[sathyab]

Playing a vanilla 2/1, with not too many agreements, I held AQxx Q AKQxx xxx. White vs Red, IMPs, the bidding proceeded 1♦ - (1♥)-1♠ (promising 5) - (2♥). The choices appear to be 3♠ or 3♥. How do people make a distinction between distributional raises and non-distributional raises with adequate compensation ? One possible structure in order of increasing strength is: bid 2s and compete with a double over opponents' 3♥, bid 3♠ on a distributional hand guaranteeing shortness, leaving 3♥ for a good raise but no shortness. The higher bids such as 4♠ and 4♦ retain the same meaning as in a constructive sequence, where the 4♦ bid probably tends to deny shortness in ♥s. I'd like to hear what other people do, especially if there's anything called a "standard", say BWS or Washington or some other. I don't remember anything specific in either of those two sources.

[Ant590]

It is not uncommon to use 2NT and 3♥ both as spade raises on this style of auction. This allows you to make some distinction with your good raises, but I think most people who play such methods differentiate between three and four card support.

I personally would bid 4♥ on the given hand.

[gnasher]

I think it's overkill to use all of double, 2♠, 2NT, 3♥ and 3♠ as raises. I play 3♠ preemptive (eg a 4153 11-count) and (depending on the partnership) either 2NT or 3♥ as a high-card raise. If 2NT is the high-card raise, 3♥ is available for miscellaneous game-forces without support. If 3♥ is the high-card raise, 2NT is available as natural or Good-Bad.

In an auction like 1m (1♠) dbl (2♠) or 1m (pass) 1♥ (2♠), where there is no cue-bid below three of our major, I play 2NT as a high-card raise and 3♥ as competitive.

In both auctions, I think it's better to play transfers from 2NT to 3M-1, with 3M-1 showing the good raise, but I've never actually played this.

It's not really relevant to your question, but I'd bid game on your example hand.

[dake50]

Do I have a Western cue of 3C? I rather like that as I'm forcing to 4S on this hand and want partner to know he must control clubs if higher. My partnership has already shown (last round) good controls raise as opposed to TotalNumberTricks,TNT.

[barmar]

dake50, on Jul 19 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

Do I have a Western cue of 3C? I rather like that as I'm forcing to 4S on this hand and want partner to know he must control clubs if higher. My partnership has already shown (last round) good controls raise as opposed to TotalNumberTricks,TNT.

Western Cue is a bid of the opponents' suit, asking partner to bid 3NT if he has a stopper there. So 3♥ would be a Western Cue bid.

I'd take 3♣ as natural, showing a strong minor 2-suiter.

[xcurt]

Given that ♠Kxxxx and the ♣A is a slam (with running diamonds or 2-2 trumps or a sixth spade), I think I would choose 3♥ even if it's not the best description. We are going to need to make two moves with this hand. We can't really expect partner to be thinking of slam with Kxxxx, Jxx, Jxx, Ax.

[H_KARLUK]

4S. I do not expect more.

[jdonn]

I think this hand is a game force opposite five spades, so although you could bid 3♥ I don't see why you wouldn't just bid 4♥ instead. Conversely, if you have a hand similar to this one that isn't a game force (or if you think this isn't one) then you should obviously bid 3♠, or just stretch to bid 4♠ anyway. There is no overlap between 3♥, which is a game force and doesn't promise spade support anyway (but is a strong hand rather than a stretch if you have support), and 3♠ which is obviously not forcing.

[peachy]

3S is not a choice at all because it is non-forcing. This hand wants to be in game so just bid 4H [splinter] and get it over with. Partner needs to know you have good hand with spade support and now he gets to know you have singleton in their suit. Lovely. 3H would be too ambiguous - what is partner supposed to do over 3H, asuming opponent passes? Somebody else mentioned there are too many bids reserved for raising partner in your scenarios, and I agree.

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Jul 19 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

I think this hand is a game force opposite five spades, so although you could bid 3♥ I don't see why you wouldn't just bid 4♥ instead. Conversely, if you have a hand similar to this one that isn't a game force (or if you think this isn't one) then you should obviously bid 3♠, or just stretch to bid 4♠ anyway. There is no overlap between 3♥, which is a game force and doesn't promise spade support anyway (but is a strong hand rather than a stretch if you have support), and 3♠ which is obviously not forcing.

Are you bidding again after

1D-1H-1S-2H
4H-P-4S-P
?

Curt

[cherdanno]

xcurt, on Jul 20 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 19 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

I think this hand is a game force opposite five spades, so although you could bid 3♥ I don't see why you wouldn't just bid 4♥ instead. Conversely, if you have a hand similar to this one that isn't a game force (or if you think this isn't one) then you should obviously bid 3♠, or just stretch to bid 4♠ anyway. There is no overlap between 3♥, which is a game force and doesn't promise spade support anyway (but is a strong hand rather than a stretch if you have support), and 3♠ which is obviously not forcing.

Are you bidding again after

1D-1H-1S-2H
4H-P-4S-P
?

