[NickRW]

Scoring: XIMP

W N E S
-- -- P-1♥
P-2♥-P-?

---

I'd like an opinion about the next call here. Your reasonable options are:

1) 3♦ = Short suit trial bid
2) 2♠ = Tell me the cheapest suit you'd accept a long suit trial bid
3) 4♥ = Hell its vul@IMPs, just have a go anyway.

Your 1♥ showed 5 or 4/4 majors (so 2NT at this stage would suggest 44(32) or a much more no trumpy looking 5332 than this). P will not have responded (anything) on bus tickets (6hcp 10 loser hands are typically passed) as your agreements include an outlet for a strong 2 and you have a moderately aggressive attitude to what constitutes such a hand. However, 2♥ does not guarantee 4 card support.

You don't like the system? Sorry - I just got called to the phone and you had to stand in for me!

Nick

[gwnn]

4H, then you will come back from the phone call and get to play it

[rogerclee]

Might just be me; I would always bid game but do as much as possible to try to get a club lead.

In a standard system if my opps were bad I would try to make a natural game try in spades or diamonds if that was possible, if my opps were nonbad I would make a natural game try in clubs and hope partner rejects so I can bid 4H anyway.

I don't know how to do that in your system, I guess I would make a short suit game try in clubs.

[jjbrr]

I'd try 2♠ given the methods and give 3NT a try if partner can show stuff in ♦

[pooltuna]

NickRW, on Jun 1 2010, 02:08 PM, said:

Scoring: XIMP

W N E S
-- -- P-1♥
P-2♥-P-?

---

I'd like an opinion about the next call here. Your reasonable options are:

1) 3♦ = Short suit trial bid
2) 2♠ = Tell me the cheapest suit you'd accept a long suit trial bid
3) 4♥ = Hell its vul@IMPs, just have a go anyway.

Your 1♥ showed 5 or 4/4 majors (so 2NT at this stage would suggest 44(32) or a much more no trumpy looking 5332 than this). P will not have responded (anything) on bus tickets (6hcp 10 loser hands are typically passed) as your agreements include an outlet for a strong 2 and you have a moderately aggressive attitude to what constitutes such a hand. However, 2♥ does not guarantee 4 card support.

You don't like the system? Sorry - I just got called to the phone and you had to stand in for me!

Nick

Admiral Farragut the hand - 4♥ (this assumes partner made a constructive raise)

[Siegmund]

I go for the long suit trial. The only card I want to see partner upgrade is the CQ, and if doesn't show willingness to accept a club trial (either because he has the CQ or he has a super-maximum) I will give up.

I have sympathy for the 3D short-suit trial, and if you moved a face card from clubs to spades, I'd do that.

[Phil]

Bah - I'd like to explore 3N but this seems tough given the system.

I guess I'll start with 2S. If pard tries 2N (spade pieces I hope), I'll bid 3C and hope we can nudge our way there. Most of the time ill end up in 4H and I hope I haven't helped out the defense too much on the process.

I'd like to try to engineer a club lead but can't see any reliable way to do that, and I think looking for 3N is more important anyway. Frequently with a hand this balanced the lead won't matter unless pard has a surprise trick source and xxx of spades.

Does anyone really invite with this fairly prime 18 at IMPs?

This post has been edited by Phil: 2010-June-01, 16:07

[NickRW]

Phil, on Jun 1 2010, 09:57 PM, said:

...I guess I'll start with 2S. If pard tries 2N (spade pieces I hope)...

Yes, it is. P had

Axx
T9xx
x
QT8xx

After 1H-2H-2S-2N-3C-4C kaaa...ching you stand some chance of finding the 6.

Thanks for the opinions.

Nick

[Phil]

NickRW, on Jun 1 2010, 06:06 PM, said:

Phil, on Jun 1 2010, 09:57 PM, said:

...I guess I'll start with 2S. If pard tries 2N (spade pieces I hope)...

Yes, it is. P had

Axx
T9xx
x
QT8xx

After 1H-2H-2S-2N-3C-4C kaaa...ching you stand some chance of finding the 6.

Thanks for the opinions.

Nick

Hmm - good enough but I think pard can splinter-accept with 4♦ over 2♠.

[gnasher]

NickRW, on Jun 2 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

Axx
T9xx
x
QT8xx

2♥ was a bit feeble wasn't it? Especially if you're playing a weak notrump.

[NickRW]

gnasher, on Jun 2 2010, 12:04 AM, said:

2♥ was a bit feeble wasn't it? Especially if you're playing a weak notrump.

14-16(17)

[pooltuna]

gnasher, on Jun 1 2010, 07:04 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 2 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

Axx
T9xx
x
QT8xx

2♥ was a bit feeble wasn't it? Especially if you're playing a weak notrump.

not sure what system they were playing but it meets my definition of a constructive raise

[MarkDean]

I would just bid game.
I am pretty sure I have never in my life made a game try and then bid a slam when partner made interesting noise over my try: maybe I just do not think outside the box often enough.

[NickRW]

MarkDean, on Jun 2 2010, 02:39 AM, said:

I would just bid game.
I am pretty sure I have never in my life made a game try and then bid a slam when partner made interesting noise over my try: maybe I just do not think outside the box often enough.

Well, yeah, hands like this are fairly rare I think. But though the majority opinion seems to be bid game via whatever route with that opening hand, it doesn't seem to be unanimous - and I suspect that if the vul were changed or we were doing match points, then a few more would be thinking of the invitational route. Yet there it is - 12 tricks.

To the others who queried system - yes the 2H is constructive. The openers are 5443, an almost strong NT, non standard twos, semi forcing 1NT response, 2/1 like standard. I just thought it was an interesting hand.

Nick

[jdeegan]

4♥ - think you gotta blast despite the actual outcome where pard has a magic hand - and opps silent with 10♦. Imho, way too much to gain by blasting. Occasionally blasting will help you make the hand. Other times just get an overtrick or so.

[the hog]

I just bid game on this hand. Any form of trial is more likely to help the opponents than get any sensible information from partner.

[jdonn]

I agree, I don't think it's practical to look for slam since it's so unlikely, or to look for 3NT with two unstopped suits. Better to just keep them in the dark.

[whereagles]

obvious 4H. We need about 2 cards from pard to make this, and that's expectable. Besides, given he has no hcp in hearts, he rates to have more than a bare, flat min.

I've been in similar situations and trials turned out to be a way to miss a cold game