c the first time around with AKQxxx and a good 14 HCP is fine. But why would you be bidding 3h with that hand instead of 3s over partner's 2s? 3s definitely suggests very good clubs, not sure whether it's asking for a full stopper or a half stopper. If partner was not interested in NT at all then he must be prepared to play in 4c knowing my 2c rebid denied 4 hearts. The 2s bid by partner is either looking for NT or to play in clubs, I don't think partner is bidding this way with interest in playing hearts. What was he going to do if you merely rebid 3c or bid 2nt when you were dealt fewer than three hearts.

[han]

I agree with most of what Arend said with regards to opener's 3H bid. Generally it is the 4-card suit that determines whether a 4-3 fit is desirable. Here opener knows very little about our hand and is just describing his. 3H is not a suggestion to play in a Moysian, it is just showing the 3-card support, probably with an honor there.

With the risk of ruining the thread for those who haven't answered yet:

Partner had ♠xx ♥KJx ♦xx ♣AKJxxx. It seems to me that 3♥ is the most descriptive call, more descriptive than 3C (but that call has the advantage that it allows us play 3C).

I decided to pass, not sure if that was right. The heart hook was off but the club queen was onside and partner scored 140 for a push. The other table made 150 in 3C+2, I didn't look at their auction.

[pclayton]

Hannie, on Sep 19 2007, 02:21 PM, said:

I agree with most of what Arend said with regards to opener's 3H bid. Generally it is the 4-card suit that determines whether a 4-3 fit is desirable. Here opener knows very little about our hand and is just describing his. 3H is not a suggestion to play in a Moysian, it is just showing the 3-card support, probably with an honor there.

With the risk of ruining the thread for those who haven't answered yet:

Partner had ♠xx ♥KJx ♦xx ♣AKJxxx. It seems to me that 3♥ is the most descriptive call, more descriptive than 3C (but that call has the advantage that it allows us play 3C).

I decided to pass, not sure if that was right. The heart hook was off but the club queen was onside and partner scored 140 for a push. The other table made 150 in 3C+2, I didn't look at their auction.

3♥ should have been beaten, but wasn't. Its a reasonable contract, but if you had your druthers, you'd rather be in a club partial, not a heart partial.

[han]

pclayton, on Sep 19 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

3♥ should have been beaten, but wasn't.

I agree it could have been beaten, and I agree 3C is a much more comfortable spot.

[sathyab]

Hannie, on Sep 19 2007, 05:21 PM, said:

I agree with most of what Arend said with regards to opener's 3H bid. Generally it is the 4-card suit that determines whether a 4-3 fit is desirable. Here opener knows very little about our hand and is just describing his. 3H is not a suggestion to play in a Moysian, it is just showing the 3-card support, probably with an honor there.

With the risk of ruining the thread for those who haven't answered yet:

Partner had ♠xx ♥KJx ♦xx ♣AKJxxx. It seems to me that 3♥ is the most descriptive call, more descriptive than 3C (but that call has the advantage that it allows us play 3C).

I decided to pass, not sure if that was right. The heart hook was off but the club queen was onside and partner scored 140 for a push. The other table made 150 in 3C+2, I didn't look at their auction.

How is 3h the most descriptive call unless you were playing a cue-bid of opponents suit at the 2-level as GF ? It has the potential to take you beyond a comfortable level in clubs. When partner has only two clubs, he'll pass out of fear of pushing to the 4-level on a 5-2 fit, not because 3h is the best spot.

The fundamental problem here is that the opener needs an escape route when asked to bid again. There has to be an agreement about what to do with a non-descript 5-3-3-2 hand that he has already bid. Bidding 3h now could quite reasonably deny a six-bagger in clubs.

I think the solution is to put the idle bid of 3d, which has no natural meaning, to better use. You now have 3c, 3d and 3h all available to bid hands that lack a spade stopper. One agreement might be to play 3c to just show 5 clubs, no 3 hearts, so a 3=2=3=5 hand or a sub-minimum if it does include a six-bagger, 3d to show a six-bagger without 3 hearts and 3h to show a six-bagger with 3 hearts.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Sep 19 2007, 05:21 PM, said:

The other table made 150 in 3C+2, I didn't look at their auction.

I held the problem hand at the other table.

1♣ 1♠ X 2♠
P P X P
3♣ PPP

Game seemed a long way off opposite partner's bidding even on the 12 count with AK A, and 4♣ was not at all safe looking.

[matmat]

pclayton, on Sep 19 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

3♥ should have been beaten, but wasn't. Its a reasonable contract, but if you had your druthers, you'd rather be in a club partial, not a heart partial.

see phil... it should not have been beaten, but then declarer misplayed it to give defence a chance and then defence allowed declarer to make.

[Joe de Balliol]

2♠, then 4♥.