[hrothgar]

Partner opens a weak two in Hearts (first seat) at MP

You hold

♠ K
♥ K J 8
♦ A 9 8 6 5 4
♣ K 4 2

You relay with 2NT, asking partner to describe his hand.
Partner bids 3♥ showing a minimum.

Partner could have bid 3♣ or 3♦ showing hands that would accept an invite.

Do you force to game or are you willing to pass this out?

[kfay]

I pass at any colors. This is the whole reason I bid 2NT in the first place.

Btw what were the colors?

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Dec 10 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

Partner opens a weak two in Hearts (first seat) at MP

You hold

♠ K
♥ K J 8
♦ A 9 8 6 5 4
♣ K 4 2

You relay with 2NT, asking partner to describe his hand.
Partner bids 3♥ showing a minimum.

Partner could have bid 3♣ or 3♦ showing hands that would accept an invite.

Do you force to game or are you willing to pass this out?

With only 4-cover cards and facing an 8-9 loser hand, pass is most likely best.

As an aside, this was the problem I found in most major-suit weak 2-bid responses, that they were not based on reaching the most likely game, i.e., 4 of the major.

You might want to look at 2007 Bridge World for "A Losing Trick Count For Weak Two Bids" for an alternative method.

[han]

How can you ask this question without giving the colors?

[helene_t]

do the colors matter at matchpoints? I thought you are supposed to bid games when it has >50% unless you make weird assumptions about the field.

[ArtK78]

When I first started reading the problem, I thought the question was going to be whether or not you make a move towards game at all.

If I were white against red at matchpoints, I might bid 2NT as a tactical maneuver, never intending to bid game. I certainly would not expect to make a game opposite most white on red weak 2 bids. My opps are more likely to make a spade game than we are likely to make a heart game.

If I were red on white, that is an entirely different issue. The hand is now worth a legitimate move towards game, but then pass over the 3♥ rebid.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on Dec 10 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

do the colors matter at matchpoints? I thought you are supposed to bid games when it has >50% unless you make weird assumptions about the field.

The colors will affect what kind of hands partner can have.

[Hanoi5]

I pass. If I wanted to play 4 I should have bid that in my last turn.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Dec 10 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

helene_t, on Dec 10 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

do the colors matter at matchpoints? I thought you are supposed to bid games when it has >50% unless you make weird assumptions about the field.

The colors will affect what kind of hands partner can have.

Right. Silly me.

[han]

helene_t, on Dec 10 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

do the colors matter at matchpoints? I thought you are supposed to bid games when it has >50% unless you make weird assumptions about the field.

I still expect different hands from, say, a red against white 2H opening than from a white against red opening, whether we play MP or IMPs. So yes, I think the colors matter at MPs fr sucha problem.

Edit: I'm too slow.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Dec 11 2008, 05:19 AM, said:

Partner opens a weak two in Hearts (first seat) at MP

You hold

♠ K
♥ K J 8
♦ A 9 8 6 5 4
♣ K 4 2

You relay with 2NT, asking partner to describe his hand.
Partner bids 3♥ showing a minimum.

Partner could have bid 3♣ or 3♦ showing hands that would accept an invite.

Do you force to game or are you willing to pass this out?

I usually evaluate these by placing partner with likely cards in the long suit to make it as near to solid, then evaluating the likelihood of another useful card and then judging how good game will be opposite this imagined hand. If it is close I then try and imagine other layouts for example with holes in the trump suit.

Here if I give partner ♥ AQxxxx that is a minimum 2♥ so another card is impossible. Opposite this hand game is possible but will require a lot of work and ♣A onside.

This makes Pass clear to me.

[P_Marlowe]

Vulnerability?

Red. vs. Green: I would not have asked, I would have gone
direct to game.
At equal: depends: I guess I pass.
At green vs. red: I would not even have bothered to ask,
I would have passed 2H.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

Pass, and of course if I would bid game now I should have done so a round earlier.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Dec 10 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

Partner opens a weak two in Hearts (first seat) at MP

You hold

♠ K
♥ K J 8
♦ A 9 8 6 5 4
♣ K 4 2

You relay with 2NT, asking partner to describe his hand.
Partner bids 3♥ showing a minimum.

Partner could have bid 3♣ or 3♦ showing hands that would accept an invite.

Do you force to game or are you willing to pass this out?

I don't need to know the vulnerability, the bidding to date says that responder, taking vulnerability, position, partner tendencies, etc. into consideration, chose to invite. Opener showed a minimum. I pass. I'm not going assume responder made an earlier mistake.

Now if the problem had been given a round earlier, then all those things would have been important.

[han]

Alright, if Richard just wanted to know what call would be consistent with the earlier choice, it is a clear pass. But Richard is a smart guy and I am sure he already knew the answer to that question.

If the question is "what do you do with this hand, if you decde to bid 2NT partner shows a minimum by bidding 3H" then you cannot answer without knowing the vulnerability.

[hrothgar]

han, on Dec 10 2008, 11:39 PM, said:

Alright, if Richard just wanted to know what call would be consistent with the earlier choice, it is a clear pass. But Richard is a smart guy and I am sure he already knew the answer to that question.

If the question is "what do you do with this hand, if you decde to bid 2NT partner shows a minimum by bidding 3H" then you cannot answer without knowing the vulnerability.

This is one of those cases where Richard screwed up

The real auction was

2♦ - 2♠
3♥ - ???


Where 2♦ was a multi
2♠ showed invitational plus values opposite Hearts

I wanted to simplify the problem, but I posted this too quickly and didn't consider the full ramifications of eliminiating the ambiguity regarding opening seat.

[han]

A much better question indeed.

Now I think we do need to know the colors because it is close enough.

[fred]

FWIW I feel pretty strongly that, provided you play a relatively normal style of weak 2s, you should bid 4H over 2H at any vulnerability and at any form of scoring.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

Winstonm, on Dec 10 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Dec 10 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

Partner opens a weak two in Hearts (first seat) at MP

You hold

♠ K
♥ K J 8
♦ A 9 8 6 5 4
♣ K 4 2

You relay with 2NT, asking partner to describe his hand.
Partner bids 3♥ showing a minimum.

Partner could have bid 3♣ or 3♦ showing hands that would accept an invite.

Do you force to game or are you willing to pass this out?

With only 4-cover cards and facing an 8-9 loser hand, pass is most likely best.

Just four?

[Winstonm]

Quote

I still expect different hands from, say, a red against white 2H opening than from a white against red opening, whether we play MP or IMPs. So yes, I think the colors matter at MPs fr sucha problem.

Quite agree. Different low end hands depending on color.

Quote

Just four?

It is really more like 5.