[Fluffy]

1♦ - 1♥
2♥ - ??

---

[ochinko]

No point in 2NT as I don't intend to play there with a 9 cards ♥ fit. If we lack ♥A and another Ace, the defenders could set up their suit first.

No point in 3♦, as a game in hearts is easier and pays better.

Nothing else is there for me but to bid 4♥ with my 7 losers hand. Most of the time I'll be right, of course, some of the time the point counters that would pass will be right.

[kenrexford]

Really confused here.

This seems like a simple 3♥ call, but that is not listed as an option. Is 1♥-2♥-3♥ no longer allowed as a sequence to invite game???

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Jul 20 2007, 03:15 PM, said:

Really confused here.

This seems like a simple 3♥ call, but that is not listed as an option. Is 1♥-2♥-3♥ no longer allowed as a sequence to invite game???

I've finally found a post where I agree with Ken on a bidding problem!

[ochinko]

kenrexford, on Jul 20 2007, 05:15 PM, said:

Really confused here.

This seems like a simple 3♥ call, but that is not listed as an option.  Is 1♥-2♥-3♥ no longer allowed as a sequence to invite game???

3♥ is very rightly missing. I would avoid playing with a partner that would put me in a position to guess which bid is right without knowing his hand.

The opener described all that was there to describe, now it's your turn. Do you belong in a game, or not? That is the question.

Edit: I mean, after the first three bids the game depends on how the cards in opps are distributed, not on whether partner will discover another ace in his hand.

[ArtK78]

Using all hand evaluation methods that I am aware of, this hand is worth an invitation to game.

I have a choice of two logical invites. 3H is right on values. 3D is more descriptive. It says that partner should evaluate his hand by increasing the value of secondary cards in diamonds and hearts (suits in which I am known to have length) and decrease the value of secondary cards in spades and clubs (suits in which I am known to have shortness) while increasing the value of primary cards (aces and kings) in the black suits.

So, 3D is the best call on these cards.

By the way, 3D is not forcing. So if partner raised on a minimum with 3 hearts and 5 diamonds, he can pass.

[Foxx]

Yeah, 3♥ maybe?

[SoTired]

3D, which I play as forcing.

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on Jul 20 2007, 08:40 AM, said:

By the way, 3D is not forcing. So if partner raised on a minimum with 3 hearts and 5 diamonds, he can pass.

I play it as non-forcing too with Han, but I think more people play it as forcing.

[P_Marlowe]

4H, game try.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

Torn between a game invite and pass.

Given the garbage that many people choose to open on, pass could be a winning bid. (Do you really want to declare 3♥ when partner tables a 4=3=4=2 11 count?)

Personally, I would bid 3♥. I am (primarily) swayed by the fact that partner opened 1♦. Therefore, we have something approximating a double fit. If we go down in 3♥, the opponents probably have a good Spade / Club partial.

Had partner opened 1♣, I'd like pass a lot more.

[pbleighton]

3D, 3H a close second.

Peter

[mike777]

3d game try and forcing one round. Partner can never pass 3D! even if she only has 3H and the worlds worst opener. 3D could be the start of a slam try!

Will not be shocked if partner rebids 3H and it goes down.

[FrancesHinden]

ArtK78, on Jul 20 2007, 03:40 PM, said:

By the way, 3D is not forcing. So if partner raised on a minimum with 3 hearts and 5 diamonds, he can pass.

3D is forcing.

If you happen to play an artificial method over 2H, then you can agree that 3D is not forcing, but that is not standard.

The shape is right for a 3D game try, but I prefer 3H "random game try with five hearts" because of the black suit honours.

[FrancesHinden]

ochinko, on Jul 20 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 20 2007, 05:15 PM, said:

Really confused here.

This seems like a simple 3♥ call, but that is not listed as an option.  Is 1♥-2♥-3♥ no longer allowed as a sequence to invite game???

