[gwnn]

Scoring: IMP

1♥-p-1♠-p

---

[Echognome]

I personally think it's close between 2NT and 3♥ and will be curious as to what others view the best rebid as.

[TylerE]

3♥. If my hearts were a bit better I'd take a stronger action. Will have trouble making 3N oppisite something like

KQJx
x
xxxx
xxxx

[rogerclee]

I have no problem with forcing to game.

[pclayton]

rogerclee, on Oct 29 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

I have no problem with forcing to game.

Forcing to game is a serious overbid.

I think its close between 2♣ and 3♥. 2N will lead to too many no-play 3N's.

[rogerclee]

pclayton, on Oct 29 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Oct 29 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

I have no problem with forcing to game.

Forcing to game is a serious overbid.

Why? It allows me to sort out 3N vs 4♥ very easily without losing spades, and I don't miss game whenever partner has two hearts and some working values. I also don't play 2♣ in my 4-3 fit when I am cold for 4♥ or 3N!

I understand 3♥ if you think it is worth it to lose some very good games in exchange to stay out of some bad games, but I don't understand 2NT, which basically commits to playing NT (this hand is suit-oriented, and we can get to 3NT later), or 2♣, which is just begging to produce a bad auction (why is 2♣ then 3♥ better than a direct 3♥? why do I want partner to pass on random 51(34) medium-strength hands?).

[RichMor]

2NT for me. 3♥ is OK too but it is easier to get to a good major suit game over 2NT than over 3♥.

[kenberg]

3H
If partner has, for example, the king of spades and nothing in diamonds then I am toast unless hearts run. Not necessarily toasted if I am in hearts.
I don't regard this as close but since some do I will note the development of the thread.

[bid_em_up]

I really don't understand any option other than 3H.

If you play NT, it would be better if it was played from the other side of the table.

The control rich hand is suit-oriented.

In 2/1, the 3H rebid shows 17+ hcp, 6+ hearts, and this is exactly what you have. Why bid anything else when you have a bid that describes your hand perfectly?

jmoo.

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Oct 29 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

I really don't understand any option other than 3H.

If you play NT, it would be better if it was played from the other side of the table.

The control rich hand is suit-oriented.

In 2/1, the 3H rebid shows 17+ hcp, 6+ hearts, and this is exactly what you have. Why bid anything else when you have a bid that describes your hand perfectly?

jmoo.

I don't understand any call other than 2N

1. the range for 3♥ is traditionally a good 15 to 17 hcp. We hold 18.

2. Many posters seem to actually believe in a significantly lower range.. with Ax 10xxx AKQJxx x, many posters either reversed into 2♥ (!) or jumped to 3♦, claiming that the lower limits for the 2 actions were identical, and that this hand fell within those limits. I am not going to waste my time reviewing the big bidders on that hand to see how many of them opt for 3♥ on this... I merely pause to state that anyone who sees the two hands as approximately equivalent plays a different game than I do.

3. 2N shows...... drumroll please..... a balanced hand with 18-19 hcp, may be a good 17 with a 5 card major... usually stoppers in the unbid suits, usually no side 4 card suit, and 2-3 card support for spades.

ummmmmm..... what do we hold?

Any further questions?

Ok... NO... 2N does NOT, as between two previously non-partnered experts deny 6 hearts.

Why we get into discussions about right-siding the contract is beyond me. Yes, our diamond holding suggests (but does not dictate) that notrump may be better played by partner. But since when did that become the criterion? Are we seriously suggesting that we cannot afford to open a 15-17 1N because we hold, shudder, Axx Axx Axx Axxx?

Or that anyone would, for an instance, reject 2N here if our hand were Ax AKxxx Axx QJx?

[bid_em_up]

Ho Hum.

[han]

Congratulations on playing expert bridge where 2NT does not deny six hearts. Do you and your expert partner play an asking bid so that partner can find out whether you have 5 or 6 hearts? I don't, and my partner has never made an effort to offer 4H as a final contract when he held a doubleton. Maybe this is something that we need to discuss because apparently we are missing out! The truth is that if I rebid 2NT with a 6-card heart suit, I will not up in 4M unless partner has 3 hearts. I'm not saying that this is always bad, but it doesn't seem right on this hand.

I appreciated your input on the Ax 10xxx AKQJxx x thread (I really did!) even though I disagree with the idea that the minimum requirement for a reverse is higher than that of a 3m rebid. But are you now saying that that hand is not even worth a good 15-count? Well, I guess it has only 14 HCP so you must be right.

As for this hand, it is a very nice looking 18-count with a 6-card suit, should we make the same bid that we would with a 5332 17-count? To me 2NT seems just as much of an underbid as 2M.

