[han]

Open your mind Art.

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 10:00 AM, said:

I do not know the experience levels of the other posters.

Not sure what "experience levels" is, but there are two world class bridge players who posted in this thread, and others of expert level.

Quote

To me, the 3♥ rebid by the opening 1NT bidder is an absolute signoff.  2NT says that responder has an invitational hand with 5 hearts.  Opener has two obligations:

1)  Bid game with a hand worthy of a game bid - either in hearts or notrump.
2)  Pass or 3♥ otherwise, depending on how many hearts opener holds.

I have been playing for over 30 years at all levels up to North American Championships, and I have served on many committees.  If this auction occurred and there was a complaint about it, and it came before a committee on which I was serving, I would have to be 100% convinced that there was no action at the table outside of the bidding which could have caused the game bid.

The responder is entitled to do whatever he likes.  But the 4♥ bid over a preference to 3♥ by opener is a breach of partnership discipline.  It is not systemic, it is not expected.  If there is ANY indication of anything occurring at the table which could have influenced the 4♥ bid by responder, it will be thrown out.

I find it amazing that so many posters seem to think that 4♥ by responder over opener's preference to 3♥ is an option.

It is just bridge that there are some invitational hands with distribution that are worth an invite if partner has 2 hearts, but worth a game force if partner has 3-card support. If you haven't come across this in 30 years of playing at all levels, then I am sorry, but you must have missed it many times, it is not a frequent sequence but not a very uncommon one either.

[ArtK78]

With all due respect to the panel, I believe that you will have a lot of explaining to do if you raise 3♥ to 4♥.

It is very basic bridge that a transfer to 2 of a major followed by 2NT requests opener to assess the game prospects of the hand. For responder to make that request and then overrule partner when the answer is no game but a preference to 3♥ is illogical. It is, at best, a shot.

If you want to argue that responder's hand is only worth an invite if there is no heart fit but is worth a game bid if there is a heart fit, fine. You can make your argument. I don't think it will fly. This is especially true if the partnership plays preacceptances, and there was no preacceptance on this auction.

[hatchett]

lol

[skjaeran]

Clear 4♥ IMO. I'd never consider 3♥, and 3NT with slow tricks only is not an issue for me.

[pclayton]

Art; there's plenty of situations where you can legitimately upgrade once you discover there's a fit. Here's how the conversation would go here:

Opener: "I have a balanced 15-17"

Responder: "I have at least 5 hearts"

Opener: "Ok (super accepts may or may not apply)"

Responder: "I have 5 only hearts but I have a great 7 to a bad 9 count. I may or may not have a balanced hand"

Opener: "I have a heart fit you didn't previously know about but I am on the lower half of my 1N opening"

Responder (4♥): "That's all I needed to know. TYP".

[drinbrasil]

pclayton, on Sep 25 2007, 05:33 PM, said:

Art; there's plenty of situations where you can legitimately upgrade once you discover there's a fit. Here's how the conversation would go here:

Opener: "I have a balanced 15-17"

Responder: "I have at least 5 hearts"

Opener: "Ok (super accepts may or may not apply)"

Responder: "I have 5 only hearts but I have a great 7 to a bad 9 count. I may or may not have a balanced hand"

Opener: "I have a heart fit you didn't previously know about but I am on the lower half of my 1N opening"

Responder (4♥): "That's all I needed to know. TYP".

looks very nice on paper, all who like bid 4H over 3H can please show some hands where you did it? (remember, hands you have invitional values and 5 hearts, with 6+ the invite is in 3H).
We can make then some random tests and see how effective this bids are...

I play bridge few time (7 years), but at good level (2-3 years), and i never saw one good player bid 4H over 3H in this auction (my club has 6 world champions and i play often against...), but i am open mind and want learn from posters.

[ArtK78]

Enough arguing in the abstract.

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

[skjaeran]

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 08:07 PM, said:

Enough arguing in the abstract.

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

[pclayton]

skaeran, on Sep 25 2007, 10:33 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 08:07 PM, said:

Enough arguing in the abstract.

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

I agree. Some prime 5422's might qualify too. Opposite the OP's hand I'm thinking about something like: xx Axxxx, Axxx, xx for instance.

[drinbrasil]

skaeran, on Sep 25 2007, 06:33 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 08:07 PM, said:

Enough arguing in the abstract.

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

How many times you did and saw this bidding with sucess/no sucess?
So with KJxxx Q10xxx xx x you big game always, right? You never invite.
Knowing partner minimum, whats expected number of games made you can estimate here?

[bid_em_up]

x AJxxx QJxx xxx would be a good choice.

Kxxx AJxxx x xxx (although one could argue this hand would start with stayman first) could be another.

xx Axxxx AJx xxx You might have bid 3N initially, but chose to only invite because it is likely dependent on a heart fit or partner being max if 3N/4H is going to make. Now that you have determined a heart fit is available, the hand certainly warrants being in game.

