[ibraves]

---

Scoring is MP's, you're playing with a semi-regular partner. You havent discussed whether 2n can contain a 4c♥ raise. It seems pretty normal to include that so assume that it can. What do you bid?

Do you have a good way of showing a 4c 18-19 balanced raise?

Spoiler

Partner's hand:

---

I passed, 3n and 4h both make (even with Qxxx of H offside

[Vampyr]

ibraves, on 2014-January-27, 17:55, said:

---

Scoring is MP's, you're playing with a semi-regular partner. You havent discussed whether 2n can contain a 4c♥ raise. It seems pretty normal to include that so assume that it can. What do you bid?

"Normal" is not the word I would have used. Maybe it's normal on Mars. I pass at MPs. Not at IMPs.

Quote

Do you have a good way of showing a 4c 18-19 balanced raise?

Unless you have a gadget, your choices are manufacturing a reverse, raising to game, or, if the hand is a very unattractive 18 I suppose you could raise to 3♥, so long as you are not an adherent of the modern school of jump-raising with a decent 14. It's not a common enough hand- type to build a system around.

Edit: I don't want to reveal what is in the spoiler because you have chosen to hide it, but you might want to have another look,

[mike777]

no pard can never have a 4 card h suit.

but pard can have a 4 card spade suit.

you could debate whether south has a 3 or 4h rebid at MP.

[Mbodell]

ibraves, on 2014-January-27, 17:55, said:

---

Do you have a good way of showing a 4c 18-19 balanced raise?

3♥ over 1♥ is that for me. It can depend a little on if you play weak or strong nt and how often you raise to 2 on 3 cards (I.e., so how strong your 2M rebid is). I prefer 3M to be around 16-18 unbal or 17-19 bal with 4 card support. Playing strong nt you might well have to shave down that a point, but a balanced hand with 4 card support is a raise to some level.

[the hog]

I would have passed 1D. If 2NT is 18-19 I certainy pass now. It can only contain 4 card H support if you play that 2NT is an artificial force.

[Endymion77]

I wouldn't pass 1♦, I would pass 2NT (so I would bid like you did I guess). Some play that 2NT can have 4 hearts but I personally don't like it - if I have a fit, I raise. It might be an idea to play 1♦ - 1♥ - 3♥ as a distributional heart raise and 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♠ as a balanced heart raise (essentially the 2NT rebid but with 4 hearts) which leaves room for a game try and occasionally you might even get to 3NT despite the 4-4 heart fit at MPs if you think it's right.

[gordontd]

ibraves, on 2014-January-27, 17:55, said:

You havent discussed whether 2n can contain a 4c♥ raise. It seems pretty normal to include that so assume that it can.

You forgot the smiley.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2014-January-28, 07:16, said:

You forgot the smiley.

Apparently opener is from a culture in which 2NT can contain four-card support for many pairs. In the Netherlands this is indeed not unusual although I probably wouldn't assume that agreement with a random partner.

Anyway, assuming that that is the agreement I bid 3NT. 3♣ would be forcing of course so I don't see much point in making that bid.

Playing North American methods (2NT is nonforcing) I would pass at MP.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2014-January-28, 07:51, said:

Apparently opener is from a culture in which 2NT can contain four-card support for many pairs. In the Netherlands this is indeed not unusual although I probably wouldn't assume that agreement with a random partner.

I assume that in this case 2NT is forcing?

[jgillispie]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-28, 08:37, said:

I assume that in this case 2NT is forcing?

To avoid this kind of problem, I like 2N opening 18-19 w/ 5M possible. Romex Stayman uncovers all the major fits.

Bidding 3NT seems the least of evils (unless you're playing NMF). Just look confident when you bid it, and then P will decide whether to pass or go to 4H.

[ibraves]

So 2n containing the 4c raise isn't a common as I thought it was. Post mortem discussion centred around the fact that 2n should be 95% forcing, which seems sensible given the agreements. In any case the main reason for the bad score was not so much that we failed to bid game but that we failed to play in hearts

[mycroft]

I play a weak NT, so 3♥ shows 4-card support in an 18-19 hand. I don't have to worry about downgrading (or forcing upgrading to 4♥ with 18-opposite-6, or 5 or 4 like some do); 15-17 bid 2♥, 12-14 don't open 1♦ (or are unbalanced and re-evaluate to 15 with a fit) and lower than that I don't open in a minor. There are downsides to a weak NT, but this is one of the many upsides.

I, too, have never heard of 2NT potentially hiding 4-card support. I, too, can't imagine that it's playable if passable (or if forcing, unless with some weakness bid like 3♣). But I come from an area where the only non-GF call after a 2NT rebid is pass, which comes with its own problems (and its own solutions). So I'm sure there are benefits to this; I just can't see them.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2014-January-29, 10:36, said:

But I come from an area where the only non-GF call after a 2NT rebid is pass, which comes with its own problems (and its own solutions).

