[CSGibson]

Scoring: IMP

1♥-(1♠)-?

---

Partner's openings aren't Roth-Stone quality, but they aren't usually super light, either.

Edit: There isn't a significant difference between your declarer skills and partner's, hard as it is for some of you to imagine .

[the hog]

2NT If that shows 10-11 in the system you play.

[andy_h]

2S

[655321]

2♠.

Limit or better in hearts. Isn't that what I have?

[rogerclee]

2♠, will bid 3NT over 3♥.

[benlessard]

2Nt because i feel that 3H might go down.

[whereagles]

This isn't the right time to mastermind a natural NT bid. Pard is probably stronger than us, so let's just bid what we got: 2♠ (heart support, ofc), intending to follow-up with a natural 3NT.

[brianshark]

2NT. I'm bidding NT now because if pard has the values to be in game, we're at the 4-level, not the 3-level. This hand doesn't seem good enough to invite in hearts.

[pclayton]

2♠ for me. Give me the ♠J and I might start looking for NT.

[ASkolnick]

I like 2N since it is what you have. Sure it is not the best 11 count, but you have soft values and the key to me is the fact you have the Ten of spades. Good chance this gives you a 2nd stopper in spades, but gives you nothing in a heart contract.

I could live with 1N, but your QJX should still produce tricks and you will have time with your 2nd stopper.

[benlessard]

Quote

I think 2N is really sick, but I think 1N is quite reasonable. 1N gets our values across and lets us stop low if that's a winner, and also aims at getting us to what will often be the right strain. Our hand is pretty crappy for a 4H contract relative to a 3N contract, and it's not impossible to get back to hearts after bidding 1N. Anyways vul at imps I'd still probably just bid 2S.

I see at least 2 contradiction in this post.

1A--Our hand is pretty crappy for a 4H contract relative to a 3N contract
1B-- Anyways vul at imps id still just bid 2S

Unless partner got 2 S stoppers and bid 2Nt, 2S is forcing us to 3H.
Our hand is better for 3Nt then for 4H but you are aiming to play 3H instead of 2Nt. For me this is an obvious contradiction.


2- 2N is really sick and 1Nt is quite reasonnable.

From a value showing point of view we can safely say that.

1Nt is the weakest
2Nt is in the middle.
2S is the strongest.

So the middle bid cant be atrocious from a value point of view if the 2 other bids are reasonnables (from a value point of view)

And if you consider 3Nt to be a more probable game then 4H then 2Nt cannot be atrocious in term of strain.

Is is possible that a bid is wrong if the values are ok and the strain ok ? Maybe...

like in this case you might feel that 2Nt might lose H forever while 1Nt keep H in the picture, but i disagree on that point, partner is more likely to make a move over 2Nt then over 1Nt. So im more likely to play in H after 2Nt then after 1Nt. Plus im not sure ill like to bid 3H after

1H---(1S)----1Nt----(pass)
2H---(pass)---???

Wich give me the feeling that 1Nt is an improper bid.

Of course if you feel that your are strong enough to force to game then 2S followed by 3Nt make sense.

Ps do you think starting with a negative double might work ? After the X if partner rebid 2H you raise to 3.

If he bid a minor you try 2Nt. Doesnt look so bad...

[skjaeran]

I'd bid 2♠, 2nd choice 1NT.

2NT would not be natural for me, and I think it's a slight overbid anyway, if natural.

[FrancesHinden]

benlessard, on May 20 2008, 05:54 AM, said:

Quote

I think 2N is really sick, but I think 1N is quite reasonable. 1N gets our values across and lets us stop low if that's a winner, and also aims at getting us to what will often be the right strain. Our hand is pretty crappy for a 4H contract relative to a 3N contract, and it's not impossible to get back to hearts after bidding 1N. Anyways vul at imps I'd still probably just bid 2S.

I see at least 2 contradiction in this post.

1A--Our hand is pretty crappy for a 4H contract relative to a 3N contract
1B-- Anyways vul at imps id still just bid 2S

I don't see contradictions, I see uncertainty.

I see...

"I quite fancy the underbid of 1NT because it's not a great hand and if partner makes a game try over 1NT we have a better chance of getting to the right strain;

but vul at imps I'm going to stick with the 'systemic' limit raise of 2S because if 1NT ends the auction we might have missed game"

Quote

From a value showing point of view we can safely say that.

1Nt is the weakest
2Nt is in the middle.
2S is the strongest.

