[Eagle One]

3♣ seems obvious, absent agreements a la Roland's Garozzo treatment.

e.g. xxxx AKxx Axx Kx will make game easily.

How can partner evaluate ♣Kx if we just bid 3♥?

3♦ is guaranteed to end a brief partnership, imo, unless it asks for really good ♦. Logically it should ask for good ♦, since we already know partner has better ♦ than ♣.

fwiw what is 2N here?

[mikeh]

I'm closer to 4♥ than I am to pass. I am assuming that partner holds 4♥s.. I agree with Roland on what the raise shows.

I am not bidding 3♣ as a game try... if LHO holds cards in both blacks, I want to maximize the chances of a lead away from the ♣.

While reading a lot into the silence of opps is a tough way to make a living, the failure of either to mention ♠s at least gives rise to a slight inference that partner has length there and, accordingly, some shortness in ♣s.. to the point that, if partner has xx in ♣s, I'll be very happy in game more times than not.

So I would use the relay as Roland proposes.. and if that were not available, I just bid game. I am NOT telling the opps how to defend/lead... heck, a minimum (but well-placed) hand such as Axxx KJxx KQx xx gives us a fine play for game... even if they avoid the ♣ lead on the go.

That 5th trump and the 109x of partner's suit, along with x and AQxx in the side suits makes pass waaayyyyy too conservative for me... and I am not going to pass and allow the opps to dictate how I bid this offensive hand via their balance/no balance decision.. which, in any event, may help them find the right lead (LHO doubles, RHO bids ♠s)

[whereagles]

I bid:

"4♥, is this a problem?"

[HeartA]

4H. I love my whole hand, 5th H and T98, plus stiff S. After the fit shown from pd, I don't see many losers, so bid a game directly.

[the hog]

Pass. Is this a problem?
For me 2H does definitely NOT show extras, and could only be a 3 card suit. I don't understand the "pass shows a minimum" philosophy. Most hands I construct for a normal opening and raise don't make game, as there are too many S cards in partner's hand.

[Free]

4♥, this might be one of those which made Meckwell famous. But I'm willing to listen to other's arguments. Partner is a 3rd seat opener, but I guess he should have good ♦s if he's light. So 4♥ has some play imo.

[bid_em_up]

At MP, pass. Making 4 will probably be a good result anyway.

At IMP, 4H. There is no "in between" on this hand, imo. If you bid 3C, you effectively prevent LHO from making a helpful club lead, should it be his natural lead on this hand OR when he has a spade holding that is unattractive to lead from (such as AJxx) and might have chosen a club instead. The options really are either pass or 4H, and since its IMP's, I'll take a shot at game.

[gwnn]

pass. and no, it's not a problem. my hand is actually quite ugly.

[inquiry]

gwnn, on Mar 8 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

pass. and no, it's not a problem. my hand is actually quite ugly.

Out of 44 voites (so far), only 3 other agree with you. Not that pass is wrong, but can this hand be that ugly given so many people (90%) eihter trying for game or forcing to game? What features make this hand ugly in your view?

[pclayton]

The_Hog, on Mar 7 2007, 09:08 PM, said:

Pass. Is this a problem?
For me 2H does definitely NOT show extras, and could only be a 3 card suit. I don't understand the "pass shows a minimum" philosophy. Most hands I construct for a normal opening and raise don't make game, as there are too many S cards in partner's hand.

I don't think this is mainstream.

With 3 trump and a minimum, I would expect pard would pass. With 4 trump and a minimum, 4 trump and a non-minimum, or 3 trump and a non-minimum, a raise is in order.

For instance, I think a raise could be any of the following:

1. ♠xxx, ♥AKxx, ♦KQxx, ♣xx
2. ♠xxx, ♥AKx, ♦KQJxxx, ♣x
3. ♠Qxx, ♥AKxx, ♦KQxx, ♣xx

I would not raise on:

♠xxxx, ♥AKx, ♦KJxxx, ♣x

[Apollo81]

At IMPs, I would use a short-suit game try in spades if I had one. Otherwise I would probably bid 3♥.

At MPs I would probably pass.

[jdonn]

3♣, I don't think a spade lead will be unhelpful anyway, and I don't want to blast game since I think partner is too likely to have spade values.

The only answer I completely don't understand is pass at matchpoints but 4♥ at imps, these are the kind of partners I can't stand to play with as they don't seem to value their partners' opinions at all. What is it that makes me so smart that I can't just guess the final contract left and right like that?

[han]

I would like to invite, but I don't like 3C or 3H.

[Walddk]

Hannie, on Mar 8 2007, 08:57 PM, said:

I would like to invite, but I don't like 3C or 3H.

So, Garozzo is the answer, isn't it? Bid 2♠ (at least invitational, says nothing about spades) and learn more about opener's hand.

Roland

[gwnn]

inquiry, on Mar 8 2007, 08:05 PM, said:

gwnn, on Mar 8 2007, 12:01 PM, said:

pass. and no, it's not a problem. my hand is actually quite ugly.

Out of 44 voites (so far), only 3 other agree with you. Not that pass is wrong, but can this hand be that ugly given so many people (90%) eihter trying for game or forcing to game? What features make this hand ugly in your view?

I'll blame my poor English writing skills . It is of course a bit of a problem, but I still find my hand ugly. my clubs are probably worth nothing much (unless pd brings me the K) and if they're worth something, my diamonds are not worth much. If all of my minor values are good, that means partner has nothing in trumps, so that's why IMHO game is a far shot. Change the vulnerability and maybe I bid 2♠ to offer my pd the singleton ♠, which can be useful if pd is 3451?

Of course this is a matter of partner's style, too. I mean, if he/she (say) mini-splinters on any decent 15 count, pass is really not a problem. If he/she only jumps with next to GF values, I must take that into account and I owe him/her a game try.

So yea, it's a problem, but pass is my friend. And I'll be sure to re-read my posts for lurking hyperboles next time

[mike777]

ok what is our bidding system here? What conventions and constraints?
What do we open on?

[inquiry]

mike777, on Mar 8 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

ok what is our bidding system here? What conventions and constraints?
What do we open on?

In real life, it was a pickup partnership with 2/1 agreed. That is it. You are know to open fairly lightly. Your partner opened one hand earlier than this that was extremely light, but others had been raasonable by anyone's standards.

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Mar 8 2007, 10:16 PM, said:

Walddk, on Mar 8 2007, 02:00 PM, said:

Hannie, on Mar 8 2007, 08:57 PM, said:

I would like to invite, but I don't like 3C or 3H.

So, Garozzo is the answer, isn't it? Bid 2♠ (at least invitational, says nothing about spades) and learn more about opener's hand.

Roland

Maybe Han understands that bidding problems are only problems in the context of the system actually in use, so he doesn't introduce an artificial relay that solves problems when it was not specified that this was in use. He also doesn't say he would make a short suit game try. He doesn't say he would bid 2S showing 1534 with 8-9 points.

Seriously, people who post probably want answers on what they should have done at the table and what the best judgement is in the constraints of their system, they don't want to know what pet convention someone has to solve this particular problem.

This kind of stuff is just too ridiculous for words. When you encounter a bidding problem while playing do you say, gee if I played such and such convention that would be a really great way to handle this hand type, I'll just bid that even though we don't play it!

Justin, as you see Ben gave us five options one of which was "Other". So how can it be wrong to vote "Other" and describe what that other bid would be when asked specifically?

I agree with you if Ben only had offered us the first four options. Then it makes no sense to add a fifth. I did not, Ben did, so in my view it's perfectly legitimate to describe a fifth option. I actually believe that this was Ben's intention when he set up the poll.

Roland