[bid_em_up]

Scoring: IMP

---

Opponents silent throughout.

Partner opens 1H, you respond 1S,
Partner rebids 2C, and you?

[Fluffy]

3♣ there is no need to pretect our diamond stopper with 2NT.

[jdonn]

3♣ I won't be a genius on this one. If partner follows with 3♦ I'll bid 3♥ (very worried about spades in 3NT), if he bids 3♥ I'll of course raise, if he bids 3♠ I'll bid 3NT, and if he bids 3NT I'll happily pass.

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Feb 4 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

3♣ I won't be a genius on this one. If partner follows with 3♦ I'll bid 3♥ (very worried about spades in 3NT), if he bids 3♥ I'll of course raise, if he bids 3♠ I'll bid 3NT, and if he bids 3NT I'll happily pass.

But you should be able to find 3NT if partner has a maximum 2524 with concentrated values.

Oh wait, 4♥ makes then, I play too much MPs

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Feb 4 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 4 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

3♣ I won't be a genius on this one. If partner follows with 3♦ I'll bid 3♥ (very worried about spades in 3NT), if he bids 3♥ I'll of course raise, if he bids 3♠ I'll bid 3NT, and if he bids 3NT I'll happily pass.

But you should be able to find 3NT if partner has a maximum 2524 with concentrated values.

Oh wait, 4♥ makes then, I play too much MPs

You mean if he bids 3♦ on a 2524 with nothing in his doubletons? I bid 3♥, he bids 3♠ and I bid 3NT.

3♥ is not a transfer to 4♥.

[whereagles]

3♣ should be better than 2NT. Especially if pard has a singleton spade.

[JLOL]

3C, I think 2H would be quite reasonable at MP though.

[mike777]

bid_em_up, on Feb 4 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> partner </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> ???? </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> Jxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> Qx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> AKx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> 98xx </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

Opponents silent throughout.

Partner opens 1H, you respond 1S,
Partner rebids 2C, and you?

2h for me......3c for me would show much more....


3c is fine OTOH if partner opens pretty sound.

[skjaeran]

3♣ at IMPs for me, but I'm a 2♥-bidder at MP.

[mcphee]

3C is forward going generally 8-11 type of hand 4 card support, darn I have that. I do not bid 2H at pairs, this is the sort of hand that I far prefer to play down the middle with, a 2H bid will be made with many hands that are worse and is very non encouraging. And btw for all you 2H bidders I hope trumps break 5-1 and you get punched out with S.

[effervesce]

3♣.

[jdonn]

mcphee, on Feb 5 2009, 07:49 AM, said:

3C is forward going generally 8-11 type of hand 4 card support, darn I have that. I do not bid 2H at pairs, this is the sort of hand that I far prefer to play down the middle with, a 2H bid will be made with many hands that are worse and is very non encouraging. And btw for all you 2H bidders I hope trumps break 5-1 and you get punched out with S.

I would also bid 2♥ at mps, I just didn't mention it. BTW I think it's very likely a 4-1 club break is worse for clubs than a 5-1 heart break is for hearts.

[Edmunte1]

I would have bid 2♥ at both forms of scoring

[bid_em_up]

My partner chose to pass. Making six on the J♣ lead, as it picked up the trump loser that I would ordinarily have.

I suggested that with all the working cards (AK♦, the ♥Q, and 4 trumps), that either 2♥ or 3♣ would be more appropriate. (I prefer 3C at either form of scoring).

I chose not to make a jump shift (would you?) on:

---

under the assumption that 2C will not be passed unless partner has a very weak hand that also contains a heart singleton or void. Otherwise, I expected to hear a return to 2H, at a minimum.

[TylerE]

*ahem*, I think we actually scored 190 on this?

[rogerclee]

bid_em_up, on Feb 6 2009, 06:57 AM, said:

My partner chose to pass.

LOL

[kenrexford]

Just tossing out a thought here. Has anyone ever run a series of sample deals to see what would happen if Responder immediately raised the major with Hx and a 10-count rather than some other move? This situation seems to be a recurring problem. It seems intuitive that handling this hand 1♥-P-2♥ has its obvious downsides, but then some of those could be "cured" or minimized with some technique, like 3NT remaining more in the picture than usually and side suits raised more often.

I just wonder if that option might actually work more than gut instinct or CW suggests.

[ArtK78]

JLOL, on Feb 4 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

3C, I think 2H would be quite reasonable at MP though.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I saw the hand.

Responder's pass after opener's 2♣ rebid is the height of wimpitude (wimpitudity? wimpiness?).

Opener's 2♣ rebid is interesting. Normally with 0544 one bids diamonds second, but I can certainly see why one might choose a 2♣ rebid, intending to bid 3♦ next.

I agree that this hand is not worth a jump rebid. Partner is unlikely to pass on any hand where game is cold (but that is what he did).

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Feb 6 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

Just tossing out a thought here. Has anyone ever run a series of sample deals to see what would happen if Responder immediately raised the major with Hx and a 10-count rather than some other move? This situation seems to be a recurring problem. It seems intuitive that handling this hand 1♥-P-2♥ has its obvious downsides, but then some of those could be "cured" or minimized with some technique, like 3NT remaining more in the picture than usually and side suits raised more often.

I just wonder if that option might actually work more than gut instinct or CW suggests.

The big problem I have with this, and have seen in practice as well as thought in theory, is that if the opponents compete partner goes to the 3 level much too often.

[bid_em_up]

TylerE, on Feb 6 2009, 09:13 AM, said:

*ahem*, I think we actually scored 190 on this?

Did I make 7? Maybe, its all a blur now.