[pbleighton]

What are the minimum and maximum hands for 2S?

Peter

[kenrexford]

By my understanding of Intermediate, I expect a good six-card suit with sound opening strength as a minimum.

Imagining worst expected pattern (6322) and a mere 12-count (a tad light), I could imagine something like AQxxxx-Kx-Kxx-xx. That's a six-loser hand, well-positioned (Kings in right spot). I'd imagine a five-loser hand as the maximum.

On this hand, Advancer has two assured covers. So, he invites. South has a five-loser hand. He should accept.

That seems fairly simple to me. South 100%. What was he expecting for the game try?

BTW, I'd give South an extra frownie-face for not bidding game twice and selling out to 4♣, his stiff suit.

[mikeh]

I'd miss game here, as well.

As for Ken's point about S bidding over 4♣, because that is his stiff: I reject it, strongly. Once he bid 3♠ (which is my choice), he should definitely NOT bid again... other than to double a poor contract EW, which is not the case here.

I know it's vul at imps ... but I don't see any blame here.

[mike777]

Negative=minimum HCP, nothing special in side suits.
Positive=5.5 loser hand, 6-4 shape with a stiff(not 6332), vul at imps.

I bid 4S with south hand.

66% South
34% Rub of the Green.

North has a dead minimum.

[Apollo81]

The reason that this partnership missed game is that South has a maximum in the context of "good spade fit" and a minimum otherwise. Once North passed 4♣ it was time to bid 4♠. To avoid the situation altogether it's good to play some sort of method that lets JOer eval his hand knowing whether there's a good fit or not -- You can use 2NT for a context free eval and the cue for a fit eval.

Anyway I'm saying I blame the methods.

note: people that dont regularly play intJO routinely under-evaluate as advancer

[whereagles]

Justin 100%, regardless of where he sat

Anyway, I think the result is normal, though I'd probably bid one more with a 64.

[jtfanclub]

What would 3♥, instead of 3♦, show by North? Switch North's hearts and clubs, and game seems no longer possible without serious help by the defense.

[bid_em_up]

I might consider bidding 4S as South after 4C p p to me because I have length in diamonds and surely North is either:

1) short in diamonds or
2) will have a diamond card on his failure to double 4C or
3) will have nothing at all in diamonds or clubs so Norths 3D call is based on the spade A and the AQ of hearts.

But I don't think anybody is really at "fault", change Souths hand to:

KQJxxx KJ Q10x xx, and 4S will have 4 top losers, it is only the club stiff in Souths hand that allows 4S to make. The stiff club combined with the above reasons "might" persuade me at the table to bid 4S, even though I realize it is risky to do so.

jmoo.

[Free]

seems like a double of 4♣ by south, and after this North should bid 4♠.

[jdonn]

I blame the methods, I think this is a bad auction for generic inviting since no one has any clue what they need. If north could bid 2NT as some kind of ask and south could do something descriptive that would help.

[pbleighton]

Quote

intermediate is defined by the partnership as a hand that would open 1S and rebid 2.5 spades (like what ken said, a good 6 card suit and sound opener).

OK, then I blame no one.

Peter

[kenrexford]

I cannot get why this one is deemed a "system" flaw or a judgment call.

The hand bid-em-up provided makes no sense. Overcaller, with one more loser, would not bid game because he has six losers when he is 6232. "It is only the stiff club" that allows 4♠ to make" is a weird comment. It is also the stiff club (and fourth diamonds) that creates the five losers instead of six losers and justifies the bid of game. It reminds me of discussions I've heard where Advancer would say something like, "You are lucky that you had the club stiff and fourth diamond for your aggressive 4♠ call" and Overcaller agrees "Yes, I was lucky that way."

The idea of South doubling 4♣ ("I could not bid game but I do have great defense") and then North pulling (I have an invitational hand that is primed-out defensive strong, but let's not defend -- let's go down instead") is weird, also. If South doubles 4♣ (weird), North should be thrilled to defend.

I understand jdonn's frustration, to a degree, with the methods. Perhaps South has an easier time if 2NT asks for shortness or something. But, South has a really easy time if the invitational 3♦ call says "I have two tricks and a fit." South does not need to second-guess North's assessment that he has two tricks. Five losers, minus two covers, is three losers and ten tricks. These are good IMP games to bid, when you have ten tricks. If 2NT was used as a sexy game try, or 3♥ as some fit-showing bid, or 3♣ as a fit-showing bid, then 3♦ is more and more reliable as an assured two tricks (the others would be used for hesitant trick sources), but so what? Step on out there! Not to mention the pass by North of 4♣! If North has the dreaded slow club honors, will he not double 4♣?

Finally, to Justin. Why would you even muddy the waters by mentioning 3♥ as a punt bid? 3♥ implies something like 5.5 losers, probably something like six losers but weak spades or AJxx/KJxx in a side suit -- something that technically resembles six losers but that has lots of body. This one seems simple.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

intermediate is defined by the partnership as a hand that would open 1S and rebid 2.5 spades (like what ken said, a good 6 card suit and sound opener).

3H over 3D would be a generic "i don't know what to do" kind of bid.

OK if it's THAT sound then I blame North 100% for this particular hand.
I was thinking intermediate meant more like 11+ to 15 not 13+ to 16-

You're saying a 6322 12 count isn't good enough, right?

[kenrexford]

AKxxxx-Ax-Axx-xx

This is a 15-count (HCP) with six losers. So, a 12-count is not required to have a full six losers and yet be intermediate.

Two Aces does reduce the chances, but on this deal, partner might have something like KQJxxx-Q-AJx-QJx, which is a six-loser hand that has 16 HCP's.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

3H over 3D would be a generic "i don't know what to do" kind of bid.

Sorry, I didn't say it right.

1D by East, 2S by South, 3H by North.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Jun 4 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

AKxxxx-Ax-Axx-xx

This is a 15-count (HCP) with six losers. So, a 12-count is not required to have a full six losers and yet be intermediate.

Ken, get real. The only point you are proving is how ridiculous loser count is as a hand evaluation. Of course this hand is way stronger than the one South holds in this thread, and too strong for an IJO.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jun 4 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 4 2007, 01:54 PM, said:

AKxxxx-Ax-Axx-xx

This is a 15-count (HCP) with six losers.  So, a 12-count is not required to have a full six losers and yet be intermediate.

Ken, get real. The only point you are proving is how ridiculous loser count is as a hand evaluation. Of course this hand is way stronger than the one South holds in this thread, and too strong for an IJO.

How is a 6322 15-count, with six losers, too strong for an intermediate jump shift? AKxxxx-Ax-Axx-xx is almost a definitional 2♠ call. Admittedly, high end as far as HCP's are concerned, but low-end as far as LTC is concerned. Just about right.

BTW -- this might be a good holding for Justin's 3♥ punt bid. It looks like six losers, but it really seems better than that with all of the primes.

[kenrexford]

I'll grant that North's minor holding is critical here. If the minors were 3♦/2♣, the defense would likely go ♦A, ♦K, ♦ruff, ♣A, for down one. That's obvious.

That being said, this is IMPs. There is no real way to ask the key question. Sure, 3♥ would be a reasonable punt bid at matchpoints. 3♠ is way too conservative at either form of scoring, though.

If 3♥ suggested possible wasted and slow values in Opener's suit, suggesting evaluation accordingly and consideration of 3NT as an alternative strain, then 3♥ would be an excellent next step. But, I think 3♥ covers a lot more territory, like the poor-spades problem, the Aces-and-spaces six-loser hand, and the contingent-side-suit problem.