[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

1♥ (P) 1♠ (P)
?

---

Do you agree with 1♥, what is your bid now?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would have opened 4H, but mainly
because I would be done with the hand
as fast as possible, so 1H is fine and may
well be the better bid.

The 1S response did not improve your hand,
so I guess 2H is best ... but I would not like it,
and I think I would bid 4H.
But 4H now is to a certain degree inconsistent
with the 1H opener. As I said, man main aim
would, zto be done with the hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

Yes, 1♥ is fine, too strong for 4♥ IMHO. Maybe 2♥ followed by 4♥ over p's 3NT would show a hand like this one. Not sure. My first reaction was 3♥.

[gwnn]

i would no doubt open 4♥, but that may be weirdo behavior

[ralph23]

1. Yes, 1♥. Preempting with two Aces is almost always wrong, as you promise partner you have zero or one defensive tricks when you preempt at a high level.

2. 2♥ by process of elimination. I would like "4♥, with that call barring partner from further action" but that's not possible!!

[keylime]

I vote for 2♥, but if pard's passed hand I might take a shot at 4♥ direct initially.

[neilkaz]

This is a tough call.

But if PD has xxxxx,Kx,KQx,xxx we have can claim a slam unless trumps are 3-0 and yet PD is likely to pass after 1♥-1♠-2♥ and in a 299er I am not going to rely on the opps balancing and trying for 3m. I can construct so many hands where game is ice cold but PD passes a 2♥ rebid. Therefore, if opening 1♥ I am jump rebidding 3♥ with all this offence.

This hand looks like a preempt but if I open 4♥ I am missing too many slams if PD fit's ♦ and with two aces (they so often cash) what do I do over the opp's 4♠ if PD doesn't whack it ? 5♥ could be correct and could even make 6 on hands where 4♠ is cold for them.

OK 1♥ and rebid 3♥ for me ... neilkaz ...

[Stephen Tu]

I rebid 4♥, hope I make it. I thought this hand is fairly std for 4♥, a kind of freakish opener that one felt unsuited for opening 4♥ to begin with. Near 2♣ openers with more high cards would fake a jump shift before bidding 4♥. It seems bad to rebid 2♥ with so much extra playing strength, and 3♥ should be more high cards less shape.

[jillybean]

Obviously with zero votes this is wrong, noone introduces the ♦'s?

I did, thinking 1♥:1♠ 2♦ was more encouraging than 2♥.

[ralph23]

jillybean2, on Oct 15 2007, 11:55 AM, said:

Obviously with zero votes this is wrong, noone introduces the ♦'s?

I did, thinking 1♥:1♠ 2♦ was more encouraging than 2♥.

What's the old joke:

Q. What do you call an 8-card suit?
A. Trumps.

[jillybean]

ralph23, on Oct 15 2007, 09:07 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Oct 15 2007, 11:55 AM, said:

Obviously with zero votes this is wrong,  noone introduces the ♦'s?

I did, thinking 1♥:1♠ 2♦ was more encouraging than 2♥.

What's the old joke:

Q. What do you call an 8-card suit?
A. Trumps.

piss off

[ralph23]

jillybean2, on Oct 15 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

ralph23, on Oct 15 2007, 09:07 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Oct 15 2007, 11:55 AM, said:

Obviously with zero votes this is wrong,  noone introduces the ♦'s?

I did, thinking 1♥:1♠ 2♦ was more encouraging than 2♥.

What's the old joke:

Q. What do you call an 8-card suit?
A. Trumps.

piss off

My my, testy aren't we ???!!! lol.

[jdonn]

Stephen Tu, on Oct 15 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

I rebid 4♥, hope I make it. I thought this hand is fairly std for 4♥, a kind of freakish opener that one felt unsuited for opening 4♥ to begin with. Near 2♣ openers with more high cards would fake a jump shift before bidding 4♥. It seems bad to rebid 2♥ with so much extra playing strength, and 3♥ should be more high cards less shape.

I agree with this post.

[neilkaz]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2007, 12:31 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Oct 15 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

I rebid 4♥, hope I make it.  I thought this hand is fairly std for 4♥, a kind of freakish opener that one felt unsuited for opening 4♥ to begin with.  Near 2♣ openers with more high cards would fake a jump shift before bidding 4♥.  It seems bad to rebid 2♥ with so much extra playing strength, and 3♥ should be more high cards less shape.

I agree with this post.

This is a different approach and if you play the style where you can invent a jump shift with this hand to force to game, then it is a good way to handle this hand, but if you play
what I believe is "standard" then PD will think that you have something just short of a strong 2♣ bid in ♥.

.. neilkaz ..

[neilkaz]

jillybean2, on Oct 15 2007, 10:55 AM, said:

Obviously with zero votes this is wrong, noone introduces the ♦'s?

I did, thinking 1♥:1♠ 2♦ was more encouraging than 2♥.

OK so what happened after 2♦ ? You should be able to get to 4♥ unless PD passed, and on a real good day he fits ♦ and has a bit of help in ♥ and you get your slam.

.. neilkaz ..fearing that you were passed out

[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

1♥:1♠
3♦ (ap)

---

This was the actual auction

[cherdano]

Kathryn, 3♦ is bad, you are showing a very strong hand when in fact you have a very light distributional opener. Opposite this partner it may not have mattered , but usually partner will put you in slam way too often after 3♦.

I would rebid 4♥. If you want to rebid diamonds, you can bid 2♦, but with 8-4 I would not mention the side suit.

[jillybean]

And if you want to know why I didn’t post the 3♦ bid originally, Im sick and tired of the smart ass, sarcastic comments that get posted on here and I thought 2♦ may get less criticism. Unless you happen to be close to one of the geniuses who get the bid right 100% of the time, posting bad bidding, play is not much fun.

Not suprising we dont see more B/I's posting bad hands in here or maybe its just me making these bids

[vuroth]

Definitely not just you making these bids, jb.

I had a 6-4 last night, and opted to rebid the 4, and got criticized after the hand. Weak two-suiters always seem (to me) to be a bit of guesswork, because you can't truly bid your shape without overbidding.

V