[Fluffy]

Scoring: MP

S - W - N - E
1♣-1♥-ps-ps
??

---

[Fluffy]

just to note 1NT is kinda unilateral on this aprtnership, it will work whenever partner doesn't have 5 spades, if he has 5 you will play 2♠ for sure (unless he is having a trap pass of course)

[han]

This is very strange. Passing with such a good hand is quite a position. Double is out of the question. 2D should leave partner well placed when then auction bursts open, but it is a bit of an overbid now that partner has passed. Both 1NT and 2C seem wrong, 1NT is worse because it misdescribes both strength and shape.

So I guess that I would overbid: 2D.

[mike777]

2D, next hand.

[luke warm]

2♦ for me also, and it isn't even a very close decision *especially* at MPs

[mikeh]

Okay: where are the ♠?

If I bid 2♦ and partner has fewer than 4 of them, I am going to throw up as I write down my eventual score in multiples of 100. (here is a clue: you cannot write down a score like that in the plus column when playing in a ♦ partial or in 3♣)

On the other hand, my partner is going to lead ♣ against 1♥, and I may well enjoy that a great deal.

I pass. And I don't think it is close. Altho I do see that I may end up with a bad score

I hope to see dummy as Kxxxx x J10xx xxx

and overcaller as AJxx AJ8xx Ax Jx or the like. That leaves partner with full values for his pass: Qxx Q10xx xxx xxx

Yes, that is somewhat contrived, but why should your desired dummy for your 2♦ bid be less contrived? RHO sure hasn't got much, but he might have bid with ♥ length: it is your partner who couldn't bid with that suit.

For Hannie's fear of the auction bursting open: the best positioning available to counter that is to say 'Your lead, partner"

[luke warm]

well i'm sure fluffy will post the full hand, he always does... maybe defending 1H works out well, maybe not

[Fluffy]

luke warm, on Oct 21 2005, 10:31 AM, said:

well i'm sure fluffy will post the full hand, he always does... maybe defending 1H works out well, maybe not

Grrrrrr, if there is anything I hate it is to be predictable

[Echognome]

I'm another passer. Partner could not muster up a negative double. I think there is only one small risk here and that is that partner has a big hand with 3 spades and 4 hearts. Note that this risk is diminished by two factors. 1) you hold the ♥K, so it's not that likely that partner is sitting on good hearts and 2) the chance that you will catch them in hearts is negligible. If partner has a good hand with hearts, then they must have a better spade fit. Then the only risk is that we have 3NT and we're not going to set hearts enough. I am willing to take that risk. Your lead partner.

[MickyB]

Echognome, on Oct 21 2005, 03:21 PM, said:

I think there is only one small risk here and that is that partner has a big hand with 3 spades and 4 hearts.

Why would pard pass initially with that hand?

[Echognome]

Yeah. Thinking about it, partner must have some level of NT hand to bid with those hands.

But, give partner:

♠ QJx
♥ xxxx
♦ Axxx
♣ xx

And now you want to be in 3NT and partner doesn't have a clear bid over 1♣ - (1♥) - ?

[kgr]

I double with the intention to correct 1S to 2C and I hope that I did show a good hand with 5-4 ♣/♦. (I would pass at IMP's)

[MickyB]

Ok, true. Of course, this is solved if you use X to deny 4 spades (or better still, X to promise 4+spades and 1S to deny them)

[Echognome]

I think it's a decent 3NT even on a spade lead. The defense's communication will be bad, unless spades are 5-4 and then you still have chances for a 3-3 club break.

[kgr]

MickyB, on Oct 21 2005, 04:50 PM, said:

Ok, true. Of course, this is solved if you use X to deny 4 spades (or better still, X to promise 4+spades and 1S to deny them)

Would you still double - with the intention to correct to 2C - if you don't have this agreement?

[MickyB]

kgr, on Oct 21 2005, 03:57 PM, said:

MickyB, on Oct 21 2005, 04:50 PM, said:

Ok, true. Of course, this is solved if you use X to deny 4 spades (or better still, X to promise 4+spades and 1S to deny them)

Would you still double - with the intention to correct to 2C - if you don't have this agreement?

Sorry, that comment was aimed at Echognome, your post got in the way

Edit: To clarify, I'm talking about using 1C-(1H)-X as promising or denying 4+spades, not 1C-(1H)-P-(P), X

[Al_U_Card]

Spadaphobia is a well-known condition amongst bridge players, and with good reason.........they bid them when they have them, ESPECIALLY at MP. Looks like they have 8 or 9 and the hcp to get safely to the 2 level but then we have a minor suit fit that should play well at the 3 level. I want to get them out of their comfort zone and 2D is the best start in that direction. If they bid to 3S and make, then they were likely going to make 1H plus 1 or 2 so no diff....