[mike777]

Why are we bidding 2H on very poor hands after 1s by RHO? Why not keep 2H as the same constructive bid? It seems we are not taking space away from the opp. and are not helping partner compete higher. I can only assume there are no good arguments for playing 2H as still constructive. Trying to see both sides of the discussion here, not just one.

Just asking.

[brianshark]

Double is silly:

Show support immediately in competitive auctions. In this example, if LHO jumps in ♠s your in trouble, because partner may have extra ♥s but can't show them because he doesn't know of your 3, so neither of you can judge whether it's more profitable to dbl for penalties or bid your game.

In reality though, you've a flat hand, your NV, opps are vul, they are highly unlikely to bid 3♠ in this auction.

So reason number 2 why double is silly:

The only reason to delay support, or use game-tries is either because systemically you have to to show invite hands (which doesn't apply here because of the friendly overcall) or because your partner's acceptance of your game try is reliant on him soft honour values (Ks, Qs, Js, Ts... not As) in certain key suits.

In this deal however, you have an easy systemic invite bid, no need to dilly dally. And you have feck all in the minors worth showing. You have a balanced hand with a decent 10 count. This is the hand for a generic invite, and 2♠ is that generic invite.

I see no tactical merit and a certain amount of danger in bidding something other than 2♥ or 2♠ or whetever gadget you use to show 3 card support.

As for whether it's an invite or constructive, I'm fairly neutral. I guess I'd take into account on how good my opps are, hope light my partner opens, etc, the form of scoring, etc. I don't think it's that clear at all.

[kenberg]

I am one of the pessimists who bid only 2H. Sort of a "This looks like a trap" choice but here are some thoughts that might partially justify this. E holds AQ and some cards in spades and scattered values elsewhere (so I assume). Against 1H-1S-2S-pass-4H he is likely to select a trump lead. A likely spade holding for partner is three small. Heart opening lead, won in hand. Spade to ace. Another heart. Now declarer has to play a spade to the K, get to his hand, ruff a spade, get back to his hand, draw trump, cope with his (original) five minor suit cards. This could be tough, even when he holds significant values. Eg: xxx/AJxxx/AQx/Ax. This is a 4H bid over 2S, is it not? If this hand is opened 1N then 2S must invite partner to bid 4H on less. I see five heart tricks, two aces, the king of spades, the rest to be developed. Of course maybe he will play this as win the trump, then A of clubs, club towards the Q. Maybe this will be right. Maybe not. I see the point of 2S but I wouldn't be surprised to see this lead to 4H down 1.

Maybe consult a Horoscope to see if your stars are in alignment. If so, 2S. If not, 2H. In a team game, 2S. Keeps the team happy. Everyone will understand 4H down 1. 170 produces depression. Or violence.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

I do not know about bidding 2H on 'very poor' hands, however, if you do not raise with a hand worth a single raise, what happens after 1H-(1S)-p-(2S or even 3S?)

Constructive raises are nice, however, when they overcall you lose the forcing NT followed by a 2H bid. You also gain a cuebid so that the 2H raise is limited by your 'failure' to cuebid. The bottom range of a single raise drops a bit and the high end of a single raise 'bumps' up against the use of a cuebid raise.

Regards,
Robert

[pclayton]

I'm just amazed at this thread.

This is a very simple limit raise with all these cover cards. Trying to weave a negative double to showing different limit raises makes little sense to me.

Bridge isn't simple, but it hands like this that get weaker players tied up in knots.

[whereagles]

pclayton, on Mar 5 2007, 03:27 PM, said:

1. This is a very simple limit raise with all these cover cards.

2. Trying to weave a negative double to showing different limit raises makes little sense to me.

1. Well, if you're going to trot out losing trick count, it's even a GAME-FORCING hand (7 losers.. lol)

2. There are some bidding schools that dump some support bids into the neg dbl. However, this is clearly the wrong hand to do it.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Mar 5 2007, 01:17 AM, said:

I don't think 'limit raise' is going to tell partner enough for him to determine the contract if they keep bidding.  For example, if I bid 2♠ and they were to bid 3♠ (much safer in a fit auction), would partner go with a 2-6-3-2 12 count?  I would expect so.  Would we make it?  I seriously doubt it.  It would be awful nice to be able to tell partner that I need him to have a little extra and six cards, not a little extra or six cards.

1) Why would partner bid game with a certain hand after one limit raise but not after a different limit raise? Now you are just making up the message your bid sends to suit the message you want it to send.
2) xx Axxxxx KQx Kx
Axx Jxxxxx Kx Ax
xx AJxxxx Ax Kxx
None cold, all more than playable. I'll take my chances.

Quote

Ok.  Partner has, I dunno...

QJTx
ATxxx
AK9
x

looks like we just missed game.  And they're going to get what, five tricks, tops?  1♠X scores better than 4♥.  And that's a darn iffy conversion at the 1 level.  A more typical leave-in would net us 800.

Try reversing partner's minors and see what you get to compensate for that missed game. Try removing the spade ten and see what you get. Are you saying you are comfortable defending on the 1 level when you have support partner doesn't know about? He could easily even pass with 4-6 in the majors, expecting you not to have support and thinking with his shortness in the minors the deal was a misfit.

Anyway I think I'm done with this thread. Recent posts suggest the light has been shown.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Mar 5 2007, 01:24 PM, said:

Anyway I think I'm done with this thread. Recent posts suggest the light has been shown.

Yeah, sorry for making it go on for so long. It wasn't a great example hand for the X to begin with, but I wanted to point out why X could be an option (I was rather hoping somebody else would do it, but no such luck).

Anyhow, thanks for putting up with it.