So the middle bid cant be atrocious from a value point of view if the 2 other bids are reasonnables (from a value point of view)

No. While 2NT is a limit bid and 2S is unlimited so you could argue in some sense that 2S is stronger, if you are bidding 2S to show a limit raise then its strength is about the same as a 2NT bid, just a different hand type.

Quote

partner is more likely to make a move over 2Nt then over 1Nt. So im more likely to play in H after 2Nt then after 1Nt.

Partner's most likely move over 2NT is to bid 3NT. If you are planning to bid 4H over that then you are saying that 2NT on the first round was an error.

Partner's most likely (game try) move over 1NT is to bid 2NT. You still have room to bid 3H over that.

[FrancesHinden]

rogerclee, on May 19 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

2♠, will bid 3NT over 3♥.

I bid 2♠ and pass 3♥.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on May 21 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

benlessard, on May 20 2008, 05:54 AM, said:

Quote

I think 2N is really sick, but I think 1N is quite reasonable. 1N gets our values across and lets us stop low if that's a winner, and also aims at getting us to what will often be the right strain. Our hand is pretty crappy for a 4H contract relative to a 3N contract, and it's not impossible to get back to hearts after bidding 1N. Anyways vul at imps I'd still probably just bid 2S.

I see at least 2 contradiction in this post.

1A--Our hand is pretty crappy for a 4H contract relative to a 3N contract
1B-- Anyways vul at imps id still just bid 2S

I don't see contradictions, I see uncertainty.

I see...

"I quite fancy the underbid of 1NT because it's not a great hand and if partner makes a game try over 1NT we have a better chance of getting to the right strain;

but vul at imps I'm going to stick with the 'systemic' limit raise of 2S because if 1NT ends the auction we might have missed game"

Quote

From a value showing point of view we can safely say that.

1Nt is the weakest
2Nt is in the middle.
2S is the strongest.

So the middle bid cant be atrocious from a value point of view if the 2 other bids are reasonnables (from a value point of view)

No. While 2NT is a limit bid and 2S is unlimited so you could argue in some sense that 2S is stronger, if you are bidding 2S to show a limit raise then its strength is about the same as a 2NT bid, just a different hand type.

Quote

partner is more likely to make a move over 2Nt then over 1Nt. So im more likely to play in H after 2Nt then after 1Nt.

Partner's most likely move over 2NT is to bid 3NT. If you are planning to bid 4H over that then you are saying that 2NT on the first round was an error.

Partner's most likely (game try) move over 1NT is to bid 2NT. You still have room to bid 3H over that.

Agree with all of this (and Frances' plan as explicated in her next post)

[NickRW]

2N for me assuming that is natural. The hand looks light in controls and heavy on secondary stuff to me - so I don't really like 2S or 3H.

Nick

[awm]

I like 2NT.

A lot of times if you bid 1NT, partner's next call will be two of a minor. What is your next call over this?

Partner could easily have quite a good hand, so passing seems liable to miss a game quite often. I suppose you can bid 3♥, but since 1NT in a contested auction like this normally denies three-card support, that might not even be natural (splinter for the minor anyone?) and could easily confuse partner. Bidding 2NT now is also kind of a weird bid (assuming an original 2NT is natural) and it's hard to see how this sequence (denying a heart fit twice) is really better than just bidding 2NT the first time. The only real "advantage" to 1NT is that partner will pass with some balanced 12 and you play a level lower, but partner will also pass with some balanced 14 and you could miss a game. I don't think this hand is as bad as some would make it out to be -- the spade holding is well-positioned and quite good for notrump, and holding three hearts actually greatly ups your odds at scoring up a 3nt contract (compare this hand to the same with the reds reversed -- this hand is much better).

As for 2♠, it is certainly the "textbook" bid on a limit raise hand, but there are an awful lot of signs here that 3NT may be the best game and I don't think partner (who could easily be looking at a singleton spade) is that likely to bid it (he could easily blast 4♥) or even pass it if we somehow manage to offer it as an option.

[MFA]

2♠
Don't see why we should make a big problem out of this hand.

[jdonn]

awm, on May 21 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

As for 2♠, it is certainly the "textbook" bid on a limit raise hand, but there are an awful lot of signs here that 3NT may be the best game and I don't think partner (who could easily be looking at a singleton spade) is that likely to bid it (he could easily blast 4♥) or even pass it if we somehow manage to offer it as an option.

I agree 3NT could be the best game, but I don't think that's so likely if partner has a small singleton spade.

Ultimately I agree with MFA, I don't think there is enough reason to completely overthink this hand and do anything but 2♠. Including the 9 of spades too would be a huge improvement for notrump.