[Trinidad]

---

IMPs (Butler).
You are playing Switch: Partner's 2♣ bid shows 5+ hearts and about 8+, so that you can show the negative free bid and the forcing bid. 2♥ would have shown clubs.

How high do you want to raise hearts and why?

Rik

[DavidKok]

There is no perfect bid here, I chose 3♥. My thoughts are as follows:

I have 6 losers (2♠, 2♥, 1♦, 1♣), but that's a half lie at best without any aces and ♠QJ9x sitting in front of opponent's length (and presumed values). However, I do have an extra heart to make up for that, and both my diamonds and hearts are quite solid (the losing trick count undervalues the ♥J and ♦T here).
However, the fourth heart also has implications for what is likely to happen next. With a 9-card fit (or longer) the opponents are mathematically guaranteed to have at least an 8-card fit as well, and especially at this vulnerability it is likely they won't let us play 2♥. If they do bid to 2♠ partner is likely to take action (although perhaps 2♠X might be interesting?), but if they bid to 3♣ I feel this hand has to run to 3♥ anyway. By bidding to 3♥ this in two rounds you paint a more pessimistic picture of this hand than a direct raise, and the question is which is more appropriate. I feel this hand could go either way really, and when in doubt my style is to go for the slightly more aggressive option. Hence a direct invite with 3♥.

[FelicityR]

3♥ seems right - to reflect the level of the 9(+) card fit - even though the hand is ace less, a 4441 shape and the ♠s are potentially dead. 3♥ is non-forcing so the decision is then left to partner whether to proceed to game. 2♥ isn't doing justice to the hand, in my opinion.

You have to try to bid vulnerable games at teams. It's probably a borderline game even if partner turns up with extras, and a trump lead could be the only way to defeat it. If partner turns up with ♠xx ♥Qxxxxx ♦xx ♣AKJ it's a case of c'est la vie and move on to the next board.

[nige1]

Trinidad "IMPs (Butler).You are playing Switch: Partner's 2♣ bid shows 5+ hearts and about 8+, so that you can show the negative free bid and the forcing bid. 2♥ would have shown clubs.How high do you want to raise hearts and why?"
+++++++++++++++++
I'd worry why RHO won't raise ♠ or double 2♣. Hence I rank ...
1. 2♥ Craven.
2. 3♥ FelicityR and DavidKok probably have it about right.
3. 4♥ Macho but opponents have a good fit somewhere.
4. Other bids might help opponents.

---

[Phil]

We play:

1♣ (balanced or clubs, 14+) - (1♠) -

Double = 4-5♥
1N = ♣
2♣ = ♦
2♦ = ♥, weak or GF
2♥ = exactly invitational

Over 2♦, 3♥ is defined as blocking.

The 4x1 hand in the example is problematic. 1♦ is an acceptable opening because it's both majors. We do not play switch over it. Maybe we should?

[msjennifer]

With a NINE card assured fit as also the 2C bid at adverse vulnerability there is only 1 loser in hearts.The total loser count is five.Take responders hand for a maximum nine losers .That adds to 14 and 18-14=4 .Hence 4♥ is my bid.May not work always but I and an aggressive bidder.In our system opener is not permitted to make a splinter bid and so in lieu of the possibility of SQJ9x of doubtful value 4C is out.Just bid 2H or 3H is not acceptable to us.3H invitational for what? 2H too timid..

[msjennifer]

With a NINE card assured fit as also the 2C bid at adverse vulnerability there is only 1 loser in hearts.The total loser count is five.Take responders hand for a maximum nine losers .That adds to 14 and 18-14=4 .Hence 4♥ is my bid.May not work always but I am an aggressive bidder.In our system opener is not permitted to make a splinter bid and so in lieu of the possibility of SQJ9x of doubtful value 4C is out.Just bid 2H or 3H is not acceptable to us.3H invitational for what? 2H too timid..

[DavidKok]

I would downgrade heavily for the ♠QJ9x, counting that as 2 losers instead of 3 (sitting in front of the 1♠ overcall, no less) is poor judgment. The fact that the hand is completely aceless is another demerit. Or put differently: in the 'new' losing trick count (which, ironically, is quite old by now. This is why you don't call your conventions 'new') there are 2.5 losers in spades, 2 in hearts, 1.5 in diamonds and 1.5 in clubs, although the ♠QJ and the extra heart rectify it upwards by 1. The total is then 6.5 'new' losers, which is worth around 6 losers in the original LTC.

[nullve]

Phil, on 2020-August-22, 00:55, said:

The 4x1 hand in the example is problematic. 1♦ is an acceptable opening because it's both majors. We do not play switch over it. Maybe we should?

I play "system on" over a 1♠ overcall of my forcing 1♦ opening. In more detail,

Spoiler

1♦-(P)-?:

P: does not exist
1♥ = "0+, (3)4+ S, may have longer H unless GF"
1♠ = "0+, (3)4+ H, less than 4 S unless GF"
(...)

1♦-(1♠)-?:

P = "0+, (3)4+ S, may have longer H unless GF"
X = "0+, (3)4+ H, less than 4 S unless GF"
(...)

That may be suboptimal, but at least I tend to know what I'm doing even after several rounds of bidding.

Trinidad, on 2020-July-30, 23:33, said:

IMPs (Butler).
You are playing Switch: Partner's 2♣ bid shows 5+ hearts and about 8+, so that you can show the negative free bid and the forcing bid. 2♥ would have shown clubs.

How high do you want to raise hearts and why?

To the 3-level (by rebidding 3♥, intending that as a preemptive 4c raise) if 2♣ doesn't promise 6+ H if weak, but to the 4-level (by rebidding 4♥, intending that as preemptive 4c raise) if it does.

[Edge_]

A 2h bid is enough, in order to show my subsequent bid Of 3h was competition and not an invitation. There seems enough of a fit to bid and make 3h but not 4 and enough spades to double opponents competitive 3s for penalties, (on rules of 10&12) and hopefully partner has enough clubs to double opponents 4c as well.