[Apollo81]

Isn't 2♣ also more likely to be passed out or doubled than 1♠/1NT? Both of those seem bad.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Sep 15 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

hanp, on Sep 15 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

If 1S is raised to 2S, you'll still be at the 2-level and at least you'll be in a 4-3 fit instead of a possible 3-2 fit. I don't see any advantage of 2C over 1S.

I'm more concerned about being raised to the 3- or 4-level.

On a hand where partner would pass 2♣?

[cherdanno]

awm, on Sep 15 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

I suspect that vast majority of the time on this auction partner will have at least mild extras. This means the 1♠ bidders are playing 2♠... which do you think is better, 2♠ or 1NT?

Partner isn't supposed to raise freely with just mild extras the way most of us play, I would think.

[awm]

The hands I am worried about are like 4144 or 41(35) 13-15. These are pretty common hands and might raise a 1♠ advance, especially if opener stuck a two-level call in the mix. They would not raise a 6-10 1NT call, given the apparent misfit and at best borderline game values.

Even 42(34) 14-15 seems like it might compete to 2♠ over openers 2m rebid, whereas it would pass 1NT.

It's true that hands in the 16-17 range are raising to 2NT, but these hands might well be 3♠ raises, especially if holding singleton heart.

[aguahombre]

I would have thought this was an easy policy thing. 1NT 8-10, therefore not available. That leaves 1S. Then comes Adam with great reasoning why the 1NT advance to the double should be lower, and I like it on this hand.

Almost makes me want to bid 1NT, despite our given range. But, it will make pard worry on other hands, so will stick to style.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Sep 16 2010, 12:50 AM, said:

gnasher, on Sep 15 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

hanp, on Sep 15 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

If 1S is raised to 2S, you'll still be at the 2-level and at least you'll be in a 4-3 fit instead of a possible 3-2 fit. I don't see any advantage of 2C over 1S.

I'm more concerned about being raised to the 3- or 4-level.

On a hand where partner would pass 2♣?

Who said anything about passing 2♣? If you bid 1♠ and partner has a good hand, he will often raise spades. If you bid 2♣ and partner has a good hand, he will often cue-bid instead of raising, so you may be able to escape to notrumps.

Similarly, if opener bids something like 3♥, partner is more likely to stretch to a 3♠ bid opposite a 1♠ response than to a 4♣ bid opposite a 2♣ response.

Regarding the risk of playing 2♣ in a 3-2 or 3-3 fit, it doesn't seem particularly likely that both partner and opener will pass.

This argument has more force the weaker you are. Maybe this hand is too strong to be worried about partner going overboard, but maybe that makes it strong enough to bid a least-of-all-evils 1NT, regardless of what range it nominally shows. Personally, I think 1NT is competely normal.

[Apollo81]

Scoring: MP

---

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Sep 16 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

Regarding the risk of playing 2♣ in a 3-2 or 3-3 fit, it doesn't seem particularly likely that both partner and opener will pass.

I think it seems quite likely. It's exactly when you are in a bad fit that the opponents are likely to leave you there due to their own length in the suit.

[junyi_zhu]

Apollo81, on Sep 14 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

vul vs not, mps

♠JTx
♥KT9x
♦xxx
♣JTx

(1♥)-Dbl-(p)-?

This is really a hand that plays better in 1NT than 1S facing a normal take-out double. Therefore, 1S can be a distortion. Well, I think I said early that 8-10(11) 1NT range is just too narrow to cope with. A 6-10 range is more practical. Still, those light doubler may not be happy with this wider 1NT range, because it is easier to be chopped.