[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

1♠ - 1NT
?

---

What say you?

Edit: You are playing 2/1 or other natural system.

[Fluffy]

4♠, 7-4 are 1 suiters.

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

3H

Isn't there some danger that partner with 1=3 in the majors and one or other minor unstopped will raise to 4♥?

[Cascade]

Playing our form of Gazzilli I think I can bid 3♠ forcing and then correct 3NT to 4♥ to show this sort of hand.

[kfay]

I'm bidding 3♥ then 4♠ later. I'll regret this after I end up in 5M-1.

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 18 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

3H

Isn't there some danger that partner with 1=3 in the majors and one or other minor unstopped will raise to 4♥?

Yes, no one said you have to pass 4H if that happens.

Assuming you bid 4♠ over 4♥ is this clearly an offer to play in a different strain and forward going.

For me it would be unconditionally a cue for hearts.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Mar 18 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 18 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

3H

Isn't there some danger that partner with 1=3 in the majors and one or other minor unstopped will raise to 4♥?

Yes, no one said you have to pass 4H if that happens.

Assuming you bid 4♠ over 4♥ is this clearly an offer to play in a different strain and forward going.

For me it would be unconditionally a cue for hearts.

3♥ for me.

Wouldn't you be worth a cuebid anyway? You need four hearts and an ace for slam, essentially.

[andy_h]

I like 3H

[mikeh]

I voted for other, and despite the caution, I will explain

If forced to play without gadgets, I'd vote for 3♥ and correct 4♥ to 4♠... which would not be a cue or kickback but a 6=4 or 7=4.

But I'd like to use 3♣ here: to show either a 4 card heart suit or a monster, power one-suiter in spades... I don't even have to decide which just yet

That way, partner will be less inclined to raise to 4♥ (should I choose to show the suit) without 4 card support. Partner usually bids 3♦ as a relay to ask if I have the majors (with precisely 4 hearts), a black 2-suiter, or just spades

[hrothgar]

Would have opened 4♠ to begin with

Given the start to the auction, I'd rebid 3♥

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Mar 18 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

Would have opened 4♠ to begin with

I know this is your style and usually I don't comment, since we don't need this debate every time. However doesn't this hand just need too little for slam? To put it another way, if you are going to use this style I think you have much better odds opening this hand 6♠.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Mar 19 2008, 01:56 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 18 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

Would have opened 4♠ to begin with

I know this is your style and usually I don't comment, since we don't need this debate every time. However doesn't this hand just need too little for slam? To put it another way, if you are going to use this style I think you have much better odds opening this hand 6♠.

I'm guessing that this hand will average 11 tricks... Don't you rate to lose an Ace and a Spade?

Maybe Tim (or someone) could do a simulation...

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Mar 18 2008, 06:03 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 19 2008, 01:56 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 18 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

Would have opened 4♠ to begin with

I know this is your style and usually I don't comment, since we don't need this debate every time. However doesn't this hand just need too little for slam? To put it another way, if you are going to use this style I think you have much better odds opening this hand 6♠.

I'm guessing that this hand will average 11 tricks... Don't you rate to lose an Ace and a Spade?

Maybe Tim (or someone) could do a simulation...

It's true part of my optimism may be due to the potential in hearts, which is even greater if partner has say a singleton spade. But I guess that's why I open 1♠ to begin with However even off an ace and a spade they could easily lead the wrong minor, which is part of why you open this way anyway I assume.

[han]

I didn't see the 4S mixed strategy coming this time. That is a hilarious example of taking a good idea further than any sensible person should take it. WOW

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Mar 19 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 18 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 18 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 19 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

3H

Isn't there some danger that partner with 1=3 in the majors and one or other minor unstopped will raise to 4♥?

Yes, no one said you have to pass 4H if that happens.

Assuming you bid 4♠ over 4♥ is this clearly an offer to play in a different strain and forward going.

For me it would be unconditionally a cue for hearts.

3♥ for me.

Wouldn't you be worth a cuebid anyway? You need four hearts and an ace for slam, essentially.

Yes that is not the problem it is avoid a silly 4♥ when we belong in spades that is a problem.

[hrothgar]

han, on Mar 19 2008, 02:27 AM, said:

I didn't see the 4S mixed strategy coming this time. That is a hilarious example of taking a good idea further than any sensible person should take it. WOW

I have no problem if you consider the 4♠ bid hilarious/asinine/whatever. However, I feel obliged to point out that the 4♠ is an example of a "pure" strategy, not a mixed strategy...

I am arguing in favor of deterministically opening 4♠.
I am not suggesting randomizing across some set of bids (1♠, 2♣, 4♠, etc)

[han]

Yes I know Richard, you are right, you have been very consistent.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Mar 19 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 19 2008, 01:56 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 18 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

Would have opened 4♠ to begin with

I know this is your style and usually I don't comment, since we don't need this debate every time. However doesn't this hand just need too little for slam? To put it another way, if you are going to use this style I think you have much better odds opening this hand 6♠.

I'm guessing that this hand will average 11 tricks... Don't you rate to lose an Ace and a Spade?

Maybe Tim (or someone) could do a simulation...

1000 hands double dummy.

This hand predealt no other constraints.

Spades made:

 [space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]1
 [space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space] 17
 [space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space] 71
 [space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space]188
 [space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]390
 [space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]269
 [space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space] 64

Hearts made :

 [space] [space]4 [space] [space] [space] [space] [space]7
 [space] [space]5 [space] [space] [space] [space] 21
 [space] [space]6 [space] [space] [space] [space] 57
 [space] [space]7 [space] [space] [space] [space]106
 [space] [space]8 [space] [space] [space] [space]133
 [space] [space]9 [space] [space] [space] [space]118
 [space] 10 [space] [space] [space] [space]113
 [space] 11 [space] [space] [space] [space]230
 [space] 12 [space] [space] [space] [space]172
 [space] 13 [space] [space] [space] [space] 43

Hearts made more than spades 158/1000

Draw your own conclusion but I think it worth investigating slam and exploring for a heart fit.