[helene_t]

---

Matchpoints, love all. You play normalish SA methods except that 1♦ promises 4.

[MrAce]

Unless you are playing negative free bids 2♠ is wrong. We should have started with DBL.
Having already overbid our hand, I have no idea where we will end up if I act again.

[Tramticket]

What are the opponents' methods? Is 2♥ weak?

I guess that I am passing here - I don't think that pass is forcing for us. Bidding 5♦ is speculative as you take away partner's option to double.

Yes, 2♠ was a bit of an overstatement.

[helene_t]

Tramticket, on 2018-February-02, 02:24, said:

What are the opponents' methods? Is 2♥ weak?

Yes I think it was weak. It wasn't really clear from the hand if it was meant as weak or intermediate.

[Cyberyeti]

Would have liked a better spade suit, but would have kicked off with 3♠ to show 5♠/4♦ and a minimum of this sort of values, then let partner take the decision.

Now you're guessing particularly if partner can easily have a weak NT.

[FelicityR]

MrAce, on 2018-February-01, 22:40, said:

Unless you are playing negative free bids 2♠ is wrong. We should have started with DBL.
Having already overbid our hand, I have no idea where we will end up if I act again.

Agree entirely. I would add 'Even if you are playing negative free bids 2♠ is wrong...as the suit is poor and Dbl is a better bid.'

[JanisW]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-February-02, 04:54, said:

Would have liked a better spade suit, but would have kicked off with 3♠ to show 5♠/4♦ and a minimum of this sort of values, then let partner take the decision.

Now you're guessing particularly if partner can easily have a weak NT.

Yeah very borderline betwenn X and 3♠ and I think 2♠ is surely wrong
My Spades are a little (well to be honest not just a little) too weak to bid 3♠ on the other hand 3♠ neatly describes the strength and shape of my hand and perfectly prepares P for taking our final decission.
I can stand bidding 3♠ as it cannot induce a fateful lead by partner, because I will be on lead if they declare 4♥. If P were to lead against their contract I would have to start with a double.

Now having started (wrongly) with 2♠ I will chance a double. If P is able to leave it in, I'm prepared to defend. If he has 3♠ to the K the first ♠-trick will have to look like J-Q-K-A

regards
JW

[gszes]

It appears our chances of setting 4h are sort of slim. It is also quite possible P has something like Kx(x) in hearts and their minimum opening bid has taken a dive for the worse. This combination means we might have to look for a way to improve on what
is probably going to be a poor mp result. I vote for 5d which seems like it has a reasonable chance to fall somewhere between a lucky make to down 2(x). All of those results are better than 4h making. If it is wrong it is only 1 board and not that many mp are going to be lost anyway.

[rmnka447]

I'm passing as I don't think any action at this point is clear cut.

If 2 ♥ is weak, then the re-raise to 4 ♥ is ludicrous. The raise to 3 ♥ could have been made on nothing.

If partner finds a double, I'll sit even though my hand is underpowered for a 2 ♠ bid.

5 ♦ is a complete shot in the dark. I'd prefer to choose what battles I fight elsewhere.

[cherdano]

MrAce, on 2018-February-01, 22:40, said:

Unless you are playing negative free bids 2♠ is wrong. We should have started with DBL.
Having already overbid our hand, I have no idea where we will end up if I act again.

I don't understand this view. Surely we are worth forcing to 3♦ opposite a 4+ 1♦ opening? And if we catch a 5-3 spade fit, I am happy to compete to 4♠ over 4♥. Personally, I think 2♠ is clear. (I am used to play it as forcing to 3D. Partner may bid 2N without a stopper if on a pinch, so we can always get out in 3♦ if partner has a weak NT with a doubleton spade.)

[helene_t]

cherdano, on 2018-February-02, 16:49, said:

I don't understand this view. Surely we are worth forcing to 3♦ opposite a 4+ 1♦ opening?

Yes I agree with this. I don't see how we can find the 5-3 otherwise. Also, I wouldn't be too happy with partner leaving the double in.

Is partner expected to bid 3NT over 2♠ on a balanced 14-count? I don't really think so. But even if he is, I would take my chances with 2♠

[JanisW]

cherdano, on 2018-February-02, 16:49, said:

I don't understand this view. Surely we are worth forcing to 3♦ opposite a 4+ 1♦ opening? And if we catch a 5-3 spade fit, I am happy to compete to 4♠ over 4♥. Personally, I think 2♠ is clear.

The problem with bidding 2♠ is not that you are too weak to bid 2♠ the problem is that you now have to take the last guess as you did not inform P about the Fit
Your Partner might have

• ♠Ax,♥xxxx,♦AQxxx,♣Kx where he cannot sensibly act over 4♥ but 6♦ is almost cold
  
• ♠Kx,♥QJx,♦Axxx,♣Kxxx where he still cannot act and you really want to be in 4♥ doubled

If you had bid 3♠ (fit-jump), partner would've confidently bid 5♦ with hand 1 and doubled with hand 2 and you would have happily accepted his decission. Now you have to guess if Pass,X or 5♦ is right.

