[maris oren]

---

What should S response be? 3 ♥ or 3 ♦?

[DavidKok]

I think you have to give up on 3NT with this hand, and bid either 3♦ followed by 4♥ or 3♥ followed by 4♦. Unfortunately the latter would suggest a very strong hand to me, so I would have to bid the former. If partner bids 4♠ over 4♥ I will pass.

It is worth noting that if partner has 4 or more clubs they will either have a minimum (in which case the communication in 3NT might be in jeopardy - a misfit minimum opposite minimum light on quick tricks) or a sixth spade. In either case I prefer 4M to 3NT, and if we bid 3♦ now there's the additional chance of striking gold.

[nullve]

maris oren, on 2021-August-19, 05:08, said:

---

What should S response be? 3 ♥ or 3 ♦?

Bidding system? Form of scoring?

[Douglas43]

Not playing 2/1, I would bid 3♦ to create a game force, and see whether partner can show heart tolerance or rebids spades

[apollo1201]

maris oren, on 2021-August-19, 05:08, said:

What should S response be? 3 ♥ or 3 ♦?

3H if forcing promising 6
3D otherwise

To see if partner gives a belated H tolerance or repeats their S (showing 6, now).

If partner bids 3NT instead, looks like 5134 or « worse » and 3NT will not be a piece of cake. I’d like the H 10 however to confidently bid 4H over that. Toss a coin maybe?

[Gilithin]

Does everyone see this hand as a clear game force over 1♠? I feel like it is impossible to answer the OP question without knowing what we showed with 2♥ and what North showed with 2♠.

[sfi]

Gilithin, on 2021-August-19, 16:56, said:

Does everyone see this hand as a clear game force over 1♠?

6 losers, 13 points, a useful jack and good shape - you're going to be taking a big position if you don't force to game. Sure, your values are soft but partner's likely to have some of the controls.

Quote

I feel like it is impossible to answer the OP question without knowing what we showed with 2♥ and what North showed with 2♠.

That's certainly true. Even a raise to 3S is a possibility depending on agreements.

[paulg]

As I said in the twin thread:

My advice to my juniors, when they are unsure in such situations, is that the lower bid normally gives the partnership more space to explore what may be a difficult hand.

Here you will learn more over 3♦: partner may show even longer spades with 3♠; they may be able to give show some heart tolerance; they may be able to bid 3NT.

Over 3♥, partner's options are more limited. Without a stop in both minors, they cannot bid 3NT so will have to raise your hearts or rebid spades with less assured length.

So I think 3♦ is the better call even though you may not finish in the right contract (if partner bids 3NT, for example, but hopefully the ♣Q bolsters the suit).

[mikeh]

Gilithin, on 2021-August-19, 16:56, said:

Does everyone see this hand as a clear game force over 1♠? I feel like it is impossible to answer the OP question without knowing what we showed with 2♥ and what North showed with 2♠.

In my partnerships, where we open almost all 11 counts and, especially with spades, some good shapely 10 counts, forcing to game is aggressive….but aggression often pays, especially if your alternative is a significant underbid. I think that in traditional 2/1, a 1N rebid, assuming it’s forcing rather than (as many now play it) semi-forcing, this hand could be difficult to bid. Say opener rebids 2S. Now we can’t bid hearts, since 3H is how we’d bid with, say, 7 hearts, stiff or void spade and fewer hcp.

In one partnership we play that 3D over 1S is invitational in hearts, and I’d be torn with this hand….2H or 3D. I think it’s a tossup.

Btw, defence is the hardest aspect of card play, so it’s an error to assess all bidding sequences on the basis that the defenders will always take their tricks. Sometimes one can see, in the auction, that the defence will be easy, but that’s not this hand. Thus if weighing aggression against conservatism, this factor is why so many experts think that it’s a bidder’s game’

So while it’s close, I bid 2H even if 3D were available. Swap my black suits, and I go low.

