[Siegmund]

Early in a Swiss, against a solid team. Your table opponents are good B players, the opponents holding your cards at the other table are possibly the best pair in the room (and they are playing a weak notrump and you arent - so its unlikely youll get identical auctions at both tables.) Your partner opens 1H.

Your cards:
♠T9xx
♥Qxx
♦K9xx
♣KQ

Assuming nobody is taking the chicken's way out with a topheavy 2H raise or something...

You respond 1S intending to show the 3-card limit raise next. Partner rebids 1NT (balanced, good 11 to 14ish). What now? Do you abandon all interest in game and sign off? In hearts or notrump?

Say "I would have responded 1NTF and suppressed the 4 spades" if you must, but the partnership agreement is that 1H-1NT denies 4 spades.

[gwnn]

2♥ first round for me, this hand really doesn't look hot.

[killjoys]

gwnn, on 2011-January-27, 04:58, said:

2♥ first round for me, this hand really doesn't look hot.

2h first time. in no way do i consider this 'top-heavy'. admittedly i'm a little biased and play a system designed to avoid 3 card limit raises to the 3 level.

anyway, if i was planning to show a limit raise with your methods i would start with 1NT so at least partner doesn't assume his spade honours are fitting with my suit.

[mcphee]

This hand is not worth a 3 card limit raise, ace less, poor S and what may well be a worthless K of D. Bidding 1S would not come to mind. You have 3 card H support with very few cards in your long suits, doesn't it make more sense to support H now to let partner make some game try perhaps? Why players want to go out of their way to bid S (which could get raised, possibly with 3 cards) rather than show where they live at once is not very wise. If you make the direct raise, even if you consider it a heavy 2H, you are very well placed if partner makes a game try.

[paulg]

It's a nine-loser hand. 2♥

[Free]

This hand deserves the chicken's treatment: 1♥-2♥. It was never an invite imo.

[cherdano]

You have to make this decision before you bid 1♠. It's not exactly shocking to hear that partner has a minimal balanced hand.
Anyway, I agree with 2♥ on the first round.

[Fluffy]

what cherdano said, I expect my partner to understand 2♥ as limit now. But 2♥ is plenty, stiff KQ is a bad holding.

[pooltuna]

well since I consider ♠xxxx ♥Qxx ♦Kxxx ♣Kx a limit raise I have no problem making a limit raise with this

[Phil]

Agree with 2♥, however improve it just a little (like T9xx Qxx KQxx Kx) and I'd bid 1♠. Why?

Over 1N, I can make a mild invite via 2♣-->2♦-->2♥.

Over 2m, my hand is definitely improved and this hand is now worth a full LR.

Its only over 2♠ that I have some doubt of the value of this hand, but I will try 2N to ferret out partner's hand type.

[mtvesuvius]

I like a direct 2♥, although if you often raise on garbage I would live with making a limit raise, but it would be through 1N...

I don't want to play in this spade suit. I don't want partner to look at his hand and over-evaluate because he has spade cards or under-evaluate because he has short spades. I don't want partner raising spades, etc etc.

I wouldn't have bid 1♠ ever the first time. Now I guess I bid 2♥ as a mild invite (it cannot be a signoff).

[gwnn]

Fluffy, on 2011-January-27, 08:53, said:

what cherdano said, I expect my partner to understand 2♥ as limit now. But 2♥ is plenty, stiff KQ is a bad holding.

cherdano didn't say that 2♥ would/should understand 2♥ as limit, I don't understand

[mtvesuvius]

gwnn, on 2011-January-27, 11:02, said:

cherdano didn't say that 2♥ would/should understand 2♥ as limit, I don't understand

He implied it with the 1♠ comment

[Siegmund]

Thanks for answers guys. Other table went down in 3H, we had a misunderstanding and failed to bail out short of 4. Not one of our finer moments.

Whether 1H-1S-1N-2H must always be limit strength is something I will have to ponder. It makes sense, since with a one-bid hand you raise immediately. Will ask partner today whether he agrees or not.

I WAS a bit surprised to see so many votes for an immediate 2H. It's an ugly hand but if this and some random 6-counts are both bidding 2H that's a wider range than I am happy with. I do bid 2H with a fair number of 4333 10-counts (and am often right, but always get raised eyebrows when I put the dummy down even for that.)

[gwnn]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-January-27, 11:06, said:

He implied it with the 1♠ comment

no he didn't

!

he said that if you thought that it was worth a limit raise before (hence you bid 1♠), you should make a limit raise now.

if you thought that it was not worth a limit raise before, you should not have started with 1♠

[nigel_k]

This is a very bad hand - 8.45 according to Kaplan/Rubens. It also doesn't seem like the type where a 4-4 spade fit fill play better than a 5-3 heart fit though that is possible. Anyway it is only worth 2♥ but if I decided it was a limit raise I would definitely start with 1NT, not 1♠, to help partner evaluate better.

[cherdano]

Thanks gwnn. I wanted to say the following: If you have this shape but just below limit-raise values, you should raise to 2♥ right away. If you think you have limit-raise values, then you should bid 1♠ followed by 3♥, or 1♠ followed by 2♥ if you have Fluffy's agreements (which I wouldn't have assumed), or 1NT followed by 3♥ (based on Nigel's reasoning).

What you can't do with this shape and below limit-raise values is to bid 1♠ and then have no bid over 2♣.