Curt

Of course not. This hand has just the right strength for a splinter. This isn't contradicted by the fact that it makes slam opposite a hand with two keycards and a fit for our suit.

[jdonn]

xcurt, on Jul 20 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 19 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

I think this hand is a game force opposite five spades, so although you could bid 3♥ I don't see why you wouldn't just bid 4♥ instead. Conversely, if you have a hand similar to this one that isn't a game force (or if you think this isn't one) then you should obviously bid 3♠, or just stretch to bid 4♠ anyway. There is no overlap between 3♥, which is a game force and doesn't promise spade support anyway (but is a strong hand rather than a stretch if you have support), and 3♠ which is obviously not forcing.

Are you bidding again after

1D-1H-1S-2H
4H-P-4S-P
?

Curt

Obviously not?!

[sathyab]

At the table I bid 3♥, hoping that it'd be interpreted as a stronger raise than 3♠. I was willing to respect partner's sign-off if all he had was Kxxxx Jxx x Qxxx. As soon as they cash a hight heart they'll be switching to ♣s looking at dummy's good ♦s, so partner needs enough in clubs to stop the loss of three quicks.

I'm sure the possibility of three immediate ♣ losers would have occurred to many who suggested bidding game with this hand. How did you overcome that reservation ? Is it the form of scoring, i.e, IMPs, that makes game a decent proposition, in spite of it ? And my mandatory question as always: would you bid differently at MP ?

[Jlall]

sathyab, on Jul 20 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

I'm sure the possibility of three immediate ♣ losers would have occurred to many who suggested bidding game with this hand. How did you overcome that reservation ? Is it the form of scoring, i.e, IMPs, that makes game a decent proposition, in spite of it ? And my mandatory question as always: would you bid differently at MP ?

The world can be a scary place, but partner is often there to help you out with any doubleton club or the ace or the king or the QJ, or maybe the QT... Failing this he sometimes comes through with the heart ace. And failing this, sometimes he doesn't have good hearts and they are cold for game in hearts. And failing this sometimes they bid 5H and go down 1 when you were going down. And failing this sometimes you go down.

[jdonn]

sathyab, on Jul 20 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

At the table I bid 3♥, hoping that it'd be interpreted as a stronger raise than 3♠. I was willing to respect partner's sign-off if all he had was Kxxxx Jxx x Qxxx. As soon as they cash a hight heart they'll be switching to ♣s looking at dummy's good ♦s, so partner needs enough in clubs to stop the loss of three quicks.

Agree with Justin's post, but outside that I think you have the wrong idea about 3♥. It doesn't promise a raise (2335 18-19 with no stopper? long solid minor with no stopper?) and it is game forcing (if it weren't, responder would have to do all sorts of crazy things with just a little bit of extra values.

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

Agree with Justin's post, but outside that I think you have the wrong idea about 3♥. It doesn't promise a raise (2335 18-19 with no stopper? long solid minor with no stopper?) and it is game forcing (if it weren't, responder would have to do all sorts of crazy things with just a little bit of extra values.

As I mentioned right at the outset, I was not sure about the raises. I now realize that there's no easy way to suggest a stronger raise than 3♠ and yet leave room to sign-off in 3♠, so it's probably best to bid game, especially if 3♥ is played as GF without support. But if you bid 3♥, not on this hand, but some other hand such as the one you quoted, it may not be interpreted the same way by a majority of good players, as there's nothing close to a standard of any kind.

BTW, you'll notice that even among game-bidders, there're those who bid game directly, and some who bid 3♥ GF and others who bid 4♥. I was hoping to see if there was consensus and I found it

As for Justin's point, I understand what he's saying, but not completely persuaded, as I can't apply that kind of reasoning to similar situations elsewhere and arrive at sensible results. But the fact that a lot of others too have bid game tells me that there may be other ways of reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion.

[jdonn]

sathyab, on Jul 20 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

But if you bid 3♥, not on this hand, but some other hand such as the one you quoted, it may not be interpreted the same way by a majority of good players, as there's nothing close to a standard of any kind.

I disagree about that. Start asking experts about it and I bet you get a clear consensus that it is game forcing, and specifically one of those three types of hands.

Edit: I guess I could imagine someone thinking it could be a game force with both minors too, but I certainly have no doubt that it would be understood as game forcing.

[gnasher]

Where I come from 3♥ is usually played as a real raise to 3♠, with 3♠ being preemptive.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jul 20 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

Where I come from 3♥ is usually played as a real raise to 3♠, with 3♠ being preemptive.

What do you bid with A xx Kxx AKQxxxx?

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 20 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

Where I come from 3♥ is usually played as a real raise to 3♠, with 3♠ being preemptive.

What do you bid with A xx Kxx AKQxxxx?

A takeout double if one is available, I suppose, hoping for 2♠ over which you can bid 3♥. If double would be support, then 3♦.

I don't think it's necessarily bad to play methods that make a rare good hand unbiddable in the hope of gaining on more frequent hands.