[mr1303]

Scoring: MP

---

Partner opens 1H which could be a 4 card suit, and we play a weak (12-14) NT.

You don't play any sort of Bergen raises, so you have the choice of bidding 2H or 3H.

Which is it to be?

[plaur]

3♥ limit raise. Two fine Aces and a little distribution.

[P_Marlowe]

Playing Acol, I would bid 1S.

The bid buys me time, maybe after partner makes
another bid, I can make a more informed decision.

If partner opened 1S, I would go with 2S, the hand
is not worth a limit raise.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[paulg]

I seem to have 9 losers and, therefore, a simple 2♥ bid.

Paul

[Orla]

You have 9HCP and that doubleton.

I bid 2♥. If P invites, I go the 4.

I would not bid 1♠.

I think bidding 3♥ you should have 5 hearts. (I bid 3♥ if I am playing 5-card majors promising 9 hearts between us)

[TMorris]

Agree with Paul, 9 losers = 2 hearts. Maximums are allowed

[david_c]

Clear 3♥.

[gwnn]

Well just to keep up the "clear xH" tendency,

clear 3H.

(partner has 5 hearts if he does not have extras)

[han]

Does the loser count rule also apply to Axx Axxx Axx xxx? Just wondering how far you guys will carry this nonsense.

I would bid 2H with the original hand.

[P_Marlowe]

han, on Nov 1 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

Does the loser count rule also apply to Axx Axxx Axx xxx? Just wondering how far you guys will carry this nonsense.

I would bid 2H with the original hand.

Sure, but with this hand you are better of counting
cover cards ...

You may of course think the hand worth a game
force, using cover cards, the LTC will value the
hand worth a limit raise, but one may or may not
bid game, depending on opening style ...

With kind regards
Marlowe

[MickyB]

3♥ is clear, 2♥ shows a poor hand playing Acol because it will get passed by balanced 16-counts.

Bidding 1♠ is ridiculous, pard will never expect so many trumps from you.

[the hog]

2H is totally obvious. 9 loser hand.

[jikl]

2♥ for me, if partner can't move then we may not make 3♥. He/She has ample game suit tries at their disposal below 3♥ if they want to explore game.

Sean

[mr1303]

Glad to see it wasn't clearcut. I bid 3H and partner went to slam. She went 2 off and then had a go at me for raising to the 3 level with "a 9 loser hand".

I don't remember her hand unfortunately, but I remember not being a fan of the losing trick count.

[the hog]

"She went 2 off and then had a go at me for raising to the 3 level with "a 9 loser hand". "

Quite right too.

[NickRW]

mr1303, on Nov 2 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

Glad to see it wasn't clearcut. I bid 3H and partner went to slam. She went 2 off and then had a go at me for raising to the 3 level with "a 9 loser hand".

I don't remember her hand unfortunately, but I remember not being a fan of the losing trick count.

It's the sort of hand where you're going to be wrong sometimes whichever option you choose. At MP, maybe the more conservative option is best.

Nick

[han]

Mr1303, you know enough about bridge to know that someone who values Axxx, Kxxx and Qxxx equally shouldn't be taken seriously.

[effervesce]

3♥. Aces are undervalued, and you have 4 card support. The hand has an amazing 24 ZAR-2♥ may work out, but is too pessimistic for me.

[1eyedjack]

mr1303, on Nov 2 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

Glad to see it wasn't clearcut. I bid 3H and partner went to slam. She went 2 off and then had a go at me for raising to the 3 level with "a 9 loser hand".

I don't remember her hand unfortunately, but I remember not being a fan of the losing trick count.

Usually opener can make a slam try without forcing beyond game. If your partner drove to slam via Bwood purely on the strength of the 3H raise then I suspect opener should shoulder some of the blame. Difficult to say without the hand.

[NickRW]

effervesce, on Nov 3 2008, 04:54 AM, said:

3♥. Aces are undervalued,  and you have 4 card support. The hand has an amazing 24 ZAR-2♥ may work out, but is too pessimistic for me.

23 Zars - unless you're relying on opener having 5♥s and counting a bonus for an extra trump - but Acol players sometimes open minimum 4=4=4=1 shapes with 1♥ - unlikely of course, but possible. But, whatever, even at 23 Zars it is definitely pushing into the 3♥ response range.

The thing that makes me feel slightly conservative is that hands with relatively high loser counts like this one are usually better off having the aces in the side suits and the quacks in partner's suit(s) where we know they will be useful. I'd be a whole lot happier with

♠Axxx
♥Jxxx
♦xx
♣Axx

Alternatively I'd also be happier with a 3♥ call if we were vul at imps where pushing for the game pays real dividends.

I suppose this would be a good one to run a sim on, but I can't be bothered just now.

Nick