[Hanoi5]

---

Would you intervene with 1♥ or 2♥?

[WesleyC]

I wouldn't rule out 3♥ either.

In my opinion all 3 bids are reasonable, and I'd choose between them based on partner's style/opponents style/state of the match/form of scoring.

[blackshoe]

Playing exclusion doubles I might double, and then bid 2♥ over 2♣.

[Jinksy]

I don't see any value in bidding 1♥. Are you looking for game? 2-4♥ look plausible to me.

[rhm]

Jinksy, on 2015-October-11, 12:42, said:

I don't see any value in bidding 1♥. Are you looking for game? 2-4♥ look plausible to me.

Why can't partner have

♠AKxxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣xxx or better?

Rainer Herrmann

[WesleyC]

rhm, on 2015-October-12, 03:50, said:

Why can't partner have

♠AKxxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣xxx or better?

Because they passed as dealer at Nil Vul.

[Zelandakh]

I am usually quite aggressive here but just 2♥ for me given that we have some defence in both majors. 1♥ never comes into focus at all, it is simply a matter of judging how high to go imho.

[rhm]

WesleyC, on 2015-October-12, 06:00, said:

Because they passed as dealer at Nil Vul.

okay change it to

♠KJxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣Axxx

Rainer Herrmann

[Jinksy]

rhm, on 2015-October-12, 09:26, said:

okay change it to

♠KJxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣Axxx

Rainer Herrmann

I'm sure you're capable of bidding to and making game on those (not sarcasm), but I doubt I'm capable of either. If by some mischance the opps kept out of the bidding, I would prob have the auction P (1♦) 1♥ / 1♠ 2♠ / P, and be reasonably content with making my contract.

At MPs we might get a better score just for finding a superior spade partial, but it feels more likely to me that the opps are near to game and perhaps slam, and that they'll be able to use whatever bidding space I leave much more effectively than we can.

[neilkaz]

It would not occur to me to do anything other than bidding 2♥

[rhm]

Jinksy, on 2015-October-13, 12:21, said:

I'm sure you're capable of bidding to and making game on those (not sarcasm), but I doubt I'm capable of either. If by some mischance the opps kept out of the bidding, I would prob have the auction P (1♦) 1♥ / 1♠ 2♠ / P, and be reasonably content with making my contract.

At MPs we might get a better score just for finding a superior spade partial, but it feels more likely to me that the opps are near to game and perhaps slam, and that they'll be able to use whatever bidding space I leave much more effectively than we can.

I readily admit there is a stronger case for a preemptive bid when partner has already passed (which I overlooked originally).
Nevertheless I dislike locking us into hearts when I have such a good holding in the other major and I have serious doubts that a jump to 2♥ will create serious issues for my opponents.
I like preempts, but their effectiveness depends to a large extent on level and whether there was a bid in front of you already. The effectiveness diminishes and the risk increases.
Many seem to be oblivious to this simple fact.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

I like 1♥ too. Hopefully partner can preempt them when we need to and we can find spades when we need to. It's a bit of a goldilocks bid. I don't see any value in saying stuff like "I don't see any value in..." but OK. I see the value of any of pass, 1, 2, and 3♥ (4♥ does seem to be a bit nuts), and judge 1 to be the best on this hand. Am I too open minded and my brain will fall out? maybe.

[Jinksy]

rhm, on 2015-October-14, 03:08, said:

Nevertheless I dislike locking us into hearts when I have such a good holding in the other major and I have serious doubts that a jump to 2♥ will create serious issues for my opponents.

That's why I'd be more inclined to bid three or even four, (mainly depending on opps). I don't hate 2♥, though - when they have slam interest, which looks quite likely, it puts quite a dent in their ability to explore for it.

Quote

I like preempts, but their effectiveness depends to a large extent on level and whether there was a bid in front of you already. The effectiveness diminishes and the risk increases.

Sure, but IMO the reward increases more than the risk does when we have such a defensively weak hand opposite P's pass. Sure, the KD is onside, but that doesn't mean they don't have game/slam, perhaps in another strain. And the KD is also insurance against pushing them to a making high-level contract they wouldn't have found.

[nige1]

Hanoi5 asks "Would you intervene with 1♥ or 2♥?"

I rank
1. 3♥ PRE. Opponents are likely to hold the balance of strength, so you should be a dog in the manger, use up bidding space and shut out ♣s, at the remote risk of losing a ♠ contract.
2. 2♥. PRE. Similar but less pre-emptive.
3. 2♦ ART. Michaels. Might find a ♠ fit but a misdescriptive distortion given the suit disparity.
4. Double. T/O. Uses no space. Might reach a 4-3 ♠/ 4-2 ♦ fit but miss a 6-2 ♥ fit.
5. Pass. NAT. Avoids the risks of other options

---

[PhantomSac]

When partner is a passed hand I like 2, if partner were unpassed I'd prefer 1.

[wrf2705]

Jinksy, on 2015-October-13, 12:21, said:

I'm sure you're capable of bidding to and making game on those (not sarcasm), but I doubt I'm capable of either. If by some mischance the opps kept out of the bidding, I would prob have the auction P (1♦) 1♥ / 1♠ 2♠ / P, and be reasonably content with making my contract.

At MPs we might get a better score just for finding a superior spade partial, but it feels more likely to me that the opps are near to game and perhaps slam, and that they'll be able to use whatever bidding space I leave much more effectively than we can.

Non vulnerable I would bid 3 clubs (Ghestem) or 2 diamonds to show at least 4+/5+ in majors and pass all coming bids of my partner.

[ggwhiz]

At matchpoints in what can be random or uneven fields I like 1♥ for the ability to find spades or push them up by bidding 3♥ after partner finds a raise either directly or partner doing it after making a bid that I retreat to 2♥ from.

After a direct 2♥ you are often endplayed into defending 3 of a minor without knowing if it's a good idea or not.

[SteveMoe]

3rd seat wide ranging - 3 or 4♥.

[Fluffy]

With an unpased partner I'd rather play in hearts when partner is 4-2 in the majors, and probably if he is 4-1 as well. So I would preempt.

[MrAce]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-11, 00:40, said:

Playing exclusion doubles I might double, and then bid 2♥ over 2♣.