[OleBerg]

Scoring: IMP

---

Your partner opens a weak 2♠. Style is 4-9 hcp.

Unfortunately you only have these options:

3♥ = Non-forcing invitational.
4♥ = To play.

What's it gonna' be boy?

[Jlall]

4H for sure, might run good one time...

[Fluffy]

Partner doesn't have accurate info to evaluate, so 4♥.

[Codo]

3 ♥ I do not expect partner to hold a trick for me, so how shall I win my contract?

[rhm]

Fluffy, on Sep 25 2009, 02:58 AM, said:

Partner doesn't have accurate info to evaluate, so 4♥.

Why?

If you bid 3♥ over 2♠, defined as invitational, a good bridge partner should know:

You are short in ♠ and any ♠ honor with the possible exception of the ♠ ace is likely to be wasted.
Honors in any other suit are useful
Length in ♥ is good, not least because it implies ruffing values in the minors
Is it really so difficult to see that all things being equal game in ♥ must have far better chances opposite 3 cards than one?

The fact that you hold a distributional hand does not automatically mean partner can not judge.

3♥ takes a partnership and its agreements seriously
4♥ is ego Bridge

Rainer Herrmann

[Hanoi5]

I like ego bridge.

[the hog]

3H. Seems right to me.

[Fluffy]

rhm, on Sep 25 2009, 08:49 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 25 2009, 02:58 AM, said:

Partner doesn't have accurate info to evaluate, so 4♥.

Why?

If you bid 3♥ over 2♠, defined as invitational, a good bridge partner should know:

You are short in ♠ and any ♠ honor with the possible exception of the ♠ ace is likely to be wasted.
Honors in any other suit are useful
Length in ♥ is good, not least because it implies ruffing values in the minors
Is it really so difficult to see that all things being equal game in ♥ must have far better chances opposite 3 cards than one?

The fact that you hold a distributional hand does not automatically mean partner can not judge.

3♥ takes a partnership and its agreements seriously
4♥ is ego Bridge

Rainer Herrmann

More or less what you said: ♠AK are useless, ♦K is golden, ♥ lenght opposite KQJ is not as good as he thinks....

He will missevaluate most of his cards.

[billw55]

OleBerg, on Sep 25 2009, 02:18 AM, said:

What's it gonna' be boy?

Let me sleep on it

And on the hand ... 3♥. I have 6 losers here, it is unrealistic to just assume partner can cover three of them.

[Fluffy]

wow I count only 4 losers .

[Codo]

Fluffy, on Sep 25 2009, 09:34 PM, said:

wow I count only 4 losers .

I count 4 losers too, well deppending a little on the trump suit, there you may have an adiitional loser too.
But opposite a 4-9 weak two in spades, I would never force to game, why should he own a minor king and /or some hearts and passing 3 Heart?

[mtvesuvius]

4♥! I like Ego-Bridge.

[pooltuna]

Fluffy, on Sep 25 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

wow I count only 4 losers .

Wow I only count 9 probable winners and they take some luck to get. Count me with the R & R team (Rainer and Roland)

[andy_h]

3♥.

[Phil]

3♥. What is ego bridge?

Willing to bet a sim makes 3♥ better than 4♥, especially when pard can't bid it. As a matter of fact, 2♠ might even be better than 4♥.

[jdonn]

I'll wimp it up with 3♥. Roll bad one time!

4 losers? How do you know how many losers you have? Partner is 6124 and all of a sudden 4 becomes 6! Or he is 6313 and 4 becomes maybe just 2! (but in that case he accepts our invitational bid, yay.)

[gwnn]

if I didn't bid 4♥ I'd pass I think.

I'd keep these 3♥ invitations to hands without this inordinate amount of shape.

I remember a few months ago gnasher explained that this "partner can't evaluate properly anyway" is not a very valid argument since game is more likely opposite partner's maximums than minimums anyway (whatever partner considers a maximum vs a minimum). However, I'd like to play 2♠ if partner thinks he has a minimum, not 3♥.