[deep]

(1♥) pass (1NT) pass (Pass) ? now South can bid 2♦ for reopen bid? Or better pass?

Scoring: MP

---

[Phil]

Where are the spades? LHO doesn't have them. RHO probably has four. Pard has at least 5 and no doubt a spade is hitting the table. This can't be good.

Furthermore, we are already in a hole since most play 1N as F1 - although there may be regional differences on this.

I'm bidding 2♦. I don't like it, but I don't feel like rolling over and accepting a 30% board, which is where I feel like we are now.

[mtvesuvius]

I like Phil's logic, and I'm also bidding 2♦.

[jdonn]

I do not like Phil's logic, it is 100% backwards. Partner is long in spades, therefore we want to act??

[helene_t]

Pass. If I were to bid diamonds I better do it fast enough to show some confidence, down two undoubled might not be such a bad score.

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on May 20 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

I do not like Phil's logic, it is 100% backwards. Partner is long in spades, therefore we want to act??

Don't like Phils logic either. Even if I suspect I have a 30% it's no reason to bid reckless. Go with the percentages, and if that means salvaging 30%, then so be it.

Then on the other hand, I find 2♦ to be standout. The hand is something like 2 tricks more worth in diamonds, than in NT with partner on lead. So white vs white, where -2 may not be bad for us, and +100 might not be good, I compete fiercely.

[whereagles]

If pard does have 5 spades and didn't bid, he's pretty much broke. At imps this is a clear pass.

HOWEVER, this is matchpoints and pard is likely to blow a couple overtricks on the lead, so I'd join Phil with a 2♦ bid.

[skjaeran]

Facing an almost broke partner (couldn't overcall 1♠), bidding looks like suicide to me. -300 (or worse) is terrible even compared to a couple of overtricks in 1NT.

Btw, the auction is very normal where I play. Very few play 1NT as forcing here. So I'd expect the auction to be the same in most of (the whole?) field.

[helene_t]

skaeran, on May 20 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

Facing an almost broke partner (couldn't overcall 1♠)

lol, are non-broke players supposed to make insufficient bids?

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on May 20 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

skaeran, on May 20 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

Facing an almost broke partner (couldn't overcall 1♠)

lol, are non-broke players supposed to make insufficient bids?

the broke partner would make the insufficient bid, then pass to bar you.
(mild humor)

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on May 20 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

skaeran, on May 20 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

Facing an almost broke partner (couldn't overcall 1♠)

lol, are non-broke players supposed to make insufficient bids?

lol, got the auction wrong. would pass anyway

[mikeh]

My initial response was that partner rates to hold 5-6 spades and 2-3 hearts, thus making it likely that he lacks enough diamonds to make bidding safe. So I decided to run a small simulation. Constraints were N with precisely 5 hearts, 12-15 hcp, and a hand that would (imo) pass a NF 1N... so no obvious voids 4531 or 4513 were permitted, as were some 2524, 2542 hands.

I gave S 5-10 hcp, 0-2 hearts and 0-3 spades. I eliminated some of the resulting hands because, imo, partner would have overcalled 2♠ with 6 chunky spades and a side card.

Admittedly, this resulted in a small sample, since I don't like or use double dummy analysis (The recent BW article on declarer's advantage revealed that double dummy analysis tends to understate low-level contract playability). Of the 22 hands that seemed consistent with the auction, on two I couldn't tell which was better: defending or passing, since the outcome depended on some variables I didn't feel comfortable predicting. On the others, I assumed what I thought would be competent defence (eg, when dummy could usefully ruff hearts, an early trump switch, but not a trump lead on the go.. responder would usually lead his doubleton heart on those hands).

On the remaining 20 hands, 2♦ was the best call on 15 of them!. Not always because 2♦ was best... on two of the hands, the result would see partner run to his 6 or 7 card spade suit... with stiff/void in diamonds and a suit/hand not (quite) worth a 2♠ call over 1N: our lack of hcp in diamonds makes our hand surprisingly useful on those layouts.

BTW, on all of the hands, it seemed to me that partner had a normal spade lead, and it did frequently cost a trick and (when we had a diamond fit) a tempo.

[OleBerg]

aguahombre, on May 20 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 20 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

skaeran, on May 20 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

Facing an almost broke partner (couldn't overcall 1♠)

lol, are non-broke players supposed to make insufficient bids?

the broke partner would make the insufficient bid, then pass to bar you.
(mild humor)

And the TD would enforce Law 23, adjusting the score.

(Got the humor, just love Law 23.)

[OleBerg]

mikeh, on May 20 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

... on two of the hands, the result would see partner run to his 6 or 7 card spade suit... with stiff/void in diamonds and a suit/hand not (quite) worth a 2♠ call over 1N: our lack of hcp in diamonds makes our hand surprisingly useful on those layouts.

Any 7-card ♠-suit is worth a call over (1♥) - Pass - (1NT) at MP's.