[mikegill]

Scoring: MP

1♣ p 1♠ p
1NT p 2♣ p
p X ?

---

You choose to pull partner's 1N to 2♣. I don't care if you agree with this decision or not, you're stuck with it. Your call.

[whereagles]

Now 2♠. It is important to shut out the hearts.

[MickyB]

Yup, looks clear. I'm quite happy they protected, should mean we find the right strain.

[Apollo81]

I'd pass, not having interest in competing and expecting them to have a decent shot to make 2♥X.

Good problem.

[keylime]

I'm liking pass here slightly over redouble - the redouble might steer them into another strain. That, and if I bid 2♠ I get my just desserts doubled.

[whereagles]

Jlall, on Nov 8 2007, 04:56 PM, said:

I would XX, expect it to go 2H X p p p and they go down a million.

huh? they have at least an 8 card fit and can easily have more.

[Apollo81]

whereagles, on Nov 8 2007, 01:18 PM, said:

Jlall, on Nov 8 2007, 04:56 PM, said:

I would XX, expect it to go 2H X p p p and they go down a million.

huh? they have at least an 8 card fit and can easily have more.

I doubt partner will double if they have a 9-card or better fit.

[whereagles]

I doubt pard will bid 2S if he thinks you might only have 4 of them... but ok.

[pclayton]

Redouble makes sense. This hand is very defensive. RHO couldn't come in over 1♣ and now decides to balance?

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

3♣ is probably my second choice above a pass.

[MickyB]

pclayton, on Nov 8 2007, 08:04 PM, said:

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

You didn't bid 2♠ over 1NT - surely partner will correct to 3♣ on any hand with a stiff spade? Some with a doubleton, too (2=3=3=5).

Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I don't think we are favourites to take 2♥ two off, and I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

[Apollo81]

MickyB, on Nov 8 2007, 03:21 PM, said:

I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

If we are setting it we should still double it if we're not going to compete.

[MickyB]

Apollo81, on Nov 8 2007, 08:32 PM, said:

MickyB, on Nov 8 2007, 03:21 PM, said:

I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

If we are setting it we should still double it if we're not going to compete.

Of course...but I am going to compete. That statement is justifying competing

[kenrexford]

Redouble.

One additional reason is that I have potentially way underbid this hand. If partner cannot double 2♥, I'm afraid that we might even have 5♣ coming in.

I mean, in support of clubs, this hand is huge. I have what now appear to be three honor covers (the diamond situation seems to now not be wasted concentration but working finesse), plus well-placed shortness. A spade finesse, if needed, looks to be working.

Give partner ♠AK ♦xxx ♥xxx ♣AQxxx, and 5♣ looks decent.

[jdonn]

I can't make up my mind I'm really not high on redouble, 2♠, or 3♣, but I don't like passing either. I guess I'll bid 2♠, who knows they might even compete to 3♥. I hate to redouble and just get 100 when we had 110 available.

I like this problem, it's an everyday sort of situation but still seems to be a very close call between at least three choices.

[pclayton]

MickyB, on Nov 8 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 8 2007, 08:04 PM, said:

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

You didn't bid 2♠ over 1NT - surely partner will correct to 3♣ on any hand with a stiff spade? Some with a doubleton, too (2=3=3=5).

Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I don't think we are favourites to take 2♥ two off, and I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

Don't agree. Its MPs so why would we subject ourselves to a 5-2 even on a decent suit?

Hopefully this pard likes to raise directly on 3 pieces.

If we get to a spade fit, I think its pard that should be bidding spades now, not us.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Nov 8 2007, 11:40 AM, said:

Give partner ♠AK ♦xxx ♥xxx ♣AQxxx, and 5♣ looks decent.

If thats its hand, we'll at least compete to 3♣ after a xx as pard won't be doubling 2♥.

The 2♠ bidders will play 2♠ which isn't that bad a spot but I'd rather be in clubs.

If we pass, I suppose pard will still bid 3 clubs.

[whereagles]

pclayton, on Nov 8 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

Only if you play american style, where 1NT might be a 1345 "unfit for rebidding clubs".

[MickyB]

pclayton, on Nov 8 2007, 08:43 PM, said:

MickyB, on Nov 8 2007, 11:21 AM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 8 2007, 08:04 PM, said:

2♠ is vile on this suit. Its likely you are on a 5-2 or possibly even a 5-1 here.

You didn't bid 2♠ over 1NT - surely partner will correct to 3♣ on any hand with a stiff spade? Some with a doubleton, too (2=3=3=5).

Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I don't think we are favourites to take 2♥ two off, and I don't think +100 out of 2♥ would be a great score.

Don't agree. Its MPs so why would we subject ourselves to a 5-2 even on a decent suit?

Hopefully this pard likes to raise directly on 3 pieces.

If we get to a spade fit, I think its pard that should be bidding spades now, not us.

It's playing MPs that you do often want to be in 2M on seven-card fits...frequently there will be a trick more than in 1NT. Admittedly that's not that relevant here, where +140 in a 5-2 spade fit seems unlikely.

Given that pard is likely to have four hearts, I can't see him showing delayed three-card support for spades when they attempt to play there.