[Stephen Tu]

Not so interesting a hand, but I just wanted to solicit opinions and never really know which forum to stick this kind of thing in:

Matchpoints

1nt rebid=12-14

---

[nige1]

Stephen Tu, on 2015-April-18, 21:30, said:

Matchpoints
Not so interesting a hand, but I just wanted to solicit opinions and never really know which forum to stick this kind of thing in:

---

IMO 2♣ then 2♥ (inv) = 10, 2♥ = 9. You only have 10 HCP; your hand is quacky and lacks aces; but it has enough shape for a try, even at matchpoints.

[Trinidad]

The fact that partner skipped over the spade suit makes it likely that partner has three hearts. All my honors are in our long suits. At IMPs I would be temptedm to simply bid 4♥, at MPs I will invite. Signing off in 2♥ doesn't occur to me.

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-19, 00:50, said:

The fact that partner skipped over the spade suit makes it likely that partner has three hearts.

I don't think we were told what their style is in that respect - those who routinely rebid 1NT when holding four spades might well have raised to 2H when holding three hearts.

[mike777]

wtp 2h

I must be missing something....easy 2h

in fact I wonder what pard crap opens on.

[FrancesHinden]

Yes, you are missing something. Opposite

Axx Qxx xxxx AKx your king of diamonds is worthless and you are still making game

opposite Kxx Axx Jxxx A10x you might make 5H (and you might go off in 3)

[WesleyC]

In the poll you've listed: "2C forcing 2D, 2H inv showing 5" as one of the options but I don't think this is the standard meaning. Most people use this sequence on almost all invites with 5+ hearts. One of the main advantages of 2-way checkback is being able to invite and avoid reaching the 3 level.

As a result "2C forcing 2D, then 3H" becomes a very serious invite, basically a hand that was planning to bid game, but wants to give partner an escape in case their 1NT rebid was either offshape with a singleton heart or very minimum.

Regarding this hand, with lots of quacks hand and an average suit, 2C into 2H feels like enough.

[mike777]

again I cannot HAVE THESE balanced nothing openings
if pard has a full opener ok. if not pass

this will eliminate most but not all problems.

I mean pass pard and let me open a weak 2h and give you the problem.or question to answer.

This post has been edited by mike777: 2015-April-19, 04:13

[rhm]

You should certainly invite.
The hand is a good example why I think that 2♣ should not force 2♦, but should deny 3 cards in responders major.
How comfortable are you if partner has a small doubleton in hearts if you jump over 2♦ to 3♥?
I feel 3♥ should either show a better suit or a 7th heart.
So 2♣ followed by 2♥ should show this hand.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhantomSac]

I would just invite. I think often on these hands when you have some people signing off and some people blasting game, the middle road is correct.

[MrAce]

PhantomSac, on 2015-April-19, 18:15, said:

I would just invite. I think often on these hands when you have some people signing off and some people blasting game, the middle road is correct.

Which of the available invites would you use, given by OP?

[PhantomSac]

MrAce, on 2015-April-19, 18:37, said:

Which of the available invites would you use, given by OP?

I don't see those options?

I usually play 2 way NMF so I would bid 2C then 2H.

[MrAce]

PhantomSac, on 2015-April-19, 20:08, said:

I don't see those options?

I usually play 2 way NMF so I would bid 2C then 2H.

on the poll.

1-2♥ sign off (obviously that's not your choice.

2-2♣ xfer to 2♦ and then 3♥ (invite with 6 says OP)

3-2♣ xfer to 2♦ and then 2♥ (invite with 5 says OP)

I think you prefer #3 then.

[gszes]

The opps have at least 8 spades and any attempt to stop in 2h will leave us in the horrible position of having to bid 3h anyway and forfeiting almost any chance at game. This is not just a random 10 count all our values appear to be working and we even have reasonable heart spots in case we face only xx. I would opt for the 2c followed by 3h to show 6 game try. Hoping p has opened a horrid min (thus making 2h right) just seems to be another imaginative way of masterminding.

[PhantomSac]

MrAce, on 2015-April-20, 02:16, said:

on the poll.

1-2♥ sign off (obviously that's not your choice.

2-2♣ xfer to 2♦ and then 3♥ (invite with 6 says OP)

3-2♣ xfer to 2♦ and then 2♥ (invite with 5 says OP)

I think you prefer #3 then.

Oh sorry I always forget to read the polls. I would do #3, even if my agreement is it shows 5 I don't see what will go wrong. Partner will bid with a max, and appreciate that having 3 hearts is better than 2 heh. I would probably just never bid #2 tbh. If I am dropped in an invite I'd much prefer to be at the 2 level.

[mikeh]

I think the 3rd option is correct even if it is systemically incorrect. As Frances pointed out, this hand can mesh anywhere from great to awful with opener. Opener is very unlikely to reject the 5 card invite on hands that mesh well, while committing to the 3 level can result in a needless minus on those that mesh poorly. I am not passing 2N, btw

[lycier]

There are too many "soft power" - Q and J in this hand,singleton ♦ K,♥ suit is not decent,So I select the third option.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on 2015-April-20, 09:06, said:

I think the 3rd option is correct even if it is systemically incorrect. As Frances pointed out, this hand can mesh anywhere from great to awful with opener. Opener is very unlikely to reject the 5 card invite on hands that mesh well, while committing to the 3 level can result in a needless minus on those that mesh poorly. I am not passing 2N, btw

We play ...2C-2D-2H (5-card invite) - 2NT as promising 3-card heart support and forcing for a round. Opener just passes 2H with an unsuitable hand, it virtually always plays better than 2NT anyway.