[Echognome]

3♦. Maybe I'm missing something because it seems clear.

[pclayton]

Coming from someone that sometimes makes big views, I'm guessing the 4♥ card hit the table next.

[kenrexford]

I think I might have XX'ed the first time. Now, I'm somewhat stuck. 3♦ works.

[cherdano]

I thought 3♦ was clear. Then I generated 30 hands with simplistic constraints (partner 10-15 hcp with >=6 hearts and <=3 spades, RHO 10+ with short heart of 12+ with doubleton heart, at least 3 in each unbid suit, no 5 spades, etc.), of which 9-11 matched the bidding (in my judgment). Of those 4 were a make, 4-6 down, and one too tough for me to decide.

Obviously it depends a lot on how light partner would open, I kicked out several aceless 10 counts (where game would have been down), and the 0-2 that were down were borderline openers. The above constraints give partner an average of 11 hcp.

[Trinidad]

I would normally bid 3♦, but my first alternative (at MP's!) is to pass, not to bid a lot of hearts.

So if I would want to take a view, I would pass, expecting to score +140 , +110 or +170 , with a possibility of +200 , +500 or +800 . I would expect the field to score -100 (200) , +600 , +620 . It would be a reasonable view to take if you want to go against the field.

Rik

[skjaeran]

You seem to suggest passing.
That would be a big view - how big depens on what is a minimum hand for partner here. Playing very constructive weak twos (8-11) passing would be a really big view for me, one I'd not be comfortable with. And it does happen that I take the low road.

Playing a less constructive wk2 passing would be an option.

[skjaeran]

I'd have redoubled initially, and probaply had less problems later (not always).

With my IRL partners I'd get to game here (playing 8-11 weak twos). But I'm not sure how. 3♦ might preempt 3NT when that is our best game and 4♥ is unilateral. 3♦ is most flexible. I'd rebid 4♥ over both 3♥ and 4♦. Partner should have a good chance at making the right decision ofter the latter development. This in practise gives up on 3NT, but you can't have it all.

With other players I might possibly just make an invite by raising 2♥ to 3.

[kenrexford]

That's why not redoubling disturbs me. If partner has his typical ugly opening, we don't even have enough HCP to suggest game, abd I have to make up a rebid now.

Much better to redouble, IMO.

[pclayton]

Unbiased:

xx, KQxxxx, Kxx, Kx - The problems in 4♥ are evident.

xx, KQxxxx, Kxx, Ax - I think I want to play 4♥ here.

x, KJxxxx, Kxx, Axx - 4♥ is crappy

x, KJxxxx, Kxx, AQx - 4♥ is touch and go - 3N could be a little better.


Are you suggesting the hand is only worth 3♥......?

[mikeh]

This is largely a style question, and unless one knows partners' opening bid style, one can't really answer it. If he's open 1♥ with an aceless 11 count, then 3♥ is enough. I don't like that style... I have no issues with 11 counts, it is the aceless aspect I don't like

This is mps, where, if partner has a geniune opening bid, the field will be in game, and 3N seems an awful long way away. I am going to assume partner plays the cards at least as well as the average player in the field, and there may be tables where there was no double, if rho was light.

So I am going to bid game, because not doing so with 13 real, including 5 controls, is too big a position to take. So it goes down.. I'm still getting some mps, while if it makes, and I didn't get there, I ain't getting many at all (I'd expect to beat only the pairs in 3N, and maybe not even them). 4♥ for me. If LHO doubles on J10987, too bad.

[ArtK78]

I hear what everyone is saying, but I am still going to bid what is in front of me.

3♦.

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Oct 28 2007, 05:58 AM, said:

Ok to generate some discussion, does the takeout X scare anyone (mainly regarding hearts and spade splits)? A 6-1 heart fit is not very appealing with marginal values and a bad split, and where are your tricks in 3N? Try constructing some (unbiased) minimum hands for partner and seeing where you'd like to play

This makes sense. But there's no way I'm going to miss a vulnerable game.

3♦.

[mike777]

Jlall, on Oct 27 2007, 10:57 PM, said:

KQxxx A Axxx xxx.

red/red MP

1H X 1S p 2H p ?

hmm just seems so much on what partner opens on...if junk then I bid 2nt....

If very sound then I bid 3nt.

wish I started with xx on this one.

[Codo]

3 ♦, yes pass is an option, so is 3 Heart.

[Gerben42]

EVERYONE is going to be in game, unless partner's hand is being passed at other tables? Is partner the kind of guy who does that? I think I'm going to bid 3NT.

The takeout-X makes 4♠ less attractive, and possibly also 4♥.

I have a secret admiration for 3♥, especially if it worked but I am not a good enough player for these kinds of bids.

[helene_t]

Jlall, on Oct 29 2007, 05:25 AM, said:

Why is it relevant whether game is vulnerable or not when you're playing MP?

Presumably the field collects a +500 penalty