[gambolero]

1) ♠Jxx ♥KJx ♦KJx ♣Jxxx

Partner opens 1♠ in first seat, red vs red.
Partner opens all 12 pointers but not balanced 11 counts.
Is my hand worth a limit raise?
We play 2/1 and go through a forcing 1NT for a 3 card limit raise.

2) ♠Jx ♥KQx ♦KQx ♣Jxxxx
Same scenario -- partner opens 1♠ in first seat.
Should I invite or force game? Partner knows that 2♣ here, while game forcing, does not promise a strong club suit.

[chasetb]

1.) Not a limit raise. We have the worst shape possible, only Jxx of trump, and are Aceless. 3NT might actually be the best game, but since we are only worth one bid, I bid 2♠. If partner invites me to game, I will gladly bid it.

2.) GF hands should start at 13 HCP, and you have another poor, Aceless 12 count. I use 1NT forcing, and only invite to 3NT unless partner shows 6+ Spades, then I might invite in Spades.

[SteveMoe]

Hand 1 is a simple raise (at top of strength, deducting for poor shape). Limit raises have 8 losers. This hand has 10 - much worse than a limit raise.

Hand 2 would depend on how weak/aggressive your opening bid style is. If you open 11 HCP often, 1N forcing intending to rebid 2N is enough. IF partner rebids 2♠ you rebid 4♠.

If you open good 12's (never fewer than 7 losers) then 2♣ getting to 3N (or 4♠ if pard has a 6-card suit) is right. Keep in mind that two 12 HCP balanced hands opposite each other make 9 tricks at least 50% of the time. Here you have two different 5-card suits. One should yield 4 tricks. This urges moving to game, not inviting.

While HCP help guide first bids, ultimately all strength and length valuations have to get to tricks.

[ggwhiz]

1. 2♠ but if I took my eye of the ball and bid a forcing 1nt my next bid would be 2nt before jumping in spades.

2. This is a 2♣ bid for me but only because of our thoroughly discussed opening style. If you open 4 triple 12's or balanced 11's and choose 1nt followed by 2nt it is just as playable.

[Zelandakh]

I would take the low road with both, even with the given conservative opening style.

[Winstonm]

gambolero, on 2013-December-06, 23:52, said:

1) ♠Jxx ♥KJx ♦KJx ♣Jxxx

Partner opens 1♠ in first seat, red vs red.
Partner opens all 12 pointers but not balanced 11 counts.
Is my hand worth a limit raise?
We play 2/1 and go through a forcing 1NT for a 3 card limit raise.

2) ♠Jx ♥KQx ♦KQx ♣Jxxxx
Same scenario -- partner opens 1♠ in first seat.
Should I invite or force game? Partner knows that 2♣ here, while game forcing, does not promise a strong club suit.

1) No, not even close.

Keep in mind these important considerations: 1) The point count undervalues aces and kings and overvalues queens and jacks. 2) 4333 hands are worth up to a full point less than 5332 hand types. 3) high cards are more valuable when they work in combination with each other, meaning KJx in one suit is more apt to catch a trick than Kxx, and Jxx in separate suits. 4) the quality of the spot cards (2s-10s) within the hand makes a difference, the better the spot cards the better the hand.5) 3-card support for a suit is nowhere near as good as 4-card support.

The hand shown is worth about an 8-count as a spade raise.

2) I would at imps, but not at mps. Same reasoning as above except the KQ's in combination keep the hand from being devalued as much.

[rmnka447]

Hand #1 is a simple 2 ♠ raise.

Hand #2 is not a game force.

Your questions relate to hand evaluation. Both hands are at near the boundary between two bids. In the case of hand #1, it's between a simple raise of 2 ♠ and the "2 1/2" ♠ raise made by bidding a forcing NT and then jumping in ♠. Hand #2 is at or near the divide between a game forcing 2 bid and a forward going forcing NT sequence showing the 10-12 point hand.

