[pclayton]

Scoring: MP

---

Playing 2/1 and the raise structure given.

MP's, weak field. what is your call after pard opens 1♠?

What call do you make Vul at IMPs?

[mr1303]

2S is plenty with a 4333 hand

[Free]

2♠. Bergen raises with 4333 isn't the way to go...

[whereagles]

9,5 losers = 2S for me

[luis]

2s is fine in my opinion.

[han]

I also voted 2S. Though there are 4333 hands where I would make a Bergen raise, this isn't one of them. 2S describes my playing strength very well, and in a weak field with both vul, we might even get to play in 2S, wouldn't that be nice!

[mike777]

2s

[awm]

I'm going to bid 3♦ here, even though I agree that this hand is only "worth" 2♠. Vulnerable, at IMPs, I would bid 2♠. Here's my reasoning:

Playing in a weak field, a lot of people will just count points. It's certainly true that this hand has a lot of losers, and if partner bids game I expect it to be a poor game more often than a good one. However, there's a great deal of value to being in the field contract here. We have to analyze the expected match points. Assuming that partner will accept a limit raise but will pass 2♠ (which is probably the most likely, and also most interesting situation):

(1) If we bid 4♠, we get a good score if it happens to make. We also get a good score if our (presumably weak) opponents misdefend and let it make. We will get a good score if partner's (superior to the field) declarer play allows the contract to make, and we will also get a good score if the contract is so bad that people are going down two, but some combination of partner's play and opponents defense allows him to hold it to down one.

(2) If we bid 2♠, both partner's declarer play and opponents' defense are taken out of the equation. Most tables will bid the game, and we will beat those where it went down and lose to those where it made. Unfortunately, weak players make more defensive mistakes than play mistakes, so even when the game is poor (as it often will be) it is likely to make at several tables.

So even if 4♠ is, on whole, a rather poor game, it seems like we could easily win by bidding it just because the field is there. I don't want to eliminate the influence of partner's play and opponents' defense.

At IMPs, I will bid what I think the hand is worth and trust teammates defense to beat it if they bid a poor game at the other table.

-- Adam

[dogsbreath]

I'd bid 2S (weak but constructive) with 3 trumps an Ace and a King...
..I'm not crazy about 4-3-3-3 hands either, but I think 2S puts too mych pressure on p to take the correct action.. esp with the 4th spade.
..so i take the 3h raise option
..I dont love the bid but like 2S less
Rgds Dog

[luke warm]

3♥ for me, because of the distribution and the good defense

[hrothgar]

2S for me. Willing to lie about a trump passsed on the poor shape and the loser count.
If I were to make a Bergen raise, I'd show a constructive raise. i think this is 1 loser to weak for a limit bid...

[mikestar]

Most beginners are taught that a limit raise is 11-12 including distibution points. A typical point counter will evaluate this hand as 10 points and settle for 2S. So if partner has a hand where he accepts a limit raise but passes 2S, the field won't be in game. Now if partner makes 4S by good play/bad defense, +170 will beat the field--why risk everything by bidding 4S?

As for the case if someone in the field takes the aggressive view--this may well be a hand where the usual presumption of more defensive errors than declarer errors doesn't hold. Declarers are far more error prone in difficult, against the odds contracts than in more comfortable contracts. The same weak declarer may make 4S if he stops in 2S but go down 2 if he's in 4S. I've seen this too many times.

[flytoox]

Jlall, on Feb 25 2005, 11:47 PM, said:

why try to predict the field? Just bid your hand.

cannot agree more.

[pclayton]

I bid 2♠ too; pard misguessed spades for +110 (he said something about a "Zar" Opener - I'm not sure what that meant . It was a decent board; opponents have 3 of something.

Vuls at IMPs, I think its an interesting valuation problem. How many cover cards do you think 98xx is? I think its about .5. With the bits and pieces, this looks like about 3.0 - 3.2 covers; certainly worth borderline limit raise.

But with the lack of ruffing value, I'm suprised no one mentioned a 3 card limit raise at IMPs.

Thanks all.

[HeartA]

I bid 1N and 3♠ next round. 4th ♠ can't be ignored.