[MrAce]

---

Imps, world class opps.

What do you suggest here ?

[JLOGIC]

3H seems straight forward.

[S2000magic]

 MrAce, on 2012-April-26, 23:22, said:

---

I assume that the last pass by South is incorrect; i.e., that's supposed to be the question mark we're answering.

I have a partner who may have bid 1♥ on:

♠ x x x
♥ x x x x
♦ x x x
♣ x x x

I think that 2♥ is enough here. If partner has substantially more than the minimum (above) he can bid again. An ace would quialify as substantially more.

[Fluffy]

This is a situation that like balancing with 1NT you should play very different at IMPs and MPs. 2♥ at MPs only shows 4♥ cards and nothing else, at IMPs it shows a middle 14-17 range. I would downgrade my hand to that. So 3♥ at MPs, 2♥ at IMPs.

[Phil]

 S2000magic, on 2012-April-27, 00:41, said:

I have a partner who may have bid 1♥ on:

♠ x x x
♥ x x x x
♦ x x x
♣ x x x

Jeez, maybe we should pass then. Or not even doubled in the 1st place.

[mikeh]

 Phil, on 2012-April-27, 08:51, said:

Jeez, maybe we should pass then. Or not even doubled in the 1st place.

He thinks that is a bad hand? I have a partner who bid 1♥ on xxx xxx xxxx xxx

I knew I should have stayed in bed that day.

Jeesh.....there I was, thinking that I was the most 'glass half empty' bidder on the fora, and along comes this.

As for the problem, I bid 2♥. I hold, in essence, slightly worse than AKJx AKxx x 10xxx, since my possession of the diamond K means that opener has compensating, and thus defensive values, and my K ain't worth diddley squat offensively most of the time.

I don't bid 2♥ on absolute minimum takeout double hands...I allow partner to bid if 2♥ is appropriate on those holdings (and I know the arguments both ways...this is how I and my partners choose to bid) so this hand, deducting the diamond K, is at the very top of the 2♥ range.

[JLOGIC]

Wouldn't you bid 2H on any hand with 4414? Having a stiff is a big extra value to me, I don't bid 2H with minimum Xs either but I would with 4414 and 11 or 4423 and 14 pretty routinely. I think you have to bid 2H with some extras and 4 hearts when RHO bids. Here I have 4414 and "15", that is still far stronger than minimum hands I would bid 2H with.

[mgoetze]

 S2000magic, on 2012-April-27, 00:41, said:

I assume that the last pass by South is incorrect; i.e., that's supposed to be the question mark we're answering.

Ah I was about to ask why we didn't redouble last round... and why Justin thinks we need to ask for a heart stopper when we have one ourselves... LOL.

[mikeh]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-April-27, 09:56, said:

Wouldn't you bid 2H on any hand with 4414? Having a stiff is a big extra value to me, I don't bid 2H with minimum Xs either but I would with 4414 and 11 or 4423 and 14 pretty routinely. I think you have to bid 2H with some extras and 4 hearts when RHO bids. Here I have 4414 and "15", that is still far stronger than minimum hands I would bid 2H with.

Not 'any hand' because I may already have 'counted' my shape to justify my double...by counting it again....to say that my minimum hand, which warranted a double because of ths stiff now warrants another call seems, to me, to be counting the same values twice.

However, I don't think that is where we disagree....I think we disagree about where the line is drawn between 2♥ and 3♥. I may be mistaken, but I read your posts as suggesting that this is a minimum (tho clear) 3♥ call, while I see this as an absolute maximum 2♥ call, and, if so, we are extremely close in our views of the strength of the hand and merely draww different conclusions.

Put another way...if we had fractional bidding, would you be at about 2.75, thus obviously rounding up to a clear 3♥, with me at about 2.48, thus rounding down?

[CSGibson]

I'm a 2♥ bidder. Any upward adjustment in strength and I'd bid 3♥. Vul at teams, I'd bid 3♥. If partner held the same hand and bid 3♥, I would not worry about his choice. (ie, I think you've hit my borderline hand on the nose).

[Phil]

I feel like I got in a time transport back to 2007. Justin is going on and on how raising is automatic. Han will chirp in too.

MikeH is saying that he needs extras, and Josh will mostly agree with him and I will support Josh.

Maybe the recession was just a bad dream.

[neilkaz]

I'll side with Justin on this one and think that while assuming my K♦ is the 2, there's just enough extras to bid 3♥ here. My hand is prime, the ♠ hook if needed is likely to work, however the ♣ situation could be troublesome if there are too many losers.

I certainly understand those who bid 2♥ here and that depends on what you've agreed to with partner but I prefer what I see as the "modern" way of bidding 2♥ in comp on almost any 4 card support.

.. neilkaz ..

[S2000magic]

 Phil, on 2012-April-27, 08:51, said:

Jeez, maybe we should pass then. Or not even doubled in the 1st place.

The sarcasm seems misplaced. Partner has about 8 points tops, and zero at the minimum, so the single raise seems spot on.

[mfa1010]

3♥ down the middle for me. We support to 2♥ with any excuse in these situations.

[Phil]

 S2000magic, on 2012-April-27, 14:25, said:

The sarcasm seems misplaced. Partner has about 8 points tops, and zero at the minimum, so the single raise seems spot on.

Sorry the sarcasm is also 'spot on'.

If you choose to present yarboroughs to demonstrate your action in the expert forum, then I think you'll get this kind of greeting.

Note that I am also a single raiser.

[cherdano]

 Phil, on 2012-April-27, 12:51, said:

I feel like I got in a time transport back to 2007. Justin is going on and on how raising is automatic. Han will chirp in too.

MikeH is saying that he needs extras, and Josh will mostly agree with him and I will support Josh.

Maybe the recession was just a bad dream.

If this was 2007, cherdano would point out the BWS agreement.

[Phil]

 cherdano, on 2012-April-27, 16:04, said:

If this was 2007, cherdano would point out the BWS agreement.

Cherdanno you mean?

I almost added how you would mention your disdain for the LOTT.

[S2000magic]

 Phil, on 2012-April-27, 15:26, said:

If you choose to present yarboroughs to demonstrate your action in the expert forum, then I think you'll get this kind of greeting.

I think that you're right. That doesn't mean that it's appropriate, however.

I also think that in a case where we've essentially forced partner to bid even with a yarborough, considering what might happen with a yarborough is appropriate as a worst case, which is exactly how I presented it.

 Phil, on 2012-April-27, 15:26, said:

Note that I am also a single raiser.

Noted.

It seems that you, too, might be considering that partner might have a yarborough.

[JLOGIC]

 mikeh, on 2012-April-27, 12:24, said:

Not 'any hand' because I may already have 'counted' my shape to justify my double...by counting it again....to say that my minimum hand, which warranted a double because of ths stiff now warrants another call seems, to me, to be counting the same values twice.

However, I don't think that is where we disagree....I think we disagree about where the line is drawn between 2♥ and 3♥. I may be mistaken, but I read your posts as suggesting that this is a minimum (tho clear) 3♥ call, while I see this as an absolute maximum 2♥ call, and, if so, we are extremely close in our views of the strength of the hand and merely draww different conclusions.

Put another way...if we had fractional bidding, would you be at about 2.75, thus obviously rounding up to a clear 3♥, with me at about 2.48, thus rounding down?

Yes I agree with you, we are not far off, I am just a little more optimistic as usual

[gszes]

p 1h response has a huge range. Our hand is
worth around 17 a perfect 2h bid. This allows
p to compete to 3h (with say an ace) if lho
bids 3d and to go to 4h if they are closer to
the top of their 1h bid.