Really good players will look beyond the raw point count to other factors that affect the hand's trick taking ability. They will also factor in, as the auction continues, how their points mesh with what partner has shown. If you'd listen to these players discuss hands, they'll frequently use adjectives such as "great", "good", "non-descript", "bad", or "terrible" to describe their point count on any particular hand. Depending on these ratings, they will tilt toward the stronger or weaker action in borderline bidding situations.

Among the factors they consider are:

Location of honor cards -- ♠ A ♥ AK ♦ xxxxx ♣ xxxxx vs. ♠ x ♥ xx ♦ AKxxx ♣ Axxxx-- second hand is stronger as honors are in hand's long suits,

Honors working in combination -- ♠ Axxx ♥ Qxx ♦ Kxx ♣ Jxx vs. ♠ AJxx ♥ xxx ♦ KQx ♣ xxx -- second hand is better because the honors are working together,

Intermediate cards (especially in combination with honors) -- ♠ A652 ♥ K74 ♦ Q43 ♣ J63 vs. ♠ A1052 ♥ K94 ♦ Q103 ♣ J109 -- second hand is stronger because the intermediates are working with the honors to create potential tenace postions,

Overvalued Vs. Undervalued honors -- As are undervalued, Ks are valued about right, Qs and Js are overvalued -- hands with lots of Qs and Js (often called quacks) are not quite as valuable
as hands with a more even spread of honors,

Unguarded honors -- specifically stiff K, Qx, Jxx aren't worth full value unless partner has bid the suit, and finally,

How well the hand fits with partner's or the opponent's bids -- something like QJxx is worth less opposite partner's announced shortness in the suit, Kxx in an opponent's bid suit is worth more or less depending on whether you sit behind or in front of the opponent bidding the suit.

If there are a lot more negative factors than positive, then they tend to downgrade the hand. If there are a lot more positives than negatives, then they tend to upgrade the hand in borderline situations.

So let's look at the 2 hands you're asking about --

Hand # 1 - ♠ Jxx ♥ KJx ♦ KJx ♣ Jxxx - First, the longest suit is headed by only a J. You do have 2 KJ combinations in two other suit which is sort of neutral. There are no intermediates. Bidding expert Marty Bergen particularly hates a suit head by a Q or a J with only small cards supporting. He likes to call them "dangling" honors and considers them a big negative. Jxx in partner's suit is OK. But the hand has 4 Js -- generally overvalued cards.

Finally, someone mentioned that you had the worst shape (distribution) possible. Frequently, a key factor in getting an extra trick at a suit contract is the ability to ruff a card in the hand with the shorter trump length. The 4-3-3-3 distribution pretty much precludes that, so that is another negative.

From the above, you can see the hand has a lot more negative factors than positive. So it's appropriate to downgrade the hand and just make a simple raise to 2 ♠.

Change the hand to, say, ♠ Jxx ♥ KQx ♦ KJx ♣ xxxx and you'd probably find more people willing to make either the 2 1/2 ♠ raise or bid 2 NT after a forcing NT. Certainly if the hand was ♠ Jxx ♥ xxx ♦ KJx ♣ KQ10x, I'd be surprised if more than a very few people wouldn't a forward going bid after a forcing NT.


Hand # 2 - ♠ Jx ♥ KQx ♦ KQx ♣ Jxxxx - This hand has some similar negatives to the previous hand -- lack of honor combination in your long suit, lack of intermediates, etc. In addition, you have no fit with partner. So, this hand falls more into a "bad" 12 and should be downgraded.

If you are going to make a 2/1 game force bid with a bad ♣ suit, you need additional compensating values to ensure game is a good proposition opposite your partner's potential minimum opener. Putting it another way, let's say YOU opened this hand 1 ♣ and rebid 1 NT after partner's 1 ♠ response. Would you raise partner's invitational 2 NT bid (11-12) to 3 NT with this hand? If not, since you are regularly opening 11 and 12 pointers, then you need to invite with this hand via a forcing NT auction rather than game force.