[paulg]

Scoring: MP

1♣ (1♦) 1♥* (Pass)

*5+ hearts

---

You are the opener playing 4-card minors and a weak (12-14) 1NT, with a 1NT rebid showing 15-17 points. Partner has shown at least 5 hearts but may still have four spades.

Your bid?

[gwnn]

Looks like a chubby 2♥ rebid to me.

[P_Marlowe]

1NT, which should still show 15-16.

I am bal. (4333), have a stopper, what better description
of my hand is out there?

I am not against 3 card raises, but dont likey them, if I
happen to ve bal. and have sensible alternative.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Sry, missed the fact that 1H promises 5 cards.
Oh well, I go back to sleep. => 2H

[Apollo81]

Raise to 2♥.

I've never played 12-14 in an overall standard context, but I'll assume that I'm supposed to do the same thing as if I were playing 15-17 and had xxx AJx Axx Axxx. Since I can't have balanced minimums like that, I assume the raise shows a better hand than it would if I were playing 15-17 notrumps. Thus I'm either showing an unbalanced minimum or a balanced 15-16 hand that falls short of a raise to 3♥.

[whereagles]

If I'm going to bid hearts, it's gonna be 3 of them.

But with such a flattish hand I'll try 1NT instead.

[miguelm]

Isn't 2H limited too weak for this hand... or is it clear that we have a balanced hand (for me it isn't)...?

What's the difference between 2D and 3H....?

[ArtK78]

2♥.

My hand is in the range of a raise to 2♥ playing a weak NT. It shows either a balanced strong NT with hearts or a distributional raise.

[Phil]

1N. Please don't tell me this denies 3 hearts.

2♥ in a weak NT system is a tricky bid because it can be so wide ranging, especially if your 1m openings aren't super strong.

1N tells pard about our 15-16 and NT might be a better strain anyway. Imagine ♥KQxxx and the ♠A for instance.

[nick_s]

I've already voted for 2♥.

...but I find myself wondering what 2♦ means.

At the table I would take this as a general force without really knowing how far it was forcing.
I just dived into Robson/Seagal (again) and see that they recommend it as showing 3 card support and a fair hand.

Something else to discuss with partner . Thanks for the thread.

[MFA]

1NT seems best to me.

In this context of methods, defining 2♦ as a strong three-card raise seems like a good idea to me. This hand type comes up often.

In our precision club system we play
1♦-(1♥)-1♠ as showing five, and opener's rebid of 2♥ and 2♠ is respectively a good and a bad 3card raise. If RHO bids 2♥ then X is the good raise.

We play similarly on the 3-level (3♥ good, 3♠ bad). Some might not want to always go to the 3-lvl with 4card support, but for us 1♦ is never balanced, so we have no problem at all with that.

[jdonn]

I vote 2♥. If you are not going to raise with 3 then why even play the bid shows 5?

[kenrexford]

I'm wildly confused here. How is this actually a question?

2♥ is so obvious it hurts.

I mean, having played weak notrumps, I learned one thing really quickly. If you open a minor and then raise partner's major, you have one of two hands:

1. 15-17 with support, or
2. Opener HCP strength, support, and an unbalanced hand, the shortness now elevating the count to 15-17 with distribution.

Hence, it all works perfectly.

What's the problem?

What, I'm supposed to bid 2♦ to distinguish 15-17 HCP from 2♥ showing 15-17 with distribution? Please.

[JLOL]

kenrexford, on Apr 16 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

I'm wildly confused here. How is this actually a question?

2♥ is so obvious it hurts.

Wow, agree with kenrexford and not with MFA Oo

[paulg]

A friend asked me the question and I did not think it was clear.

I started by saying 2♥ was right but perhaps the control-rich nature of the hand meant that 3♥ was in the picture. It will probably play quite well opposite shortage in partner's hand and you could miss a low point-count game. The more I wrote the closer to 3♥ I thought the hand was.

But it was matchpoints and non-vulnerable. So less incentive to push ... unless it's a short BBO tourney and you need the points.

But I still don't think it is obvious.

Paul

[david_c]

I voted for 3♥. Despite what Ken says, I think what people actually do here in Acol-land is bid 2♥ only if at the minimum end of the 15-17 range. Decent 16s raise to three. And despite being a bit flat this hand is a rather good 16.

[mtvesuvius]

2♥ wtp. This is a textbook weak NT 2♥ raise. Either 15-17 Bal. or a distrubutional raise. Very easy imo.

[whereagles]

JLOL, on Apr 16 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

[Wow, agree with kenrexford and not with MFA Oo

what's the matter with you? skipped medication?

[MFA]

whereagles, on Apr 17 2009, 04:13 AM, said:

JLOL, on Apr 16 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

[Wow, agree with kenrexford and not with MFA Oo

what's the matter with you? skipped medication?

Right, remember those pills

Well, I'm not convinced that the distributional raise plays the same as the strong notrump raise. The distributional value is much less when one holds only three trumps, and the difference in high card strength is a full ace (11-13 vs 15-17).

3NT is also a likely best spot, and that is much easier to investigate if we know what our raises are showing.