[Gilithin]

mikeh, on 2021-August-20, 07:40, said:

In my partnerships, where we open almost all 11 counts and, especially with spades, some good shapely 10 counts, forcing to game is aggressive….but aggression often pays, especially if your alternative is a significant underbid. I think that in traditional 2/1, a 1N rebid, assuming it’s forcing rather than (as many now play it) semi-forcing, this hand could be difficult to bid. Say opener rebids 2S. Now we can’t bid hearts, since 3H is how we’d bid with, say, 7 hearts, stiff or void spade and fewer hcp.

In one partnership we play that 3D over 1S is invitational in hearts, and I’d be torn with this hand….2H or 3D. I think it’s a tossup.

I thought it was fairly standard these days to use 3 level responses in a lower suit to show an invitational hand. Your 3♦ convention is presumably a more advanced version of this; how do you deal with the same issue in a minor though? 2♠ for ♣ and 3♣ for ♦? I sometimes play a couple of LOB systems where most 5-4 10 point hands are opened and there this would (I think) be too light for a game force. So I figured this ought to be close to the boundary and was surprised noone had expressed anything along those lines given that you are not alone in opening lighter than the typical US club player.

mikeh, on 2021-August-20, 07:40, said:

Btw, defence is the hardest aspect of card play, so it’s an error to assess all bidding sequences on the basis that the defenders will always take their tricks. Sometimes one can see, in the auction, that the defence will be easy, but that’s not this hand. Thus if weighing aggression against conservatism, this factor is why so many experts think that it’s a bidder’s game’

I would have said that defence is the hardest part not only of card play but of the whole game but it is interesting that the DD analysis of top pairs seems to suggest that when the opening lead gets excluded, declarer actually tends to drop more tricks than the defence. One wonders if this will still be the case if/when the cheating finally gets weeded out of the game.

mikeh, on 2021-August-20, 07:40, said:

So while it’s close, I bid 2H even if 3D were available. Swap my black suits, and I go low.

This is excellent analysis and I thank you for it. I do have one little follow-up question though. Given that the partial ♠ fit represents the little push towards forcing to game, would it be any different if you were playing a 4 card major system? Or does that make no difference to you on this type of decision?

[DavidKok]

Gilithin, on 2021-August-20, 09:10, said:

I sometimes play a couple of LOB systems where most 5-4 10 point hands are opened and there this would (I think) be too light for a game force. So I figured this ought to be close to the boundary and was surprised noone had expressed anything along those lines given that you are not alone in opening lighter than the typical US club player.

I personally favour a slightly different approach. In my experience trying to cater to weak openings by partner is incredibly difficult, and flipping your entire bidding system upside down (or downgrading a lot of reasonable hands 'to cater to a weak partner') is not my preferred solution. Simply force to game just as you would opposite a 'standard' opener. Sometimes game will be hopeless, but other times it will make simply because of a nice fit, running side-suit or even defensive error. In the long run this is likely to pretty much average out compared to the field playing in a partscore (after their partner did not open), simply because game bonus is such a major contribution (at IMPs).
In my system I do have one particular auction to show a (10)11-12 balanced hand at the 2NT-level after partner opens, and this call is not forcing, When facing a sound opener I would push to game on pretty much any 12-count, so this is a small concession to cater to light openings. I can also show invitational hearts over a 1♠ opening artificially (at the 2♥-level no less). But mostly these are just slight gadgets. I much prefer the motto "I may not have a play for game, but I sure as hell will be in one!". It sounds absurd but retains the flexibility of a natural system with the power of aggressive openings, all the while not losing much on these close calls in the long run. Even at IMPs getting to making games and staying out of failing ones is only one desirable feature among many of a bidding system, and sacrificing a bit of this is OK if you get sufficiently much in return.

[Douglas43]

Douglas43, on 2021-August-19, 05:56, said:

Not playing 2/1, I would bid 3♦ to create a game force, and see whether partner can show heart tolerance or rebids spades

Just realised that this is from the weekly free instant tournament. Playing 2/1 I rebid 3♥ and the eventual 4♥ contract got a very helpful diamond lead from the robot which gained me a trick ...