[sathyab]

Opponents are silent through out the auction, as partner opens 1♥. You have

Scoring: IMP

---

You don't play Flannery, play 2nt as natural and GF (major suit raises are handled differently) and try to avoid bidding 2 of a minor just to create a GF. The choices appear to be are 1♠ on a bad suit when you such great support for partner or 2♣ to create a GF (anyone for 2nt ?). Say you try 1♠, partner bids 2nt, 18-19 balanced or may be an upgraded 17 with a six-bagger. Now you can bid 3♦ check-back to inquire if partner has 3♠s or bid 3♥ forcing. You seem to have close to slam values. How do you move forward without going overboard ? In minor suit auctions with near-slam values, we can often explore slam on such hands as 4nt can be passed, but unfortunately if you support ♥s here, 4nt by either of us is RKC.

If you try 3♦ and partner bids 3nt denying 3♠s, he might easily be 2533, in which case you have to worry about length tricks outside ♥s. Although undiscussed, 3♥ should deliver an extra ♥, in which case 6♥ or 6nt should be favorite. Even with a 3♠ response, you have one additional suit that has potential for an additional trick. But what do you do over 3nt ?

[Jlall]

I would start with 2N, I seem to have a balanced game force and that is my system.

Having started with 1S (yuck) then after 2N I would bid 3H natural and forcing...I have 3 hearts and slammish values. What's the problem? I guess the problem is that partner will now misevaluate something like AJx of spades because we bid 1S... Oh well hope he has the 7 also lol.

After bidding 3H I will not cooperate with anything, I'll just bid 4H since my slam try is very minimum. I think I have to make 1 try because slam could be very good, ie Ax ATxxx KQx AQx. If partner would routinely open hands like this 2N then I guess I wouldn't even try.

[jdonn]

I like anything but 1♠ originally. 2NT is my choice, but if I thought I wasn't a game force I would start with 1NT before making the limit raise. 1♠ makes it hard to evaluate and you never want to play in spades (it's certainly possible to construct hands where it's right, but it's clear to me that even a 4-4 spade fit is more likely to be wrong).

At this point I'm really not even trying for slam, I'm flat and we are short on values and good 19s with a 5 card major should open 2NT anyway. I'll bid 3♥ forcing only because if partner rebids 3NT I'm happy to pass it.

[andy_h]

Hate 1♠ because it will cause frequent misjudgement from partner, and also that I would hate it if the auction would proceed as 1♥-1♠-2♦.

[Fluffy]

my hand sucks, after 2NT I am bidding 4♥

[pooltuna]

sathyab, on Oct 26 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

Opponents are silent through out the auction, as partner opens 1♥. You have

Scoring: IMP

---

You don't play Flannery, play 2nt as natural and GF (major suit raises are handled differently) and try to avoid bidding 2 of a minor just to create a GF. The choices appear to be are 1♠ on a bad suit when you such great support for partner or 2♣ to create a GF (anyone for 2nt ?). Say you try 1♠, partner bids 2nt, 18-19 balanced or may be an upgraded 17 with a six-bagger. Now you can bid 3♦ check-back to inquire if partner has 3♠s or bid 3♥ forcing. You seem to have close to slam values. How do you move forward without going overboard ? In minor suit auctions with near-slam values, we can often explore slam on such hands as 4nt can be passed, but unfortunately if you support ♥s here, 4nt by either of us is RKC.

If you try 3♦ and partner bids 3nt denying 3♠s, he might easily be 2533, in which case you have to worry about length tricks outside ♥s. Although undiscussed, 3♥ should deliver an extra ♥, in which case 6♥ or 6nt should be favorite. Even with a 3♠ response, you have one additional suit that has potential for an additional trick. But what do you do over 3nt ?

2♦ to be followed by 4♥

[kenrexford]

I'll try really hard to not bid 2♣ to establish a GF. All that the agreement requires is that I try really hard, apparently. Damn! Failed again!

[nigel_k]

Definitely not 1♠. It is (just barely) better than a limit raise so 1NT then 3♥ is too little.

On the other hand, I think 2NT suggests a better hand. Sure it can be a minimum GF and we have a minimum GF but partner is still going to play us for more than 4333 12 HCP with 3 trumps. The controls are good but we might simply not make enough tricks for the level that partner bids.

Can I bid 1NT then 4♥ to show this hand?

[kenrexford]

FWIW--

If I personally start this hand 2♣ (real clubs or support for hearts) and partner has the strong, balanced hand, he can often rebid 2♦ (real diamonds or balanced), allowing me to bid 2♥ to set trumps and a GF. When it matters, partner's next cue will be 2♠ (spade control), after which I will bypass 2NT (2NT would deny good trumps, so bypassing promises two of the top three hearts), bypass 3♣ (would have showed two of the top three clubs, so bypassing promises at most one), and cue 3♦, all showing a diamond control with good trumps and not two of the top three clubs. If partner now cues 3♥ (the remaining top trump), 3♠ (missing the heart Ace but extra spade stuff), or 3NT (serious interest), my next cue of 4♣ (first or second-round control, non-serious) tells almost my complete story. This is really good.

