[mfa1010]

Partner's hand was too strong for 2♥ imo.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

MrAce, on 2012-June-30, 12:12, said:

I passed, before i did that i thought about some shapes pd may have to make game, i came close, but not enough. Pd had

Kx
Jxx
Qxxxx
KJx

Pass would be right decision if for example he didnt have ♣J in the original hand. Or if he had Kxx ♠ (I didnt believe opponents neccesarilly have 8 card spades in this auction)

But anyway it was close decision that costed us 10 imps. Those who bid the game got it right.

Would you start 2♥ with this or would you make a 3 card LR ?

Since in 2/1, a 3 card limit raise is 8,9 exact, then pard was too strong for 2H ( I agree with mfa1010 ) .
Had it gone:
( p ) - 1H - ( p ) - 1NTF
( p ) - 2C - ( p ) - ?? ( with the double-fit, he might just bid 4H now )

[psyck]

When 2♥ can include a contructive hand, a game try of 3♣ is called for, certainly on 2♠ if not on 2♥.

[rmnka447]

I'm bidding 4 ♥ as pard has shown something with the XX. If pard can't sit for 2 ♠, then I want to be in 4 ♥ at IMPs.


P.S. just read through rest of thread after posting first (above) comment. You do have a 6 loser hand (3 ♠s, 1 ♥, 1 ♦, 1 ♣). I bid 4 ♥ because at IMPs I'm aggressive about bidding VUL games. So once pard keeps bidding, I'm taking a positive view and going on. After 2 ♥ by pard, you passed and were interested in what others might do. With your hand, I think you're on the knife edge between passing and inviting. Pard has presumably about 9 loser hand which would leave you just a tad short at game. (24-[9+6]=9) I don't think either action is clear cut and would imagine some days I might make a try and some I might not. So I wouldn't beat yourself up too much for passing over 2 ♥.

Partner's hand looks to some like more than a 2 ♥ bid. But it's just possible that partner also looked at the hand's loser count besides his point count. Qxx(xx) counts out as 2 1/2 losers. (With QJx(x..) or Q10x(x..), it would be 2 losers because of the supporting card.) That makes the hand an 8 1/2 loser hand -- again on the cusp between a straight 2 ♥ raise and a 1 NT/3 ♥ limit raise. Again, pard looks to have made a close judgement.

[gszes]

I agree with original pass --- too small % of finding just the right hand but after
p xx and rho bids 2s this greatly improves the chances of p not only being
at top bit short in spades. Now the :slim: chance of finding p with say
xx Axxx xxxx KJx begins to look much more likely and i would have bid
3c over 2s to help p evaluate their hand better. If p tries to sign off I
have done all i could.

[JLOGIC]

Guess I'm in a minority, I think 2H is totally fine and passing 2H is totally fine. You cannot construct a system where you always get to every game without getting too high sometimes, to me they both just had maximum hands that fit very well (esp the doubleton spade, but those jacks are really huge and even our KQ of diamonds are needed as both a trick and to stop the tap). Even with these hands fitting so well, game is not amazing.

That said, we got another chance and then had the ability to show that we are both max, to learn that partner likely has a doubleton spade, and to show our side club suit (had we bid 3C over 2S) to learn about our good fit there. You might call it inconsistent bidding, but to me it is perfectly consistent to have two well fitting maximum hands that make an ok game and stop in 2H, then once limited by stopping in 2H to try for and bid game once they bid again. I don't think stopping in 2H means that we cannot possibly have a good game.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2012-July-01, 22:33, said:

That said, we got another chance and then had the ability to show that we are both max, to learn that partner likely has a doubleton spade, and to show our side club suit (had we bid 3C over 2S) to learn about our good fit there. You might call it inconsistent bidding, but to me it is perfectly consistent to have two well fitting maximum hands that make an ok game and stop in 2H, then once limited by stopping in 2H to try for and bid game once they bid again. I don't think stopping in 2H means that we cannot possibly have a good game.

Nobody said it was inconsistent to do as you suggest. I said it was inconsistent to pass 2♥, then pass over 2♠, then bid game.

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2012-July-02, 02:07, said:

Nobody said it was inconsistent to do as you suggest. I said it was inconsistent to pass 2♥, then pass over 2♠, then bid game.

But I disagree with this. If partner passes out 2♠, I certainly don't want to be in game.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2012-July-02, 02:07, said:

Nobody said it was inconsistent to do as you suggest. I said it was inconsistent to pass 2♥, then pass over 2♠, then bid game.

I beg to differ.
Passing gives your partner a chance to DBL 2♠.
Passing gives your partner a chance to show a concentration of values in a minor. (Always better to let dummy do that than declarer).
The implication of partner's 3♥ bid was that he likely held honors in both minors (scattered values)
It is a close decision but 4♥ looks right to me over 3♥.

Partner had a clearcut 2♥ raise. A 3 card limit raise would have been a stupid overbid with all this rubbish.
The overbidders are the same pack, who on different occasions will advocate to open 1♥ on any semi-balanced 10 count.
They just love to go minus in return for the occasional triumph.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

The hand I had in mind was

xx
Axx
Axxx
Jxxx

4♥ looked very good opposite that, might need a heart guess or ♥10 in dummy.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2012-July-02, 02:07, said:

Nobody said it was inconsistent to do as you suggest. I said it was inconsistent to pass 2♥, then pass over 2♠, then bid game.

As others have said, I'm not even sure this is true. I probably would have bid 3C but I think passing to see partners action is a possibility, and then I think it is right to bid 4H knowing partner has probably something like a 10 count with a doubleton spades and probably scattered values in the minors (no 3D bid from partner).

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2012-June-30, 04:46, said:

It seems inconsistent to bid game now. We didn't make a game-try after 2♥, and we didn't bid 3♣ over 2♠. For game to make, we'll need partner to be able to deal with our club losers. If we're considering bidding game now, we should have taken the opportunity to ask him if he had the right hand.

With the bidding as it's gone, I think pass is clearly correct. We still have a singleton king and we still have terrible spots in our side-suit. If we're missing ♣K it's likely to be offside. xx AJx xxxx Kxxx would be nice, but xx AJx Axxxx xxx is rather more likely.

I would interpret partners bidding as having meat, and more than than expected offence. I think he rates to have a singleton spade most of the time here? If you just had some balanced maximum, you have shown your hand with XX, and no need to bid 3H. Given that you have xxx spade I think openers hand is a monster. I would bid 4H, and I don't think its that close. I cant imagine ever redoubling and then bidding with a spade honour for example.

Read rest of the thread: I don't think xx is particularly about penalising. Just shows a decent hand. The given hand looks like a 2H bid to me. Cannot imagine xx then 3H with the given hand: you told partner you probably had a balanced maximum, he elected to pass 2S, why do I have more to say? The hand I had in mind was similar to fluffy's, x Axx Axxxx xxx, or similar.

[dbsboy]

I think responder has a clear cut 2♥ bid playing constructive raise (or just playing simple raise). To me, a constructive raise shows a gd7 - bad10hcp hand, and this hand is definitely a bad 10. If you make a limit raise, one would pass only with a minimum balanced hand. Anyway, I would bid 3♣ with opener's hand. It seems that I have a good hand and that ♦K is not completely useless. Of course people play different styles of constructive raise and limit raise, but I prefer to have the responder to bid conservatively and the opener to bid more aggressively.

[iamrobusto]

4♥. What is xx? A useless bid that can only confuse.