While I haven't been playing bridge as long as you have, I always thought that 1M-1X-3M showed about 16-18. After all, what else are we supposed to do with 18-count 6331 hands? And yes, that means I rebid 2M with many 15-counts.

Mark me down for 3H.

[mike777]

I will try 3C.

3H second choice.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Oct 29 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

3. 2N shows...... drumroll please..... a balanced hand with 18-19 hcp, may be a good 17 with a 5 card major... usually stoppers in the unbid suits, usually no side 4 card suit, and 2-3 card support for spades.

ummmmmm..... what do we hold?

Any further questions?

Ok... NO... 2N does NOT, as between two previously non-partnered experts deny 6 hearts.

It doesn't matter whether it denies 6 hearts, unless you can show 6 hearts later. If you can, then fine. If you can't, then partner will always play you for 5 hearts.

[655321]

2NT for me, and until I read some of the earlier posts I thought that was relatively normal.

Sure, I don't have methods to uncover the 6th heart, but partner will pass a 3♥ rebid with a lot of hands that make game.

Similarly, opening 2NT with 18-19 and a good 6 card suit often works well in practice.

[pclayton]

rogerclee, on Oct 29 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 29 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Oct 29 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

I have no problem with forcing to game.

Forcing to game is a serious overbid.

Why? It allows me to sort out 3N vs 4♥ very easily without losing spades, and I don't miss game whenever partner has two hearts and some working values. I also don't play 2♣ in my 4-3 fit when I am cold for 4♥ or 3N!

I understand 3♥ if you think it is worth it to lose some very good games in exchange to stay out of some bad games, but I don't understand 2NT, which basically commits to playing NT (this hand is suit-oriented, and we can get to 3NT later), or 2♣, which is just begging to produce a bad auction (why is 2♣ then 3♥ better than a direct 3♥? why do I want partner to pass on random 51(34) medium-strength hands?).

So many little brawls on this thread already LOL.

Clee, no one else is suggesting this hand is a GF, so I don't know why you think it is. Unless you require a full working six (I don't and neither do you), this isn't a GF. Opposite the ♣A and out, game has no play.

You can sort out 3N versus 4♥ easily enough with 3♥ or even 2♣. You shouldn't lose spades after any continuation.

I have reconsidered 2♣. There's no reason why partner should value club controls any more highly than spade or diamond controls.

2N is still too odd for me. We have zero chance of getting to a 6-2 fit after 2N and this looks like a bad strategy with two single stoppers in both minors.

[Roupoil]

I must admit I find my hand really too good for 3♥, so I would have rebid 3♣ (maybe my partners don't respond as light as yours). 2SA didn't occur to me, but now that you mention it, I really prefer it to 3♥, and maybe even to my initial 3♣.

[rogerclee]

Quote

Clee, no one else is suggesting this hand is a GF, so I don't know why you think it is. Unless you require a full working six (I don't and neither do you), this isn't a GF. Opposite the ♣A and out, game has no play.

On the hands where we can make game (which is a lot!), this is the best way to start. I am willing to get too high occasionally in order to sort out the best strain, and on the way, I will also bid a lot of good games that the 3♥ bidders are missing.

Quote

You can sort out 3N versus 4♥ easily enough with 3♥ or even 2♣. You shouldn't lose spades after any continuation.

This is just wrong, we will lose spades whenever partner has six of them and has to pass 3♥.

[han]

There is a difference between being worth a gameforce and a hand offering play for game opposite every possible hand partner could have.

If you force to game on this hand then you will sometimes get to a game where you have no play at all. However, that doesn't mean that forcing to game is automatically bad. If by forcing to game you (1) avoid missing good games (2) get to the best game more often and (3) be more accurate in your slam bidding, then all of that together may well be worth getting to an occasional ridiculous game when partner is very minimal.

Everybody sees that this is a very nice 18-count and that we are quite maximal for a 3H bid. I am not very comfortable forcing to game on such 18-counts either but maybe I am wrong about that.

By the way, I did not spot any brawls in this thread but I am happy to start one.

[fred]

I'm a little surprised that nobody mentioned 3NT as a possible rebid (perhaps because it was not listed in the poll).

I have no problem with rebidding either 2NT or 3NT. Opening 2NT is also OK IM(perhaps warped)O. Probably I would rebid 2NT at the table. Probably my regular partner would open 2NT.

I don't like 3H at all, but that might be a matter of style more than anything else. I like one of the messages that 3H delivers to be:

Please raise me with a small singleton as opposed to guessing to bid 3NT.

I would not want to deliver that message with this particular hand.

In my regular partnerships we rebid 2NT sufficiently frequently with hands that contain 6-card majors that we have built in a way to "check back".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com