The point is that the decision as to which way to go (1♠, 2♣, 2NT, or 1NT!) is more a function of what tools are available after this point than the pure merits of the bid itself. If my cuebidding style were different, 2NT or 1♠ or 1NT! might have more appeal, because of what I predict to happen later.

[jdonn]

nigel_k, on Oct 26 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

Definitely not 1♠. It is (just barely) better than a limit raise so 1NT then 3♥ is too little.

On the other hand, I think 2NT suggests a better hand. Sure it can be a minimum GF and we have a minimum GF but partner is still going to play us for more than 4333 12 HCP with 3 trumps. The controls are good but we might simply not make enough tricks for the level that partner bids.

Can I bid 1NT then 4♥ to show this hand?

I don't see this as making any sense. If it's too good for a limit raise then it's good enough for 2NT. There is no in between range, not even a small one.

[dellache]

This 4333 hand is not really much more than just above a limit raise. My goals will be :
1- to try to play 3NT facing a 5332 hand with honors everywhere ;
2- to suggest 6♥ only if pard has short spades and around (17)18 HCP ;
OR if 5-5 in the rounded suits and short diamonds (I have 4 cover cards) ;
3- to play 4♥ unless pard is mini with short ♣.
(I would really like to play a relay system for this hand).

- If 2NT is GF-fit and asks for strength/shortness, and if I can control the sequence that would be my choice.
- if not, I would bid whatever shows a min-game hand with 3 trumps (1NT...4♥)
- the only bid I would surely NOT make is 1♠ : I don't want to play in 4♠, and I really want pard to upgrade a spade singleton/void !

OK, now that I wrongly decided to bid 1♠ and hear 2NT, my next call is 4♥. Exit the singleton ♦/♠ : we are left to play with BAL facing BAL, 17-18(19) facing 12 dull, and I don't want to suggest slam even if pard is Max. I also reject 3NT now, because with so much strength I don't believe we will go down in 4♥, while 3NT is sometimes in jeopardy.

I would consider anything else as an overbid now.

[Fluffy]

Yeah if its GF its GF, but certainly I wouldn't go hard on anyone who suggests bidding 1NT + 3♥ with this hand.

[Jlall]

Not forcing to game with this seems like a pretty serious error if you play a normal opening bid style. Sure 4333 is a downgrade, but you have great values to compensate. KQ of trumps and an ace and a king and even the DT may provide value. Less likely, but still possible, the C9 will do something also. And don't forget the 98 of spades! haha it's all soooo gooooood.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

Not forcing to game with this seems like a pretty serious error if you play a normal opening bid style. Sure 4333 is a downgrade, but you have great values to compensate. KQ of trumps and an ace and a king and even the DT may provide value. Less likely, but still possible, the C9 will do something also. And don't forget the 98 of spades! haha it's all soooo gooooood.

Yeah, but how many points is this hand?

[Fluffy]

I looked again and saw west is dealer, if partner opened in second position then I think this is a clear GF. But if he opened on first... I open many 11 counts with 5 card major, and I accept many invitation to games with 13

[sathyab]

Here're the two hands. Do you want to be in slam on a passive lead ?

Scoring: IMP

---

[Jlall]

sathyab, on Oct 27 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

Here're the two hands. Do you want to be in slam on a passive lead ?

Scoring: IMP

---

Of course you'd like to be in this slam! Partner could have rebid 3C though.

[dellache]

sathyab, on Oct 27 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

Here're the two hands. Do you want to be in slam on a passive lead ?

Scoring: IMP

---

That really doesn't look like a 2NT rebid in my book.
Of course slam is excellent.

[Jlall]

When our hearts are this good there is more of a chance than usual that partner will be 6322 also since he can't really bid 3H with bad hearts and probably wouldn't want to anyways with a bunch outside. If he has that slam can be great. If he has the right 19 with 2533 slam can be very good. Dunno, I think it's definitely worth making 1 try and then not making another move. Partner should only be driving with something exceptional.

[kenrexford]

sathyab, on Oct 27 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

Here're the two hands. Do you want to be in slam on a passive lead ?

Scoring: IMP

---

I like slam, if I get there.

However, the hand is not what I expected. My auction would be different:

OP: 1♥
RE: 2♣ (real, or just a fit)
OP: 3♣ (club fit if clubs were real)
RE: 3♥ (I had hearts, not suitable for a picture jump)
OP: 3♠ (spade control)
RE: 4♦ (diamond control, non-serious, not two of the top three clubs)

With that start, Opener surely moves. Probably RKCB:

OP: 4NT
RE: 5♠ (two with the Queen)
OP: 5NT (kings?)
RE: 6♣ (club King, not enough to accept immediately)
OP: 6♥ (weak grand try)
RE: Pass (nope)