3♥ is very rightly missing. I would avoid playing with a partner that would put me in a position to guess which bid is right without knowing his hand.

The opener described all that was there to describe, now it's your turn. Do you belong in a game, or not? That is the question.

Edit: I mean, after the first three bids the game depends on how the cards in opps are distributed, not on whether partner will discover another ace in his hand.

Remember the thread on how to build a partnership?
This is just the sort of attitude that shows no respect for partner. You have plenty of room to invite, why not do so?

The following are both 2H bids over 1H playing standard strong NT methods

Axxx
Kxxx
AJ9x
x

xx
Kxx
AQxxx
QJx

opposite the first, game is huge
opposite the second, 3H is too high

If you think partner isn't capable of working out that the first hand is better for play in 4H than the second, then you should get a new partner.

[I don't object to a valuation that says the hand is worth 4H, or that the hand is worth a pass (I might disagree, but I don't object); I object to not bothering to ask partner's opinion where his opinion will be useful.]

[ArtK78]

With a couple of partners, I play 2S over 2H as an asking bid. Partner is not allowed to raise on 3 card trump support with a minimum balanced hand (he rebids 1S or 1NT).

Over 2S, if he has a minimum hand with 3 hearts and 5 of his minor suit, he rebids his minor. That can be passed.

With a minimum hand with 4 hearts and no shortness, he rebids 3H. With a shortness, he bids it (2NT with spade shortness).

With a maximum hand with only 3 hearts, he bids 3NT, which is not forcing (partner can bid 4C to ask for a shortness).

With 4 hearts and a maximum hand he bids 4H with no shortness and a new suit above 3H shows a shortness. A rebid of 4 of the minor shows 2452 with a good suit and a maximum.

If the major suit was spades, I employ similar methods by bidding 2NT over 2S.

This solves many of the problems and allows you to play in 3 of a minor when it is right, and also allows the direct 3 of a minor bid to be a game or slam try and forcing.

[ochinko]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 20 2007, 07:45 PM, said:

Remember the thread on how to build a partnership?
This is just the sort of attitude that shows no respect for partner.  You have plenty of room to invite, why not do so?

This has nothing to do with partner or partnership. We don't ask partner not because we have no respect for his opinion, but because we are unable to formulate a sensible question. Short suit game trial, long suit game trial... nothing works here. The buck has stopped with us.

An invitation means that we are going to attempt a game if partner is above minimum. However:
1) Partner already declared his hand was minimal.
2) That doesn't diminish significantly our game chances.

How about that hand:

xxx
Axxx
KQxx
xx

It is consistent with the bidding, it is not minimal, not even subminimal. It is a trick worse than an opening hand, yet there is a chance to make 4♥ even with that hand. Imagine what would happen if we add a black Ace to it, our game is almost certain, yet why would partner bid further when whatever he has, he has already bid?

Axx Axxx KQxx xx is 13 points, 7 losers hand without any exceptional distribution. Why would partner accept an invitation with such a hand?

[pbleighton]

Quote

Partner already declared his hand was minimal.

No, partner has decided that his hand isn't worth 3H. That leaves a pretty wide range.

Peter

[Echognome]

ochinko, on Jul 20 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

Axx Axxx KQxx xx is 13 points, 7 losers hand without any exceptional distribution. Why would partner accept an invitation with such a hand?

Because the hand is full of controls and great for a suit contract?

[FrancesHinden]

ochinko, on Jul 20 2007, 07:26 PM, said:

Axx Axxx KQxx xx is 13 points, 7 losers hand without any exceptional distribution. Why would partner accept an invitation with such a hand?

Because it's a lovely hand for play in hearts?

[actually 4H is not cold even opposite that hand, which is why making an invite at all is slightly aggressive]

Let's try something else. Here's another 13 point, 7 loser hand without exceptional distribution.

Ax
Kxxx
Kxxx
QJx

Are you really saying you can't see the difference between these two hands for play in a heart contract?