[mikeh]

Late to the thread (again )

My current partnership uses the gadget Ken suggested, 3♦ showing hearts... for us it is invitational or a strong jumpshift.. but this is not a hand for the gadget.

As for the bidding: 1N obvious, 3♠ lunatic, and pass of 3♠ clear altho unpleasant.

While a magic hand may make 4♠ and many hands will make 4♥, on some of the ones on which neither makes, we will get doubled and it may be bloody. This is quite different from situations in which our decision is to bid game or pass, after finding a playable denomination. Yes, pass may miss game, but so what?

As for BART, if my partner bid 2♣ (aas he should) I would bid 2♦. Partner HAS to bid 2♥ with his hand... any other call denies 2=3 hearts. Now, opposite at least 2 card support, but with only 8 hcp and a complete misfit... zero spades and our diamond strength is too slow to be much help if he has, for example, 5=3=2=3 or 5=2=2=4... pass is probably best but I might choose 3♥.. especially if playing the above 3♦ gadget... unfortunately that partnership doesn't play BART (altho I'm working on him )

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on May 15 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

As for BART, if my partner bid 2♣ (aas he should) I would bid 2♦. Partner HAS to bid 2♥ with his hand... any other call denies 2=3 hearts. Now, opposite at least 2 card support, but with only 8 hcp and a complete misfit... zero spades and our diamond strength is too slow to be much help if he has, for example, 5=3=2=3 or 5=2=2=4... pass is probably best but I might choose 3♥.. especially if playing the above 3♦ gadget... unfortunately that partnership doesn't play BART (altho I'm working on him )

In the version of BART that I play, the minimum for a 2♥ bid by opener is Hx or any 3 card holding. I don't know if Tx qualifies.

There is something to be said for bidding 2♥ on any two-card holding, but that certainly changes the known degree of fit.

[mike777]

In the version of Bart I was taught 2h is 6h and less than invitational values.
This responder hand is far less than invitational values for me.

btw I was taught that, yes, over 2d, partner must rebid 2h with 2or 3 hearts(except enough to jump to 3h).

[ArtK78]

mike777, on May 15 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

In the version of Bart I was taught 2h is 6h and less than invitational values.
This responder hand is far less than invitational values for me.

btw I was taught that, yes, over 2d, partner must rebid 2h with 2or 3 hearts(except enough to jump to 3h).

Considering that you did not bid 2♥ over 1♠ (which I do not play as game forcing) this hand is almost a maximum for BART.

But if you play 2/1 game forcing, I can see why you might be reluctant to BART these cards.

[kenrexford]

I still think this is a hand between 3♦/♥ (invitational) and 1NT...2♥(Bart).

[the hog]

Quote Jdonn
"If partner can play in spades no matter what you have, he will go back to spades, he would have nothing to gain by passing regardless of your precise interpretation of 4♥. If he can't play in spades opposite any hand, then he will pass 4♥ regardless of his heart holding. It's difficult for me to imagine how this could fail to reach the better suit in the most cases possible. "

AKJxxxx
void
Axx
KJx

void
KQJTxxx
xxx
xxx

Would you rather be in 4H or 4S? Rhetorical question....

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on May 15 2008, 09:18 PM, said:

Quote Jdonn
"If partner can play in spades no matter what you have, he will go back to spades, he would have nothing to gain by passing regardless of your precise interpretation of 4♥. If he can't play in spades opposite any hand, then he will pass 4♥ regardless of his heart holding. It's difficult for me to imagine how this could fail to reach the better suit in the most cases possible. "

AKJxxxx
void
Axx
KJx

void
KQJTxxx
xxx
xxx

Would you rather be in 4H or 4S? Rhetorical question....

Do you cater your entire system to when a weak hand holds KQJTxxx at the expense of every time it holds a weaker suit? Also rhetorical...

I wish I could find a link that clearly explains the difference between "difficult" and "impossible" as well as between "the most cases possible" and "all cases". Any computer savvy volunteers out there?

[Codo]

Josh, what you wrote was pure polemic.
Nice polemic, but still.

You normally have more ways into the strong hand then into the weak hand, so the risk, that the long suit in the weak hand will give you no/few tricks is much higher then the risk to lose the long suit in the strong hand.

So it must be in most hands much better to play in the long suit in the weak hand.
And you lack the place to have a way to separate between hands which are in the POC camp from the ones where 4 Heart is a statement.

I agree with Ron, that 4 Heart is no question, it is a command, because I guess that the wins in 4 Heart compared to 3 Spade .-1 in Rons example hand are much higher then the lost of the hands where we chose the superior game with a 4 Heart POC bid.

[benlessard]

Easy 3Nt for me. 3S is almost forcing (we are in imps) and my hand is non minimum, partner suit is more likely to be 1 loser or no loser then 2 loser.


3S with AJ9xxx is atrocious.

[han]

Pretty much agree with everything Josh said in this thread. Sigh.