[topazo2512]

We play 5 major. My partner opened with 1 club.
I had 5 heart cards with king heart, 3 spades cards: King, Jack and 10, two diamond cards, one of them king, 3 club cards- 2,4,5
In total I had 10 points
so I answered 1 heart
He answered : 1 spade (I understood it means he had 4 spade cards).
How should I answer him back?

[Mbodell]

Your hand is ♠KJT ♥Kxxxx ♦Kx ♣542

I could see any of 1 nt, 2♠, and 2 nt being reasonable calls if you have no specific agreements.

Some people would play xyz where you could bid 2♣-2♦-2♥ to show an invite with 5 hearts.

[aguahombre]

A nice ten count is still a ten count, and no fit is established. 1NT.

[Free]

There's no reason to start inviting with this hand, just bid 1NT. If partner has 3♥ he can bid them in his next turn, after which it's borderline if you should invite.

[helene_t]

I would bid 1NT.

[kgr]

Mbodell, on 2013-August-07, 23:04, said:

Your hand is ♠KJT ♥Kxxxx ♦Kx ♣542

Thank you
You could have added:
1♣-1♥
1♠-?

1NT for me.
(MPs or IMPs?)

[aguahombre]

Free, on 2013-August-08, 08:54, said:

There's no reason to start inviting with this hand, just bid 1NT. If partner has 3♥ he can bid them in his next turn, after which it's borderline if you should invite.

If, after I rebid the obvious 1NT, partner does bid 2H ---that bid itself would show extras; trying for game at that point would not be borderline, despite the wasted Diamond King.

It would be borderline between trying for and insisting upon game.

[Free]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-08, 11:26, said:

If, after I rebid the obvious 1NT, partner does bid 2H ---that bid itself would show extras; trying for game at that point would not be borderline, despite the wasted Diamond King.

It would be borderline between trying for and insisting upon game.

Disagree, with a 4=3=1=5 partner will bid 2♥ no matter how strong/weak he is. The singleton ♦ isn't much worth opposite our Kx...

[aguahombre]

Free, on 2013-August-08, 12:51, said:

Disagree, with a 4=3=1=5 partner will bid 2♥ no matter how strong/weak he is. The singleton ♦ isn't much worth opposite our Kx...

We avoid engineering 4-3 fits, or leaving partner with nowhere to go. So, 2H must have enough strength to play 2NT or the 3-level without much of a suit fit.

With a 4-3-1-5 twelve-count opposite a responder in the minimum range, our policy is to stop bidding. No reason to think partner doesn't have length in diamonds.

Your style will work well when Responder is weak with five cards in the Heart suit AND hearts play for a trick more than NT, so it will sometimes be more successful. If your initial responses are up-the-line, things change.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-08, 13:32, said:

We avoid engineering 4-3 fits, or leaving partner with nowhere to go. So, 2H must have enough strength to play 2NT or the 3-level without much of a suit fit.

With a 4-3-1-5 twelve-count opposite a responder in the minimum range, our policy is to stop bidding. No reason to think partner doesn't have length in diamonds.

Your style will work well when Responder is weak with five cards in the Heart suit AND hearts play for a trick more than NT, so it will sometimes be more successful. If your initial responses are up-the-line, things change.

The problem is that there's no way to know. Responder could have a 5-card heart suit and short diamonds. There's no way to know whether partner has diamonds well controlled, he may have to bid 1NT with many different hand types. What he does know is that responder has at most 10 HCP -- he can't have lots of controls. The Moysian may play OK because he'll be ruffing diamonds in the short suit. Or if the opponents manage to draw his trumps, he's essentially playing NT after they're gone.

So it's a matter of playing the odds, and the odds are that playing in a suit will be better when you have a singleton, especially when both of you are minimum.

[mike777]

1nt

agree if pard rebids 2h that shows extras, cannot have his typical junky minimum and I will simply bid 4h then.

1c=1h
1s(is indeed a very wide range)

so:
1c=1h
1s=1nt
2h better not be his usual junk.

IN ANY event it seems more important to use 2h as a solid game try rather than a search for a better part score.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-August-08, 21:30, said:

So it's a matter of playing the odds, and the odds are that playing in a suit will be better when you have a singleton, especially when both of you are minimum.

And, by "playing the odds", which I am not sure are really the odds, you lose the ability to show the extra values in a 4-3-1-5 hand with a simple 2H bid that doesn't propel you beyond recovery....while at the same time propelling yourself beyond recovery on those occasions when the "odds" aren't working as you would like them to.

[Free]

The odds are that you're unsure about ♦s, while you are sure about having a 7 or 8 card fit with ruffing value in the short hand (which makes the 4-3 fit very similar to a 4-4 fit). So in general, if you would have to pick without seeing a single card, 2♥ is definitely a playable spot, while 1NT is unsure.

The disadvantage is that you may indeed end up too high when opener is min and responder is max, but at least you'll be in a 5-3 fit (with ruffing value). With these distributions, your opps may have decent play in 3♦ (at other tables some might have overcalled), so playing 3♥ isn't that big of a deal in that case.

Anyway, it's a matter of style hombre

[barmar]

Free, on 2013-August-09, 05:01, said:

Anyway, it's a matter of style hombre

Right. Just make sure you and partner are on the same wavelength about whether it shows extra values or not. Either way is playable, but if you misunderstand you can get into trouble.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-08, 22:06, said:

And, by "playing the odds", which I am not sure are really the odds, you lose the ability to show the extra values in a 4-3-1-5 hand with a simple 2H bid that doesn't propel you beyond recovery....while at the same time propelling yourself beyond recovery on those occasions when the "odds" aren't working as you would like them to.

Doesn't 2♦ show extras in this sequence? It seems a simple thing for Responder to bid 2♥ over this with a minimum and 5 hearts and avoid being propelled beyond recovery.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2013-August-12, 04:36, said:

Doesn't 2♦ show extras in this sequence? It seems a simple thing for Responder to bid 2♥ over this with a minimum and 5 hearts and avoid being propelled beyond recovery.

1C-1H
1S-1N
?....2D would show extras of course --just as (IMO) 2H would show extras. 2C would not show extras. The difference would be the patterns: 4-1-3-5, 4-3-1-5, and 4-?-?-6. I prefer to stop bidding at 1NT with minimum opposite minimum, and use the red suit continuations when game might still be in the picture.

But, to repeat, if you are not Walshish and just respond up the line, things are different. The big difference is whether responder could have bid 1H and then 1NT with 4-5 or 4-6 in the red suits, and the answer to that changes the odds.

[Zelandakh]

I am saying that after 1♣ - 1♥; 1♠ - 1NT, Opener can bid 2♦ with extras without showing a diamond fragment. Then 2♣ and 2♥ can be used for reaching the best part score. Over 2♦, any 2 level bid from Responder could be natural and non-forcing, allowing the pair to stop low when game is not there. When game is there, there is enough space over 2♦ to unwind the potential ambiguity. Without having run any analysis to back it up, it would seem that this would gain significantly more often than it costs. It feels like a no-brainer to play this way at MPs; at IMPs it would be closer.