[Hanoi5]

You're red, playing a team match and hold:

♠KTx
♥AQxx
♦xx
♣QT9x

Pa-1♥-X-3♦(10-11 with 4-card support)
Pa-3♥-Pa-???

[wank]

is this a serious question? don't play the convention if this isn't a pass after you use it

[nigel_k]

If the question is whether we should have responded 3♦ in the first place, it depends on your standards for opening bids. But for me, this is slightly too good to invite. Take away one of the tens and I would invite and pass 3♥.

[mike777]

Hanoi5, on 2011-November-08, 20:10, said:

You're red, playing a team match and hold:

♠KTx
♥AQxx
♦xx
♣QT9x

Pa-1♥-X-3♦(10-11 with 4-card support)
Pa-3♥-Pa-???

looks like responder has 12 not 10-11 to me but then I play 3d=12-13 not 10-11.

[neilkaz]

I would've forced game initially unless PD's style is to open bad 11 counts with 5 card majors. You only have to make 40% of them when red.

[aguahombre]

It is within 11-12 support points for us, partner chose not to accept game; bidding game anyway is not partnership. If I thought it were a game force, I would have forced to game.

This is one of those "Modern paradox" cases. 10 support points (dummy points) is no longer enough for an invite partnering today's opening bids.

[whereagles]

Misevaluation. The hand has 7 losers and the spade K is probably as good as the ace. The hand is worth a game force and you should bid 4.

[Wackojack]

Bid 4♥. You could call it Bergen plus where 3♦ is either invitational or a marginal raise to 4 and lose nothing. Then J2N becomes a comfortable game force which would encourage partner with slam interest.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Wackojack, on 2011-November-09, 05:28, said:

Bid 4♥. You could call it Bergen plus where 3♦ is either invitational or a marginal raise to 4 and lose nothing. Then J2N becomes a comfortable game force which would encourage partner with slam interest.

There is no Jac2NT because of the DBL, right ?

Thus, 3D! = limit raise +, so it is no crime to raise to game after partner shows a minimum.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Side bar:
If Bergen is ON after the DBL, you don't need 2NT!( Jordan ).

A different structure of Responses after a "helpful DBL" is what I call a Bergen-Jordan "Meld":
1) Upper Bergen = jump-in-other-Major [ eg: 1H-(X)-2S! or 1S-(X)-3H! ]

2) Lower Bergen = 2NT! ( allows for more gametry bids by Opener than w/Bergen only )

3) 3C/3D = fit-showing jumps ( not available if Bergen only ).

[Free]

You described your hand as an invite with 4 card fit. Partner bid 3♥ based on that information. If you're going to pull partner's most negative call possible anyway, then why did you bid 3♦ in the first place?

The best way to bid is (until 3 passes):
1. (re)evaluate your hand (based on partner's actions)
2. made the bid/call that describes your hand best
3. go back to step 1

Partner's 3♥ didn't give you any new useful information to upgrade your hand. Pass is clear.

[ArtK78]

In one of Granovetter's articles in his old bridge magazine, he discussed forcing to game "limit raises." The concept was that if a hand was a marginal game force, or even a sub-marginal game force, such as the hand in this problem, you make a limit raise, but game must be reached. This allows for you to show a hand with less than traditional game forcing strength but still get to game under all circumstances. Partner will not get too excited, and you don't have to make a "game forcing" bid like Jacoby 2NT on marginal hands.

This frees up game forcing raises for better hands.

I am sure that most players would bid a game on the hand shown above. But they would be wary of making a game forcing raise, as partner would expect more.

Something to think about.

[blackshoe]

If you make a systemic limit raise and partner tanks and then signs off in 3, you're going to have serious problems if you bid 4.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2011-November-09, 09:42, said:

I am sure that most players would bid a game on the hand shown above. But they would be wary of making a game forcing raise, as partner would expect more.

However, with Jordan limit+, or 3D limit+, or whatever limit+ opener can get his extra values off his chest and responder can decline slam. This would seem better than accepting one's own invite, as a matter of form...and as a confidence builder for partner when future auctions occur and he won't think you are a mastermind.

Fine, if a player believes he has a G.F. Inviting, then accepting a decline is like raising to two and then later bidding 4 if the opponents balance. All it does is irritate CHO, right or wrong.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-09, 10:17, said:

However, with Jordan limit+, or 3D limit+, or whatever limit+ opener can get his extra values off his chest and responder can decline slam. This would seem better than accepting one's own invite, as a matter of form...and as a confidence builder for partner when future auctions occur and he won't think you are a mastermind.

Fine, if a player believes he has a G.F. Inviting, then accepting a decline is like raising to two and then later bidding 4 if the opponents balance. All it does is irritate CHO, right or wrong.

Perhaps you did not understand my point.

If the partnership agrees to make forcing limit raises, then the limit raise itself is game forcing, though promising minimal (some would say sub-minimal) values for game. It is not a question of changing one's mind or hearing partner decline a game invitation and then bidding on in the face of that.

[fromageGB]

This is obviously an area where I disagree with most of the contributors. My preferred opening style is 1♥ with a 5 card suit and 12 HCP, or 6 card with 11 (5 card and 11 is ungraded to 12, or downgraded to 10, which opens 2♥). So with a sound opening, I play the strong Bergen raise as 4+ card and 11/12 HCP, and would bit it with the given hand. When partner "signs off" in 3♥ with this hand I have no hesitation in bidding game. It is more like a 12 count and decidedly game material.

However, with an 11 with 3 little in spades (after that double) I would pass 3♥.

I like to play it this way so that when I do not bid 3♦, but bid 2NT (J2N still on over the double), partner knows I have a solid 13+ HCP, which makes the slam bidding more assured.

So for me this is not a misevaluation, but normal.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-09, 10:16, said:

If you make a systemic limit raise and partner tanks and then signs off in 3, you're going to have serious problems if you bid 4.

The question to me is not if you belong in 4 but getting there this way is bound to give your partner heartburn. Setting him up for a potential tempo violation will make him nervous into the future even if you survive this hand.

[Mbodell]

ggwhiz, on 2011-November-09, 13:20, said:

The question to me is not if you belong in 4 but getting there this way is bound to give your partner heartburn. Setting him up for a potential tempo violation will make him nervous into the future even if you survive this hand.

I played with one partner that 3♦ here is ~6-9 w/ 4 card support and 3♣ is 10+ w/ 4 card support (I.e., limit raise or better). When I played this with another partner he suggested we play 3♦ here is ~6-9 w/ 4 card support or a game forcing hand and 3♣ is limit raise only specifically to avoid tempo issues.

[fromageGB]

ggwhiz, on 2011-November-09, 13:20, said:

The question to me is not if you belong in 4 but getting there this way is bound to give your partner heartburn. Setting him up for a potential tempo violation will make him nervous into the future even if you survive this hand.

Not if this is the agreed system, and if your card says "invitational or better" I don't think any director looking at your hand will think your rebid of 4♥ is unjustified.

[aguahombre]

fromageGB, on 2011-November-10, 05:39, said:

Not if this is the agreed system, and if your card says "invitational or better" I don't think any director looking at your hand will think your rebid of 4♥ is unjustified.

If the bid showed invitational or better, GGwhiz would not be using this hand to make the point about the partnership effects when we violate our own system. OP stated that the bid had a narrow invitational range.

[whereagles]

guys, RHO doubled. You're not going to a slam here, no way.