[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  1♣    Pass  1♠
 Pass  1NT   Pass  2♣
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

Was there any reason to bid 2♣ and having done so should North correct to 2♠?

[matmat]

are you sure 2♣ wasn't intended as checkback?

I do think N should correct to 2♠. I also think that south should either pass 1NT or bid 2♠, not 2♣

[the hog]

If not playing any form of checack, South should bid 2D and not 2C. I would correct with the Nth hand, even though I accept that South could have a longer minor.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Assuming 2C was natural. there is no reason
to bid it, why risk playing a 3-3 fit, if you happen
to hold 20-22HCP between you, which should
give 1NT a fair chance of making.

And of course there is no reason to convert to
2S, ... you can do it, but you dont need to do it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jkdood]

It is not unheard of for a partnership to have an experiential or mutually stylistic approach to these situations where 2C is an informed choice and 2S will be an informed correction, made on auto-pilot with any 3-3 fit for those suits.

There is certainly merit to these "approaches" - especially in a day and age where a 1NT rebid can have a singleton much more often than 2 decades ago, and an auto-correct to 2 of a 5-card major, especially if spot-poor, is no longer the regimen of the day (as it once was.)

I guess changes made and approaches adopted by experts over the past couple of decades inarguably represent progress and improvements, so there's no need to re-visit this aspect (but you can guess my opinion!)

However, a 2C call made by a 1980's South playing with a 2000-North, or in a partnership that hasn't gotten the "fingertips" feel down pat or even discussed for these situations, is surely ill-advised in 2008.

[mikeh]

I agree with those who say that S should pass 1N rather than bid 2♣.

Yes, S knows that EW will almost certainly lead a heart, and that they hold at least 8 of them, so it seems dangerous, on the surface, to pull.

But, there is no reason to think that N can't handle a heart lead, and if he has playable clubs, the AKx are going to make 1N a relatively easy contract. S can also have regard to the fact that his/her rho passed over 1♣, white v red, so won't usually have a decent 5+ heart suit... I wouldn't put a whole lot on this, since I am NOT suggesting 2♣ at different vulnerabilities.

If one were going to run from 1N, it should be to the known 7+ spade fit, not clubs (assuming that you play that 1N promises no singletons or voids.... many experts these days like to rebid 1N with, say, 1=4=3=5 shape... I am not one of them, altho I see the attractions.

And I also agree with all who say that N should correct to 2♠.

The purpose of the correction is not to save the partnership from a 3-3: N should feel certain that S has at least 4 clubs. But N should also feel that a 4-3 spade fit will probably play as well as or nearly as well as a 4-3 club fit, and will score higher when it makes the same tricks, as well as being a possibly much superior 5-3 fit. While the scoring is imps, winning 1 imp a board on the partscore hands (+140 as opposed to +110) is not to be ignored. Let me win every partscore hand, and you won't beat me enough on the games and slams to win the (long) match

[Lobowolf]

jillybean2, on Aug 25 2008, 02:31 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  1♣    Pass  1♠
 Pass  1NT   Pass  2♣
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

Was there any reason to bid 2♣ and having done so should North correct to 2♠?

1. No

2. No

You don't really want to be in a 4-3 fit ruffing hearts in the long hand; granted, on the actual layout, it beats the heck out of a 3-3 fit, but if south had the hand he was supposed to have, you'd be in the right spot (especially at IMPs).

Nice auction to a good spot on the actual layout...

1♣-1♠;
1NT-2♠

Of course, if north's rebid could include a singleton spade, then south can choose between trying 2♠ with jack-fifth opposite a stiff, or on the actual layout, passing 1NT and losing the first 5 heart tricks, then figuring out where to look for more than the 5 tricks he starts with. (Is that too much pimping for my preferred methods? Hey, *I* didn't create the hand...)

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Aug 25 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

The purpose of the correction is not to save the partnership from a 3-3: N should feel certain that S has at least 4 clubs. But N should also feel that a 4-3 spade fit will probably play as well as or nearly as well as a 4-3 club fit, and will score higher when it makes the same tricks, as well as being a possibly much superior 5-3 fit. While the scoring is imps, winning 1 imp a board on the partscore hands (+140 as opposed to +110) is not to be ignored. Let me win every partscore hand, and you won't beat me enough on the games and slams to win the (long) match

True as far as it goes, but when the 2♣ bid categorically denies 5 spades, and usually shows at least 5 clubs and possibly 6, on a not-insignificant number of hands, the club contract will take more tricks. When "more" means that the 4-3 spade fit takes 7 tricks, and the club fit takes at least 8, now it's -100 vs. +90 or +110, and that's going to take more than a couple of single-IMP picksups to make up for.

4-3 fits are fine, but they're better when
1. There's a ruffing value in the short hand; and
2. There's no better alternative.

(1) is definitely not the case here, and if south had his 2♣ bid, (2) wouldn't be the case, either.