Competitive bidding is about avoiding the last guess.

regards
JW

[MrAce]

JanisW, on 2018-February-04, 12:49, said:

The problem with bidding 2♠ is not that you are too weak to bid 2♠ the problem is that you now have to take the last guess as you did not inform P about the Fit
Your Partner might have

• ♠Ax,♥xxxx,♦AQxxx,♣Kx where he cannot sensibly act over 4♥ but 6♦ is almost cold
• ♠Kx,♥QJx,♦Axxx,♣Kxxx where he still cannot act and you really want to be in 4♥ doubled

If you had bid 3♠ (fit-jump), partner would've confidently bid 5♦ with hand 1 and doubled with hand 2 and you would have happily accepted his decission. Now you have to guess if Pass,X or 5♦ is right.

Competitive bidding is about avoiding the last guess.

regards
JW

Janis, Arend (Cherdano) and me are aware of the advantages of 3♠ bid. Neither he nor me used it in this problem because OP did not mention anything about it. (despite the fact that both he (I assume) and I use it in our real partnerships)
This is the type of problem we face everyday in BBF. Someone asks a question, a question which seeks solution under given conditions, and people reply as if OP asked "what is the best tool to solve this problem?" This is not the way you want to reply to this type of topics. You can mention it as a note but we should all try to solve the problems in their given condition.

Otherwise I agree with everything you said.

[cherdano]

By the way - what do we open with 44 in the minors?

[Cyberyeti]

MrAce, on 2018-February-04, 21:10, said:

Janis, Arend (Cherdano) and me are aware of the advantages of 3♠ bid. Neither he nor me used it in this problem because OP did not mention anything about it. (despite the fact that both he (I assume) and I use it in our real partnerships)
This is the type of problem we face everyday in BBF. Someone asks a question, a question which seeks solution under given conditions, and people reply as if OP asked "what is the best tool to solve this problem?" This is not the way you want to reply to this type of topics. You can mention it as a note but we should all try to solve the problems in their given condition.

Otherwise I agree with everything you said.

I think in this case it's fair enough to say, people even if they did have the bid available might choose not to use it due to the suit quality (and I'd have thought from what I've seen of the OP on the forums, she might well have had it available).

[Winstonm]

Basically, it seems to me the question is what to do when the opponents do something weird in the bidding. A preemptive 2H bidder goes on to game unforced after his passed hand partner makes a competitive raise?

Is the idea to figure out a possible hand that fits the bidding? Perhaps. AKQ, 109xxxxx, x, xx

If we can imagine the opponents surely hold a 10-card fit and partner did not raise spades, then we must have a good double suit minor fit. If I'm wrong, it's only 1 board so I bid 5D.

With that said, I still don't like the 2S bid.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on 2018-February-04, 21:41, said:

By the way - what do we open with 44 in the minors?

1♦

[cherdano]

JanisW, on 2018-February-04, 12:49, said:

The problem with bidding 2♠ is not that you are too weak to bid 2♠ the problem is that you now have to take the last guess as you did not inform P about the Fit
Your Partner might have

• ♠Ax,♥xxxx,♦AQxxx,♣Kx where he cannot sensibly act over 4♥ but 6♦ is almost cold
  
• ♠Kx,♥QJx,♦Axxx,♣Kxxx where he still cannot act and you really want to be in 4♥ doubled

If you had bid 3♠ (fit-jump), partner would've confidently bid 5♦ with hand 1 and doubled with hand 2 and you would have happily accepted his decission. Now you have to guess if Pass,X or 5♦ is right.

Competitive bidding is about avoiding the last guess.

regards
JW

You make a good case for 3♠ if that is a fit jump. (I am not entirely convinced as the hand is very different to what partner expects, which would be s.th. like a 5152 with most of my hcp in spades and diamonds.)

But none of what you say is an argument for Double instead of 2♠. After double, we are still guessing over 4♥. But we are worse off, since we don't know whether partner has three spades.

[broze]

I agree with Arend - I think 2S is pretty normal with 4♦ support.

[nige1]

helene_t, on 2018-February-01, 21:32, said:

Matchpoints, love all. You play normalish SA methods except that 1♦ promises 4.

---

Over 2♥, I rank

• 2♠ = NAT Agree with Helene_T and Cherdano. We know of an 8+♦ fit, so this is only a slight overbid.
• 3♠ = F/J but ♠ are a bit anaemic.
• Double = NEG. But be sure you've decided on your lead to 2♥X.
• 3♦ = NAT Supporting with support risks losing a ♠ fit.

Now, over 4♥, I rank

• Pass = NAT. This might be a forcing-pass context . In defence, your undisclosed ♦ length is a defence liability.
• 5♦ = NAT. Your A and K are useful in attack. And your void is great.
• Double = PEN. Your A and K are also useful in defence.