My regular partner and I have recently decided that we can make passable calls after 2NT if we fail to check back first. To be honest, I am not sure if this is any good, because it doesn't come up frequently enough to notice.

[johnu]

ibraves, on 2014-January-28, 17:08, said:

So 2n containing the 4c raise isn't a common as I thought it was.

I'm sure it has more popularity in home-brew systems.

ibraves, on 2014-January-28, 17:08, said:

Post mortem discussion centred around the fact that 2n should be 95% forcing, which seems sensible given the agreements.

I'm sure the forcing interpretation has many followers in home-brew systems too.

[Lorne50]

I do not understand why so many are passing. Turn the 4x10's into a J and 3 low cards and with a 6 count everybody would raise but the hand would have weaker playing strength.

Also you can't agree 2N can include 4 hearts unless it is forcing, and if it is forcing you now have to pass 4 counts that are void in the suit opened and have support for the other 3 suits which I think is losing bridge.

[helene_t]

mycroft, on 2014-January-29, 10:36, said:

I, too, have never heard of 2NT potentially hiding 4-card support. I, too, can't imagine that it's playable if passable (or if forcing, unless with some weakness bid like 3♣). But I come from an area where the only non-GF call after a 2NT rebid is pass, which comes with its own problems (and its own solutions). So I'm sure there are benefits to this; I just can't see them.

Well the benefits of having an extra forcing bid are quite obvious. You can but some awkward one-suited 18+ hands into the 2NT rebid.

It won't work in a style in which you never downgrade balanced 18-counts while responder bids on almost any 5-count, unless you have some kind of gadget involving a different rebid than 2NT for the balanced 18-counts.

With Shogi I originally played a fairly vanilla system without any sign-offs after 2NT, we just din't respond on very bad 6-counts and sometimes downgraded 18-counts, so we would have 25 or a good 24 combined for the 2NT rebid.

[Cyberyeti]

Lorne50, on 2014-January-31, 05:23, said:

I do not understand why so many are passing. Turn the 4x10's into a J and 3 low cards and with a 6 count everybody would raise but the hand would have weaker playing strength.

Also you can't agree 2N can include 4 hearts unless it is forcing, and if it is forcing you now have to pass 4 counts that are void in the suit opened and have support for the other 3 suits which I think is losing bridge.

Your second paragraph, I agree up to the comma, but the rest isn't true, you just agree you're going to overbid occasionally, but it's rarely terrible when that happens. We actually agree in an Acol weak NT context that 1♦-1♥-2N is GF unbalanced and occasionally we overbid in these circumstances, but I can't remember the last time it really cost us. Until we changed our NT ranges, we used to play 1♦-1♥-3N as 44 in the reds 44(32) 19 or 18-22 44(41) and almost never got to a 4♥ contract with no play.

[mycroft]

A king and three jacks and no tens? Bleah. I'll raise a 2NT opener; but especially as the bulk of my strength doesn't develop anything - it's just stoppers in opening leader's suit - this 24 point game I'll happily miss. The club suit is great - if partner also has clubs - but there are no entries to it after partner sets it up.

[mikeh]

In NA, it would be considered to be an aberration for the 2N bidder to hold 4 hearts.

As for the balanced 18-19 4 card raise, with 19 (assuming I didn't upgrade to 2N) I would bid game. With 18, it depends on the 18. With a soft hand, lots of queens and Jacks and 4432 shape (I assume I can't be 3433 and open 1♦), I'd bid 3♥. With a good 18 I bid game.

As for what I bid over 2N, I know lots of methods, but none of them include the extremely limiting concept of bidding a natural, non-forcing 3♣. These hands often take 7 or 9 tricks and rarely exactly 8...usually depending on how useful the club suit is. We rate to take 7 (or 8) more often than 9, so at mps it is an easy pass. At imps, however the odds differ according to vulnerability.

This isn't one of those 'bid all 40% games' because there is a real risk of being -200, or even more. However, red I would bid 3N and white I pass.

.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-28, 08:37, said:

helene_t, on 2014-January-28, 07:51, said:

Apparently opener is from a culture in which 2NT can contain four-card support for many pairs. In the Netherlands this is indeed not unusual although I probably wouldn't assume that agreement with a random partner.

I assume that in this case 2NT is forcing?

Yes, it is.

This is not as strange as it sounds. When I learned the game, I was told that a 1NT opening promised 16-18, and 1apple-1orange; 2NT was 19-21, and therefore game forcing, since you needed 25-26 points for game. Nowadays you need 23 points to bid game, so 18+6 is sufficient.

When I started playing with my current partner he insisted that we play 2NT as forcing. I noticed that I don't find it hard at all: in practice I would never pass, anyway.

Rik