[Fluffy]

♠AK52
♥KQ84
♦-
♣AQ962


S - N
1♣-1♦
??

[gwnn]

1♥? isn't that 101% standard?

[Gerben42]

Well one could bid 2♥ also, you know...

[helene_t]

I would say, start with 1♥ if you're strong enough to reverse into 2♠ next round, otherwise 1♠. But many ps and opps think I'm crazy. I suppose, in this case, it depends if p can bid 1♠ naturally with a minimum over 1♥. I don't like that but it seems to be standard, at least for those who don't play Walsh.

I think this hand is a tad weak for a 2♠ in 3rd round so I voted 1♠ but I should probably just adhere to local customs and bid 1♥, which I expect to be the majority vote.

Edit: sr miscounted the HCPs, 1♥ it is.

[gwnn]

I could, if I had an ace more

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

You did not state it, so I assume no Walsh.

1H, although the hand is certainly strong
enough to force to game, i.e. 2H is an
option, but the advantage of 1H vs. 2H is,
that partner can bid 1S naturally.
1S and 2S kill the heart suit.

The problem with bidding spades followed
by hearts is, that it is not natural anymore,
it is 4th suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 19 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

The problem with bidding spades followed
by hearts is, that it is not natural anymore,
it is 4th suit.

Standard is 4th suit by opener = natural.

[BillHiggin]

1♥
In a Walsh context, some agreement is needed about this, and style may depend on your checkback methods.
My preference (which carries influence rating of around 0.01%) involves full xyz checkback and a soft definition of 1♠ here (IMP scoring only) - opener bids 1♠ with 4 when his hand is more suit oriented, but not necessarily unbalanced (values are "aces and spaces"). I prefer the jump to 2♥ to show the one bid problem hand - 5♠-4♥ and less than invite strength.

I would definitely expect a ♦ rebid by opener to deny 4♠.

Oops - misread the auction!

This post has been edited by BillHiggin: 2007-October-19, 15:19

[ArtK78]

I am bidding 2♥. This hand is strong enough to insist on game. I suspect that there are hands on which my pard might pass a 1♥ rebid and we are cold for either 4♥, 4♠ or 3NT.

There are also hands on which no game will make, as we have no fit and no tricks, but I am not catering to that possibility.

[jdonn]

1♥, what is this problem even doing here? 2♥ at least I know what the person is thinking, 1♠ I don't.

Art you really think that if partner passes 1♥ (which would be some 5-6 count) and his first response is in your void that you are missing game? I guess anything is possible but I seriously doubt it.

[skjaeran]

Obvious 1♥. With three suits you keep the bidding low as long as you can to make it easy to bid your suits naturally and find a fit.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Oct 19 2007, 10:52 AM, said:

1♥, what is this problem even doing here? 2♥ at least I know what the person is thinking, 1♠ I don't.

Art you really think that if partner passes 1♥ (which would be some 5-6 count) and his first response is in your void that you are missing game? I guess anything is possible but I seriously doubt it.

---

Do you expect your partner to take a call over a 1♥ rebid? I don't.

4♥ should be a claim.

And, if you think that hand will bid over 1♥, how about this one:

---

Yes, he might have responded 1♠ on these cards. And many would (if they don't pass the 1♣ opening). But 4S will be a claim on this hand.

Even this hand:

---

has a lot of play for 4S. And many would respond 1♦ and pass out 1♥.

There is a lot to be said for bidding only 1♥. But it has risks.

[whereagles]

1 or 2 hearts or spades are all good bids. I'll probably go the conservative way and bid 1♠, followed by 2♥ after pard's 2♦ or 1NT.

[Fluffy]

Lol, sorry for the topic title, when I post at work I am more worried about if the boss comes than what do I type.

keeping the bidding low is good, but since 2♥ later is cheaper than 2♠, it might be good.


I guess for everyone that bids 1♥ if they instead bid 1♠ then hearts that shows 4-3 in the majors.

I was thinking if it couldn't be better to switch and the 1♥ then 2♠ shows 4441 while 1♠ then 2♥ would show 5440.

From my recent experience having trouble diferentiatin the void and singleton it would had been an advantage.

[awm]

ArtK78, on Oct 19 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

---

Do you expect your partner to take a call over a 1♥ rebid? I don't.

4♥ should be a claim.

And, if you think that hand will bid over 1♥, how about this one:

---

Yes, he might have responded 1♠ on these cards. And many would (if they don't pass the 1♣ opening). But 4S will be a claim on this hand.

Even this hand:

---

has a lot of play for 4S. And many would respond 1♦ and pass out 1♥.

There is a lot to be said for bidding only 1♥. But it has risks.

Honestly it would never occur to me that I should respond to an opening bid and then pass partner's rebid at the one-level in a 4-2 fit. Really those 4-2 fits don't play very well.

So on the second and third example hands, while I might've passed 1♣, having bid over 1♣ I would definitely be bidding on over 1♥. In my usual up-the-line style it would be 1♠ next from both hands; if playing Walsh I might've bid 1♠ to begin with.

As to the first example hand, I'm not so convinced game is great here. While there are not many losers, there are also not many tricks. Diamonds can tap out the declarer hand pretty easily, and even with the club finesse on you have three spades, two clubs, and some number of hearts which is not really very likely to be five. If I played 1♥ here I think I'd be glad to have avoided playing 1♣, and would be happy to make nine tricks...

[jdonn]

1) It would be ridiculous to pass 1♥ on a doubleton. Ever. And your first example hand isn't even a good game.

2) Your examples involve partner having nothing at all in his long suit, which is always a foolish assumption to make. How much more likely that partner has KQ of diamonds and out? The answer: much.

So sorry if the examples do not exactly convince me of anything.

[ArtK78]

I suspect that nothing that I could write would ever convince you of anything.

And the reason that the bidder has nothing in his suit is that he has nothing in his hand. But game is still reasonable.

As far as passing the 1♥ rebid on a doubleton is concerned, are you really advocating taking two bids on these cards?

[Fluffy]

hehehe, this reminds me an old argument, 1/1 is forcing untill 1NT here

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Oct 19 2007, 03:02 PM, said:

I suspect that nothing that I could write would ever convince you of anything.

And the reason that the bidder has nothing in his suit is that he has nothing in his hand.  But game is still reasonable.

As far as passing the 1♥ rebid on a doubleton is concerned, are you really advocating taking two bids on these cards?

Nah, that impression only comes since agreement is generally quiet and disagreement is louder and messier. I'm sure you would be the first to admit that you often support known minority positions (as do I sometimes.) In fact (not to be all high and mighty) but I believe, despite the fact I often come across hard and am pretty blunt with what I write, that I openly admit to having my opinion changed by the opinions of the other posters more often than most/all people here.

Cards outside diamonds in your examples: AQQJJ. Cards in diamonds: JJ. The diamonds are 44% of the total cards and contain 17% of the points, which are all in the form of lonely jacks. So don't go making excuses for your unreasonable examples. Just say Mea Culpa and move on with life.

I am advocating taking either 0 or 2 bids on those cards (0 on the first example, 2 on the others.) Passing 1♥ is no option.

[han]

Clear 1♥ imo, partner may pass sometimes but we usually won't have game on those hands.