mike777, on 2025-November-29, 09:26, said:
Which raises the important question in bidding theory. Should we ignore, or at least downgrade the potential impact of suit quality?
Bergen told us points schmoints! And
Vulnerability is for children..
Next throw suit quality out...
Yes! You're starting to get it.
- You should take suit quality into consideration when evaluating the playing strength of your hand.
- Showing your shape is extremely important, and vital to let partner assess their hand strength. Sometimes we have to pick a smallest lie, but I'd rather lie about points than about shape most of the time.
- To me putting a suit quality requirement on a bid is often a huge warning sign. Now we need two different ways to show a hand with the same distribution and total strength but different quality suits. I don't have that kind of space (with some very rare exceptions)!
Now this of course does not mean to disregard suit quality, but rather that statements like 'partner will expect a better suit' are, to me, doing more harm than good. Are you really sure you have a systemic way to show the hand with a worse suit? Or are you finding out in this thread that your demand for a suit quality has created a system gap? I don't claim to know this system, but I know I don't have room for such luxuries in my own system (and I find misdescribing my shape to be an unwelcome alternative).
P_Marlowe, on 2025-November-28, 10:51, said:
A weak suit takes tricks if it can become trumps, but is a liability in NT as it's slow to establish. We might miss a 6-2 fit (at the partscore, game or even slam level), but with this hand I think even a 6-1 misfit might play better in hearts.
Lastly I think people might play 1
♥-1
♠; 3
♥ differently. For me it shows approximately 15-17, 6(+)
♥, and is not forcing (stronger hands rebid 3NT, though gadgets exist to save bidding space with these strong hands). I think this hand is an above average 15 with all the aces and kings, the
♥T, and the fact that our only unguarded king is in partner's long suit. I think this hand is worth closer to 16.5, maybe 16, and falls comfortably within my 3
♥ rebid range.
And, sorry for the confrontational remark, but it continues to surprise me how many problems people create with their balanced hand bidding.