[Apollo81]

♠A
♥J108xx
♦Jxxx
♣xxx

MPs all white

1♠-1N
2♥-?

(1) would you bid 3♥?
(2) what's the minimum change to make it a 3♥ bid

[ArtK78]

No.

At IMPs, I might bid. But not at matchpoints.

This hand would be pretty good if partner's spade suit is Txxxx. And a raise to 3♥ implies spade shortness. So game is not out of the question. If partner is 55 or 65 in the majors, you may have 10 tricks.

But a 2♥ bid usually shows 54 distribution and a minimum opening bid. So, most of the time, even 3♥ can turn a plus into a minus (or a bigger minus). So it is just not worth bidding at matchpoints.

Make the hand:

x
JTxxx
AQxx
xxx

and you have a 3H bid. Now you have 10 tricks opposite some good minimum openings with fitting values, like:

Axxxx
AKxx
JTx
x

[MFA]

Sure, games count at MPs too. The 5th trump is huge.

[kenrexford]

Yes, unless we have some technique or partner has some style that allows a handling of relatively strong major two-suiters with only four hearts.

[FrancesHinden]

umm... I'm closer to bidding 4H than passing.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 no, although I wont feel happy with
passing

#2 switch the Ace of spades to another
suit

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

Huh, isn't the ace best in spades?

I agree with the 3H bidders.

[ArtK78]

Hannie, on Jan 24 2008, 12:06 PM, said:

Huh, isn't the ace best in spades?

I agree with the 3H bidders.

Not when it means that the opponents can take the first 5 tricks in the minor suits.

I would much prefer that the ♠A be a different ace with the same distribution.

[han]

ArtK78, on Jan 24 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

Not when it means that the opponents can take the first 5 tricks in the minor suits.

If so, get rid of this partner.

[paulg]

Hannie, on Jan 24 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 24 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

Not when it means that the opponents can take the first 5 tricks in the minor suits.

If so, get rid of this partner.

Unless it's Hamman.

[jtfanclub]

cardsharp, on Jan 24 2008, 01:24 PM, said:

Unless it's Hamman.

Hamman opens 1♠ with 4-4-3-2 distribution? That's good to know.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Jan 24 2008, 09:29 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jan 24 2008, 01:24 PM, said:

Unless it's Hamman.

Hamman opens 1♠ with 4-4-3-2 distribution? That's good to know.

The issue isn't the 1♠ opening. A number of good players systemically opened 1♥ with 4-4 in the majors. (Look back at some of the Blue Club auctions)

The 2♥ rebid... That's a whole different kettle of fish

[ArtK78]

Hannie, on Jan 24 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 24 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

Not when it means that the opponents can take the first 5 tricks in the minor suits.

If so, get rid of this partner.

I meant 4, but it would feel like 5.

[jdonn]

I would have passed, that will teach me

Closer to 4♥ than pass? So you think 4♥ is making more than half the time? That's pretty bold.

[awm]

Opposite a 5-5 minimum like:

♠Kxxxx
♥AKxxx
♦xx
♣x

Game is quite good. Then again, opposite a nice 5-4 hand like:

♠KQJTx
♥AKxx
♦Qx
♣xx

You cannot make 4♥ and may well go down in 3♥ if the trumps break 3-1.

There is also the issue that you would probably bid 3♥ with:

♠A
♥KJxxx
♦Qxxx
♣xxx

I'm sure there are people who bid game on these cards, but it's pretty easy to construct fairly robust openings for partner where you don't have much play (♠KQJxx ♥AQxx and 2-2 in the minors, even with the club queen). This hand is a full trick better than the hand we were originally given; it seems weird to bid 3♥ on both...

Anyways I'm not convinced there's a good answer. I'd be much happier if playing Gazzilli or a strong club method (pass becomes a big favorite if partner can't have a 14 hcp 5-5 hand or a 17 hcp hand of any variety). I'd also be happier playing a method like standard american or acol where my initial 1NT limits my hand (bidding 3♥ becomes safer, because partner won't expect some ten-count that could make a 2/1 call).

Assuming a 2/1-style system, I'd bid 3♥ at IMPs and pass at MPs, without much confidence. Perhaps the odds of partner holding a "perfect" 5-5 minimum are reduced by the lack of bidding from the opponents...

[pclayton]

I'd raise. I'll take my chances with a random max.

Meckstroth bids 4♥...

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Jan 24 2008, 02:18 PM, said:

I would have passed, that will teach me

Closer to 4♥ than pass? So you think 4♥ is making more than half the time? That's pretty bold.

That's not what was meant (I think)

If partner accepts the invitation, then I'd expect partner to make game about half the time. If he passes the invitation, I'd expect to make 3♥ about half the time.

So I invite, while not being happy about the mess we're in due to methods. I'm not complaining, because these are the methods I happen to play as well Maybe I'll learn Gazilli eventually.

I do think that the ability of one's partner is a relevant factor here, especially at mps. In a very strong field, I think pass is correct, but in most fields, if your partner is a relatively good declarer and the opps are not significantly stronger than the field, I think that the raise is made a little more attractive by the fact that you may be allowed to make 3♥ (or 4♥) when you really shouldn't, or partner may find the tricky line of play that works. We all know that many, many contracts that have 'no play' are allowed to come home, and this hand has all the hallmarks of such a hand. Imagine RHO on lead with length and strength in spades and leading a trump... almost certainly the lead we'd like to see and often the lead made by those who learned 'when in doubt, lead trump'.

[han]

mikeh, on Jan 24 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

If partner accepts the invitation, then I'd expect partner to make game about half the time. If he passes the invitation, I'd expect to make 3♥ about half the time.

So I invite...

Surely you did not mean this, it makes no sense. Or does it?