[FrancesHinden]

---

You play weak NT, which is why you didn't fancy opening in 3rd seat
1C = 5-card majors, either 12-14 balanced without 4 diamonds, or natural, or any good 17-bad 20 balanced without a 5-card major
1H = spades
dbl = lead directional
redbl = either strong balanced with HHx or better in hearts, or a club/heart reverse.

OK, you are in a hole.
Now what, if anything?

[rogerclee]

1S, I don't think this is close.

If we can take the same number of tricks this is a dramatic improvement (-200 into -720, -500 into -1120), if we can take one fewer trick this is a good trade (-200 into +200, -500 into -720, -800 into -1120), and if we can take two fewer tricks it's not a disaster (-800 into -720, -1100 into -1120, but -500 into +200).

It might even be right to run if we were 3433, but I'm way less confident about that. Also, even if it were close in theory, I would just much rather be declaring this kind of contract than defending it.

[Statto]

Pass looks tempting, as ♥ were not bid naturally, and I can't find the re-redouble card in the box. But defending 1♥ looks hopeless. I'll start running with 1♠.

[daveharty]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-22, 15:31, said:

Now what, if anything?

Slip the caddy five bucks to pull the fire alarm.

[rogerclee]

Also we will be better off in 2hx if we can't take 7 tricks with hearts as trumps, so that's another reason to run. Sometimes 1nx is also ok. Passing in effect just says you think they are going down a reasonable percentage of the time, which I can't believe is true.

[frank0]

Maybe it's not your concern or you've already noticed, but lead-directing at 1 level is very dangerous. It's opposite of overcall, where the lower the level the less likely you're getting double. The lower the level you make lead-directing double, the more likely opps are willing to play redouble contract with few trumps but lots of HCP.

I run to 1S in this sequence.

[Zelandakh]

Even playing a weak NT you do not promise a rebid opposite a passed hand so I am not sure why opening 1♣ and passing any response does not come into consideration. I also dislike the double, at the one level I think this should look more like an overcall than purely for the lead. Having reached this point I think the best we can do is accept a bad board in 1♠X rather than the total disaster 1♥XX rates to be. Roger's numbers look like a pretty compelling argument to back this up.

[rmnka447]

The issue now is damage control -- you're going for a number.

1 ♠ or 1 NT look to be the best options to minimize the carnage.

I don't see what's so wrong with bidding a weak 1 NT in 3rd seat with this hand. If partner uses Stayman, you'll get to the right strain. If partner makes an invitational bid, you'll decline. And if partner decides to push to 3 NT with a 12 count that it just didn't seem right to open, you may have a decent play for it.

[gwnn]

rmnka447, on 2012-April-23, 06:59, said:

I don't see what's so wrong with bidding a weak 1 NT in 3rd seat with this hand. If partner uses Stayman, you'll get to the right strain. If partner makes an invitational bid, you'll decline. And if partner decides to push to 3 NT with a 12 count that it just didn't seem right to open, you may have a decent play for it.

And if LHO doubles us?

[Phil]

I don't see why we would expect to take the same number of tricks defending hearts as we would playing spades since RHO's ♠'s>♥'s. I would normally expect a difference of two.

If we take six tricks in hearts and four in spades, it is -720/-800. 5 and 3 are -1120/-1100. 4 and 2 are -1520/-1400.

However, the nice thing about bidding 1♠, is that partner is still in the game. He might be able to do something more useful, like 2♦. Let him clean up my mess for a change.

I'm bidding 1♠.