[Hanoi5]

All white, Butler:

♠KQJx
♥AJx
♦Jxx
♣T9x

(Pa)-1♠-(3♥)-???

3♥ is weak.

[mike777]

nine loser flat 4333 hands....3s is more than enough.

4s would be more
4h would be still more.

[Fluffy]

4♠ is plenty, to be followed by a double if needed, my ODR is average despite the 4333

[the hog]

4S is fine

[rmnka447]

4 ♠. ♥ AJx is worth a little more behind the ♥ bidder. 4-3-3-3 makes slam pretty remote unless partner has a huge hand, so is not worth a 4 ♥ bid. 3 NT would be a crap shoot with nothing in the minors. I don't want to bid 3 ♠ and give partner a chance to miss a good game.

[johnu]

4♠ for me. ♥J makes any heart honors in openers hand look a lot better, and is likely pretty good opposite 3 small. Minor honors in clubs and diamonds in combination with opener's honors could let opener finesse preempter's partner. Partner should consider that you have this range of hand in case they've got more than game in mind.

[lycier]

4♠ is a reasonable bid.

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2013-August-25, 21:26, said:

All white, Butler: ♠ K Q J x ♥ A J x ♦ J x x ♣ T 9 x
(Pa)-1♠-(3♥)-???
3♥ is weak.

IMO 4♥ = 10, 4♠ = 9, 3♠ = 7.
Having read the other replies, I have misgivings about the 4♥ cue-bid but we play it as a high-card raise. It's purpose is to help partner in competition rather than to suggest a slam.

[cherdano]

nige1, on 2013-August-28, 01:48, said:

IMO 4♥ = 10, 4♠ = 9, 3♠ = 7.

I agree that 3♠ is awful, we would do the same with 8hcp and bad 3-card support.

Quote

Having read the other replies, I have misgivings about the 4♥ cue-bid but we play it as a high-card raise. It's purpose is to help partner in competition rather than to suggest a slam.

I think it's normal to play that 4♠ has up to limit-raise values, and 4♥ is a raise to game based on values (i.e. a hand that would have forced to game without the competition).

[billw55]

rmnka447, on 2013-August-27, 11:15, said:

3 NT would be a crap shoot with nothing in the minors.

Not so sure about that. Partner did open the bidding, seemingly with no heart values and only the ace in spades, he must have his points somewhere. Plus I have helpers in both minors. With no ruffs coming, 3NT could easily be a better contract than 4♠.

[jdeegan]

4♠. I would prefer to invite holding a not-so-hot flat 12 HCP, but the pesky opponents have put on the pressure. Put the pressure back at them. 4♠ is, imo, much less of an overbid than 3♠ is an underbid. If I thought there were a chance in Hell that the opponents might take the push to 4♥, I might give more than a passing thought to 3♠.

[chasetb]

To stay with the field, 4♠ is a must, since 3.5♠ does not exist. More and more however, this hand is screaming 3NT to me. 4333 hands are very poor offensively, and I have a bad feeling in 4♠ it will go ♦x to the Ace, King, ruff, and ♣A for -1.

[jdeegan]

chasetb, on 2013-August-28, 09:14, said:

To stay with the field, 4♠ is a must, since 3.5♠ does not exist. More and more however, this hand is screaming 3NT to me. 4333 hands are very poor offensively, and I have a bad feeling in 4♠ it will go ♦x to the Ace, King, ruff, and ♣A for -1.

3NT is not a bad thought. 5♠, 2♥ and 2 elsewhere. Plus, 3NT might lure them into bidding 4♥.

[DJNeill]

Have seen 4C/4H inversion to allow more definiton of raise. If so, that would help to distinguish the 4S weak from 4S strong.

Thanks,
Dan

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2013-August-28, 02:57, said:

I agree that 3♠ is awful, we would do the same with 8hcp and bad 3-card support.

I think it's normal to play that 4♠ has up to limit-raise values, and 4♥ is a raise to game based on values (i.e. a hand that would have forced to game without the competition).

I am not saying you are wrong, but I think there may be more than one version of 'normal'.

For me, and those partners with whom I have discussed it, it would be normal for 4♠ to show an average+ limit to a minimum game-force.

Generally, when the opps steal one level in the auction, the rule of thumb I use is that I move the strength of my raises down half a bid.

Thus over 3♥, 3♠ includes upper-half 2♠ bids and lower-half limit raises, and 4♠ upper half of the limit up to minimum game forces.

This means that with average- or weak 2♠ raises, I need to pass first, but partner will often be able to get us back into the auction and, when he can't, it is often (not always) because we don't belong in the auction anymore.

To bid as you suggest seems to me to have flaws...not earth-shattering flaws but ones that nevertheless make the approach unattractive to me.

You are bidding 3♠ on hands where we simply don't belong at the 3-level.

That's no big deal since we will rarely be doubled when that is true and sometimes it'll be a good save or small loss v 3♥.

You are bidding 4♠ when we have no play. This is more likely to be a significant loss, if only because it is far easier for 4th seat to hammer us when we are in game. We hold a minimum limit, partner holds his usual trash.....do you see what people open with these days?...and we go for 500 against air.

And the biggest losses seem to me to be associated with partner holding a hand with some slam interest. When 4♥ is used with such lack of definition, opener is screwed with many hands.

The problem is a lack of room. I can see your approach working (not costing much) if the opps bid a minor, since opener has a sort of last train option available over the cuebid raise. However, they have bid hearts.

Basically, opener can't show any interest at all unless his hand is so big that he has 5-level safety opposite a minimum.

The approach I prefer allows opener to express interest if he has 5-level safety opposite a 'good' game force with at least some extra values. The difference may seem subtle, but slam bidding in contested auctions is an area in which a lot of imps are won and lost...sometimes lost by missing slam and sometimes by overreaching because of a lack of definition in the auction to date.

As for the OP, I bid a boring 4♠, not caring is this is a good limit (which I happen to think it is) or a minimum gf...fortunately, the hand fits my approach perfectly Yes, 3N is sexy, but I prefer boring to sexy, at the table, anyway.

[mgoetze]

So, what was the interesting thing about this hand?

[cherdano]

Despite Mike's long post, I doubt that he and I bid all that differently on that auction, probably my short simplified post made the difference appear bigger than it is.
When I wrote "8 hcp and bad trumps", I was thinking of a hand with a distributional feature - I guess I would think of Qxx xx Kxx Kxxxx as a minimum 3♠ bid. And "4♠ shows up to limit raise values" was a shorthand for "4♠ includes mixed raises that want to bid game due to lack of space, good limit raises, and some downgraded game forces". I doubt Mike requires 15 hcp for a 4♥ bid, so the difference is - maybe one hcp in value?

[Sjoerds]

4 ♠ and wouldn't be surprised to go down

[gszes]

spade J is probably useless in 9+ card spade fit heart J is
probably useless since it will never be needed to keep
partner from being pumped. The Jxx and T9x probably are
worth around a J combined and 4333 distribution bites as
it severly limits ruffing with our large trump fit. All told this
hand sort of looks like 11 with 4 trumps and no ruffing value

Limit raise smack dab in the middle

3s

all else just too much for this collection

[Fluffy]

I used to downgrade Jack of trumps and queen of trumps because we had a fit, it is a mistake in general, when you have AQJ combined the Jack amd queen are very useful, much more than a random jack somewhere else were one of the players has dubleton. Even on this case where KQJ are present we can still be missing the ace, and yet more, the jack is never 'useless', since at the very least it probes that partner doesn't have it so will have something useful instead.