[Al_U_Card]

Since I too play 3D as a drop dead bid, the choice between 2S and 3H is solely based on the scoring. 2S at MP and 3H at Imps for me..... If he makes a game try over the 2S I will accept. At imps he will know that I am inviting with a min...and btw, AJx of H can't be used to draw trump and take the tap or ruff S good, so I am reluctant to play in the 4-3 fit unless pard has significant extras. The game try in S will get us to NT I would think.

[Chamaco]

david_c, on Oct 17 2005, 01:34 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Oct 16 2005, 01:31 AM, said:

With invitational hands with doubleton support you can preference to the 3 level.

I prefer this occasional 5-2 fit rather than not being able to discriminate my minors one-suiters.

Another option of keeping 2NT as Good-bad is taking out of the 1NT forcing the invitational balanced hand.

There's a problem with this - it's not sufficient just to take balanced invitational hands out of 1NT. You also have to take out all hands which are unbalanced but might have to rebid a natural 2NT anyway. So you'd have to treat a 1=3=4=5 hand as balanced, because if it starts 1♠:1NT,2♥ and 2NT would be artificial then you have no sensible rebid.

I'd need to see the hand for the texture of the suits, in order to decide.

However, should I find a bid with that generic shape, without other info on suits quality/textures, I'd bid 3H, sometimes playing in a Moysian, which does not necessarily rate to play worse than NT, given the general misfit and communication problems in NT.

[MickyB]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 17 2005, 07:11 PM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 17 2005, 08:56 AM, said:

Obviously if you had to guess now you would guess hearts.

No, I would guess spades. Giving a load of sample hands won't add much to the debate, but if partner is 5-4 in the majors hearts is only right when we aren't trying to draw trumps, that is we're trying to scramble tricks. Any time we need to draw trumps we are likely to want to play in spades.

The two key cards you really want for play in hearts are the SA and the HK. Missing either of them is probably going to make hearts no picnic. Take away the HJ and you are really, really likely to want to play in spades.

By the way, I haven't done the sums but I guess that 6-4 in the majors is about as likely (if not more so) than 5-5.

What about 8 million sample hands?

Peter Cheung posted a simulation on RGB that said that with 20-22 HCP, you'll take only 0.057 tricks more in the 5-2 fit. Obviously this is based on double dummy analysis - could this favour the 4-3 fits?

5-5 distribution is a bit more likely than 6-4 (20% against 15%).

[whereagles]

What's wrong with a simple 2NT? Slight overbid, but we do have some heart honors to compensate, and the diamond ace can very well be the 9th trick.

[Al_U_Card]

Wrong lie. I would think that the opps will find their Club lead (from longest and strongest) and get 5+ tricks before you get 9...or 8...or 7

[Kalvan14]

I always find a bit strange that people play 2/1, and from the beginning they start to find reasons not to play a 2/1 as a GF.
I may be an integralist, but a 2/1 bid (not in competition) is a GF. Thank you very much. This includes also the infamous 1M-2m-2any-3m, which - in my system - is a single-suit reverse, and imposes trumps.
I do agree that the forcing NT is not the best part of the system; IMHO, you can always find a way out of a fix.
Going back to the posted deal:
a) if i am playing MPs, there is no question: 2♠. It guarantees some MPs, and it leaves open the door for pard to show a 5-5;
playing IMPs, 2♠ would be chickenish. I would choose 3♥, as the lesser evil. If pard is weakish, he should have some shape, and 3♥ is a reasonable contract even on a Moysian fit. If he is strong, I would not despise 4♥ on a 4-3. Why all this fear of playing with just 7 trumps?
c) 2N would never, never, never be in my book with this hand. give me a 4-5 either way in the minors, and some 9 to 12 HCP, and it would be my bid.
d) 3♦: sorry guys, but this is a clear invitation toward 3N with a minimum fit (even Jx). As such, it would require some strength in ♣, and a better ♦ suit. As an aside, why keep a drop-dead bid when pard has already shown a 2-suiter? The same applies to a 2N lebensohl, which is trendy, but trows away the chance of explaining to pard which one of the possible invitational hands I have. don't misread me: I like Lebensohl, and make a large use of its principles. just not after 1M-1N sequence.
e) 3♠: in my book, it shows a limit raise in ♠, with a balanced hand and 3 trumps. So it is clearly out of the question here.

Hope I have not offended anyone

[Kalvan14]

Jlall, on Oct 20 2005, 09:30 PM, said:

Kalvan14, on Oct 20 2005, 09:06 PM, said:

d) 3♦: sorry guys, but this is a clear invitation toward 3N with a minimum fit (even Jx). As such, it would require some strength in ♣, and a better ♦ suit. As an aside, why keep a drop-dead bid when pard has already shown a 2-suiter? The same applies to a 2N lebensohl, which is trendy, but trows away the chance of explaining to pard which one of the possible invitational hands I have. don't misread me: I like Lebensohl, and make a large use of its principles. just not after 1M-1N sequence.

so with x x KJTxxxx Qxxx you bid what?

2 ♠, and - if doubled - 3♦.
Obviously you cannot match every possible hand with a descriptive bidding sequence. I choose to loose on (rare) hands like this one (take away the J or the 10 of ♦ and I might pass over 1♠) rather than misrepresent my hand in more forward going occasions.
IMHO, the more I look at the hand you put as an example, the more attractive would become passing over 1♠