[Deevan]

You are playing Flannery (Like it or Not); and Semi-Forcing NT.
It is a Team Match, VUL: NONE.
Partner (Dealer) opens 1 ♥-(P)-1NT; the bidding proceeds:
1♥-(P)-1NT-(2♠)-P-(P)-?
Your Hand:
♠Q2
♥5
♦K9743
♣K8542
1)What would you bid; and why ?
2)How clear cut is your decision? or, is it a marginal decision?

[dake50]

Double to stay in the fight on this hand.
Partner knows I didn't 2H, so should expect not even H:Jx.
I didn't 1S previously, so can't have as much as SQ10xx.
My partner expects me to stay in the fight with reasonable stuff here.
I won't pick which minor is/ain't our likely 8-fit.

[Codo]

I would bid 2 NT for the minors. If this is not avaiable I would pass.

[gszes]

 Deevan, on 2013-April-25, 06:49, said:

You are playing Flannery (Like it or Not); and Semi-Forcing NT.
It is a Team Match, VUL: NONE.
Partner (Dealer) opens 1 ♥-(P)-1NT; the bidding proceeds:
1♥-(P)-1NT-(2♠)-P-(P)-?
Your Hand:
♠Q2
♥5
♦K9743
♣K8542
1)What would you bid; and why ?
2)How clear cut is your decision? or, is it a marginal decision?

For once i have a clear cut x which cannot possibly be for penalty
and has to be for the minors. This hand has many ways it can
gain which would be better than allowing opps to play 2s and
the x is the only way to let p (who is looking at their cards) decide
how to proceed. I have never known a partnership that would
byass 1s with 4 spades to bid 1n just because they were playing
flannery --- it would risk missing a 44 spade fit if p were
46 so we cannot possibly have spade length.

[Free]

Dbl or 2NT, whatever shows the minors.

[jogs]

PASS. What's the problem?

[aguahombre]

 Free, on 2013-April-27, 15:19, said:

Dbl or 2NT, whatever shows the minors.

Agree. I am not comfortable enough about "semi-forcing" NT to know whether we would need Double to show 11-12 balanced; but for us in the "forcing" NT camp, 2N would be the minors like this hand.

[phil_20686]

I bid whichever of dble and 2N shows the minors here. For me that means 2N. I like double to be 10-11 and more defensive. You want to play this hand, and I dont like a natural 2N here. That is, I don't like having the option of a natural 2N bid. Its pretty much the definition of "creating a losing option". Take that toy away from partner so that he will stop abusing it....

[Deevan]

Thanks everyone for comments.
The Opener's hand was:
♠xx
♥Axxxxx
♦J
♣AQTx

[jogs]

 Deevan, on 2013-April-29, 16:45, said:

Thanks everyone for comments.
The Opener's hand was:
♠xx
♥Axxxxx
♦J
♣AQTx

Opener should have bid 3♣. He has 10 cards in
two suits with A and AQT in the suits.

[billw55]

 jogs, on 2013-April-30, 07:53, said:

Opener should have bid 3♣. He has 10 cards in
two suits with A and AQT in the suits.

But he is bare minimum in high cards. I agree with the pass over 2♠, pushing to the 3 level would be too much IMO, especially when partner still has a call.

[mfa1010]

I would double. Selling to a 2♠ eight-card fit is feeble with this goodish hand.

[gnasher]

Even if you think partner should have bid on his actual hand, you can't expect him to act on something like xxx KQxxx AQx Qx, where it's likely that both 2♠ and 3♦ will make.

I think double shows a balanced 11-count and 2NT shows the minors, so I'd bid 2NT.

[mfa1010]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-30, 16:09, said:

Even if you think partner should have bid on his actual hand, you can't expect him to act on something like xxx KQxxx AQx Qx, where it's likely that both 2♠ and 3♦ will make.

I think double shows a balanced 11-count and 2NT shows the minors, so I'd bid 2NT.

I agree if playing 2/1.

[jogs]

 billw55, on 2013-April-30, 08:04, said:

But he is bare minimum in high cards. I agree with the pass over 2♠, pushing to the 3 level would be too much IMO, especially when partner still has a call.

It's the location and quality of those high cards
that matter. Responder has limited his hand and
knows this is a contested auction.
Give opener Jxx, KQxxx, Qx, Axx.
3♣. It may be difficult to find 7 tricks.

Responder's hand really isn't suited for making
the final decision.

[Zelandakh]

 gszes, on 2013-April-26, 08:29, said:

I have never known a partnership that would bypass 1s with 4 spades to bid 1n just because they were playing flannery.

Now we know why Zia-Hamman did not work out. Nice analysis!

[JLOGIC]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-May-07, 03:53, said:

Now we know why Zia-Hamman did not work out. Nice analysis!

Lol. Yeah gszes you are wrong about that, as someone who plays flannery that is the best part of playing it (and I know that other flannery guys like Weinstein and Levin feel that way).

[aguahombre]

 JLOGIC, on 2013-May-07, 13:56, said:

Lol. Yeah gszes you are wrong about that, as someone who plays flannery that is the best part of playing it (and I know that other flannery guys like Weinstein and Levin feel that way).

This is picky, but you can't say gszes is wrong. He either knows those partnerships, or he doesn't

[JLOGIC]

 aguahombre, on 2013-May-07, 18:53, said:

This is picky, but you can't say gszes is wrong. He either knows those partnerships, or he doesn't

Gszes and I are like brothers

[nige1]

 Deevan, on 2013-April-25, 06:49, said:

You are playing Flannery (Like it or Not); and Semi-Forcing NT. It is a Team Match, VUL: NONE.
Your Hand: ♠ Q 2 ♥ 5 ♦ K 9 7 4 3 ♣ K 8 5 4 2
1♥ (_P) 1N (2♠);
_P (_P) ??

• What would you bid; and why ?
• How clear cut is your decision? or, is it a marginal decision?

IMO

• Double = 10, 2N = 7, Pass = 4. The argument for double rather than 2N is that if partner's values are in the majors, you don't mind if he risks a pass.
• One way of indicating how you feel about options is to give marks (or ranks) to the calls that you consider e.g.

• 10 = Your choice of call.
• 9-5 = Calls that you deem will work quite often.
• 0-4 = Calls that, on reflection, you feel are unlikely to work.