[bd71]

...in bidding on with this hand and sequence, playing matchpoints and standard 2/1:

---

Specific questions:

1. What does the 2S bid mean to you?
2. What is your bid?

[mgoetze]

Does 1♠ promise an unbalanced hand? If it could be a 4342, then I can just barely imagine partner bidding 1NT at matchpoints despite having 4 spades.

For me, 1♠ promised an unbalanced hand and therefore partner having 4 spades is absolutely out of the question. There's no reason for partner to prefer one 4-3 fit to another, so that leaves only one sensible meaning for 2♠ ... a game try in hearts. Partner should have 5 hearts and Qx(x) in spades. That fits our hand well and we are far from minimum in any case, so we should have a clear 4♥ bid here.

[nige1]

bd71, on 2014-October-19, 11:18, said:

...in bidding on with this hand and sequence, playing matchpoints and standard 2/1:
Specific questions:
1. What does the 2S bid mean to you?
2. What is your bid?

---

IMO

• NAT NF but constructive, 3 ♠s and 4 poor ♥s e.g. ♠ A x x ♥ x x x x ♦ K x ♣ Q J x x
• 3N = 10, 2N = 8, Pass = 6. If partner is torturing you with 5 ♥s, then he can convert.

[kenrexford]

This seems like a situation for an "impossible 2S" call. Responder can pass to play hearts or can raise to invite hearts. Clubs, not so much. He needs a 3C call to play, with 2S as the invite in clubs.

I would need to be in a good partnership to trust that, though.

I understand that partner has diamonds. But, I am discussing the parallel auction because I like consistent structure. If 2S is a club invite in the parallel auction, then I do the same in this sequence. Sure, 3C here as a diamond invite makes sense, but for consistent treatment.

The bid of the other minor in the clubs scenario (bidding 3D as the other minor) only makes sense as a major - centered invite. So, in the diamond sequence, 3C is the major focus call.

[whereagles]

opener 4351
responder 3415

maybe? preferring to play spades instead of hearts?

[bd71]

mgoetze, on 2014-October-19, 13:12, said:

Does 1♠ promise an unbalanced hand?

Yes. Apologies for not anticipating that question.

[mike777]

1) 2s=3 card support and less than inv. A typical hand might be: Axx...xxxx...xx.....Axxx
2) pass at MP.

[gszes]

mgoetze, on 2014-October-19, 13:12, said:

Does 1♠ promise an unbalanced hand? If it could be a 4342, then I can just barely imagine partner bidding 1NT at matchpoints despite having 4 spades.

For me, 1♠ promised an unbalanced hand and therefore partner having 4 spades is absolutely out of the question. There's no reason for partner to prefer one 4-3 fit to another, so that leaves only one sensible meaning for 2♠ ... a game try in hearts. Partner should have 5 hearts and Qx(x) in spades. That fits our hand well and we are far from minimum in any case, so we should have a clear 4♥ bid here.

there is a very real possibility that partner has a hand like Axx xxxx K xxxxx and realizing that a spade contract
could play much better than hearts since they can ruff dia (if needed) with small spades and club ruffs will at least
be from a 4 card suit whereas in hearts if clubs are ruffed it probably will have to be with honors setting up more tricks
for the opps.

I agree responder should have 3 spades

[Trump Echo]

1. I'd see it as a preference bid showing 3 Spades.

2. I'd pass.

[Jinksy]

We don't normally allow room for bids in constructive auctions solely to improve the denomination unless both hands are strictly limited and it doesn't interfere with our game bidding.

Here 2♠ 'to play' would cost us a game try in ♠s with a potentially 16-point hand maybe (I guess opener could try 2♣ or 2N with a max for his 1♠) opposite a potentially 9-point one, and just for the sake of correcting a Moyesian to another Moyesian. That seems like totally misaligned priorities to me.

So I agree with mgoetze - this bid should be a game try (albeit obviously a NF one), and we have a clear accept.

[mgoetze]

gszes, on 2014-October-19, 20:15, said:

there is a very real possibility that partner has a hand like Axx xxxx K xxxxx and realizing that a spade contract
could play much better than hearts since they can ruff dia (if needed) with small spades and club ruffs will at least
be from a 4 card suit whereas in hearts if clubs are ruffed it probably will have to be with honors setting up more tricks
for the opps.

Partner certainly could have that hand but it is not exactly likely. On the other hand, imagine that hand and the auction up to 2♥ had been given as a forum problem. Would you confidently bid 2♠, certain that partner will pass? Or would you hesitate to do so because there is at least a chance partner could take it as, say, a game try in hearts?

[ggwhiz]

Partner has too many other game tries available for me to think they need 2♠ to be one as well.

Any hand that has poor hearts and no positional advantage to playing last at trick one in one moyse or the other is my guess and in my partnership this hand is not accepting an invite anyway. We play that patterning out like this is in the 15-17 range.

[Winstonm]

The only thing that makes sense is weak hearts, 4 long, and 3 decent spades - the suggestion here is a better known 4/3 fit. Because of the weak hearts and the continued bidding, I think partner has some club cards. I would think a hand along the lines of Axx, xxxx, xx, KQxx

I pass the 2S bid.

[kenrexford]

♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦Kxx ♣AJxx?

Should he bid 2♦ after 1♠? That seems wrong to me.

Should he jump to 4♦ to invite? Maybe, but why force the four-level?

[ggwhiz]

kenrexford, on 2014-October-20, 10:51, said:

♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦Kxx ♣AJxx?

Should he bid 2♦ after 1♠? That seems wrong to me.

Should he jump to 4♦ to invite? Maybe, but why force the four-level?

Right or wrong, that's a 3nt bid in my partnership.

[MrAce]

It is ridiculous to play 2♠ here to improve the partscore.

[wank]

MrAce, on 2014-October-20, 15:48, said:

It is ridiculous to play 2♠ here to improve the partscore.

i disagree. both hands are quite closely defined. you don't need loads of invitational bids.

if you have a crappy heart suit you don't want to play a partscore in a weak 4-3 fit, especially when the strong hand is getting tapped in the 4th suit. i'd expect something like axx xxxx jx qxxx.

[Jinksy]

Surely that hand just passes 1♠? Is it so worried about them competing?

[Winstonm]

MrAce, on 2014-October-20, 15:48, said:

It is ridiculous to play 2♠ here to improve the partscore.

I always love it when the natural interpretation of a bid is labeled, "ridiculous".

[PhantomSac]

MrAce, on 2014-October-20, 15:48, said:

It is ridiculous to play 2♠ here to improve the partscore.

So what do you think it is?

I mean mgoetze wants it to be game interest with 5 hearts, I have a good bid available for that, 3H. Kenrexford wants it to be effectively a game try in diamonds if I understand correctly, we have 3C available when we have that hand.

Partner showed 4351, we have made all non forcing bids so far, it is likely to be a partscore hand, why can't I play the partscore I think to be best opposite a known shape? I have a cuebid, I have a game try in hearts, I have whatever else I need.