I'm sure there are others.

[ArtK78]

pclayton, on Sep 25 2007, 01:55 PM, said:

skaeran, on Sep 25 2007, 10:33 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 08:07 PM, said:

Enough arguing in the abstract.

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

I agree. Some prime 5422's might qualify too. Opposite the OP's hand I'm thinking about something like: xx Axxxx, Axxx, xx for instance.

I trust that you will at least agree that bidding game opposite a simple preference to hearts is no more than a shot. You cannot say that you are bidding game in confidence on this hand, or the two other example hands that you presented in a later posting.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

If you want to argue that responder's hand is only worth an invite if there is no heart fit but is worth a game bid if there is a heart fit, fine. You can make your argument. I don't think it will fly.

Art I don't know where you are getting this from. Why would it be so hard to believe that a hand could become more valuable after a fit is located? Pretty much responder will pass 3♥ if he is 5332, and with almost any other shape will tend to bid 4♥ (unless his short suits contain honors.) It is just about 100% responder will bid on to 4 with a singleton, which is very common since you don't have that many options in standard bidding for invitational hands.

You could make a much better case that 4♥ is more common than pass on this auction than you could that 4♥ is impossible. I think, with all due respect, that this is simply a hole in your knowledge that is far below what your skill level is otherwise.

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 10:39 PM, said:

I trust that you will at least agree that bidding game opposite a simple preference to hearts is no more than a shot. You cannot say that you are bidding game in confidence on this hand, or the two other example hands that you presented in a later posting.

If you only bid games when you are completely confident that they will make then you aren't bidding nearly enough games.

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 25 2007, 01:55 PM, said:

skaeran, on Sep 25 2007, 10:33 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Sep 25 2007, 08:07 PM, said:

Enough arguing in the abstract.

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

I agree. Some prime 5422's might qualify too. Opposite the OP's hand I'm thinking about something like: xx Axxxx, Axxx, xx for instance.

I trust that you will at least agree that bidding game opposite a simple preference to hearts is no more than a shot. You cannot say that you are bidding game in confidence on this hand, or the two other example hands that you presented in a later posting.

So what? Passing 3♥ with a fit, a shapely hand and two aces is just a shot, you cannot say you are passing 3♥ with confidence. You can never know what is the right bid in close decision, but you have to make a bet, and if you give me x KJxxx KJ9xx xx then I would put a lot of money on 4♥ being the right bet.

[mikeh]

I cannot recall the precise hands on which I have raised a 3-level major preference to 4major, since it is a relatively uncommon sequence, and especially in recent years, I often play 2 way stayman rather than transfers, so I have even less occasion to have this auction than most.

However, there are some factors that are often present:

1. We have a thin trump suit... say Axxxx is typical, where knowledge of a 3+ fit is critical. Axxxx opposite Kx will usually lose 2 tricks. Axxxx opposite Kxx will usually lose 2 tricks... this is a full trick swing in playing expectation (I know, the percentages don't translate precisely) with no change in high card strength. Similar factors apply to virtually all 3 card holdings you can give opener. The presence of the extra card(s) has to work out to be worth more than a full trick on average: Axxxx opposite Jx or Axxxx opposite Jxxx... I'd expect 3 losers on the 1st layout and have an excellent play for only 1 on the second. A109xx opposite Jx or Jxx... which do you prefer? and so on.

2. We have a side suit. In standard methods, responder cannot show the side suit without creating a force. Once opener shows a genuine fit for the major, we are more likely to be able to control our side shortness without getting tapped; we may well have a double-fit (altho we have to guess at this); and when we lack a double fit, we have the prospect of scoring a ruff in partner's hand.

My impression, which may be faulty, is that I don't think I have raised a 3 level preference to game on any 5332 hand.

I am frankly astounded that any serious player would take issue with this approach. I admit I have never actually discussed it with anyone, but that is because it is so obvious that I think I'd just assume that an expert partner would know this.

As for the notion that we must be (almost) sure of game when we raise the preference: that might be nice but it doesn't resemble winning imp bridge imo.

[drinbrasil]

To be sincere, this sequence (1nt-2d;2h-2nt;3h-4h) is very very very unusual, i really cant remember good players doing this. But from what posters says are hands in wich you need double fit with partner and almsot all cant handle with 4-1 trumphs, so you is a bad shot. You must have some fit for your lateral suit or will not win the game.
Can be bid? of course, its your right.
When you invite partner and hi has 3 cards and he says NO, i want play only 3H, he probabily has his own reasons. If i bid 4 and go down my partner will not like...

[hrothgar]

Where is Ben when you need him?

This is one of those occasions where BRBR would really come in handy...