[Trinidad]

The auction starts (Red vs White, IMPs):

Partner - RHO - You - LHO
Pass* - 1♦ - Pass - Pass
1♠ - 1NT - Pass - 2♦
Dbl

* Partner could have opened:
o 1♠ on a decent 11 (5+ spades)
o 2♠ as a Dutch two (weak, 5 spades + 4 card m)
o 2♥ as weak with both majors (45)+ (about equal suits)
o 2♦ as a Multi (weak two in a major or strong variations).

What does partner have?

Rik

[655321]

Trinidad, on Mar 21 2008, 07:31 AM, said:

* Partner could have opened:
o 2♥ as weak with both majors (45)+ (about equal suits)

Perhaps AKQJT 5432 - 5432, or similar, (adjusted downwards if this is a 1♠ opening)

[kenrexford]

Opener has preumably shown some serious values, and partneris coming in again at a very high level as a passed hand.

Strange.

If I knew that 1♠ could be funky, and perhaps it should for the reasons I am about to explain, then I'd assume highly distributional. A 5440 is one possible meaning, but I have concerns about that assumption. It appears that the strongest playing hand not otherwise capable of description in what is shown so far as options at open is the spade-minor canape.

Thus, my heart tells me that the initial 1♠ call maybe could have handled hands with four spades and a longer minor (either), whereas with most "normal" 1♠ balancing hands you would have opened or will pass 1♦. If that is true, then the double should either say "stepped in" or "got clubs." Because of the level of re-entry, I liike old-fashioned penalty.

In other words, it makes sense for 1♠ to be something like:

a. ♠Axxx ♥xxx ♦x ♣KJ108x or
b. ♠Axxx ♥xxx ♦KJ108x ♣x

The double would then be the latter. The diamonds could easily be 4-3, right? Heck, partner might even be 4-6.

BTW -- P-1♦-P-P-1♠-P-1NT as "pick the minor?"

OBVIOUS-f'ing-LY, this would have to be agreed and is not what I would guess at the table, but it makes sense to me in the system parameters for future reference.

[nick_s]

I'd expect partner to have about 10-11 points with a weak 5 card spade suit and short diamonds. Maybe something like 10xxxx KQx xx KQx.

[Trinidad]

nick_s, on Mar 21 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

I'd expect partner to have about 10-11 points with a weak 5 card spade suit and short diamonds.  Maybe something like 10xxxx KQx xx KQx.

Do you think that partner should bid like that, unfavorable at IMPs with an 18-19 balanced behind him?

I must say that I couldn't really figure out what partner had. I would have thought something like a maximum weak two in spades with 6403 distribution. That hand is passed in first seat because of the four card heart suit.

Rik

[nick_s]

Trinidad, on Mar 21 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

nick_s, on Mar 21 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

I'd expect partner to have about 10-11 points with a weak 5 card spade suit and short diamonds.  Maybe something like 10xxxx KQx xx KQx.

Do you think that partner should bid like that, unfavorable at IMPs with an 18-19 balanced behind him?

Rik

Well, no I don't. Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention to the vulnerability.
Perhaps something more distributional than my example.
My point was that I would expect the spade suit to be too weak for a weak 2 or a dutch 2.

[han]

I think that partner is 5-3-1-4 with 3 good hearts.

[Trinidad]

nick_s, on Mar 21 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Mar 21 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

nick_s, on Mar 21 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

I'd expect partner to have about 10-11 points with a weak 5 card spade suit and short diamonds.  Maybe something like 10xxxx KQx xx KQx.

Do you think that partner should bid like that, unfavorable at IMPs with an 18-19 balanced behind him?

Rik

Well, no I don't. Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention to the vulnerability.
Perhaps something more distributional than my example.
My point was that I would expect the spade suit to be too weak for a weak 2 or a dutch 2.

No need to apologize, Nick. You came very close.

When I saw this auction, I thought that it was impossible. The only thing I could come up with was a very nice 6403. In that case, it would be a definite overbid with large risks. I wouldn't bid it myself, but at least it comes with the advantage that it paints a very accurate picture of the hand (which may be meaningless if you have to score -1100).

The hand that partner actually had was:

---

The story ended ok since we had the good fortune that I happened to have 3 spades and had an easy 2♠ bid (which probably would have gone off only one). The opponents went on to 3♦, just making, and no exciting result.

Rik

[kenrexford]

I don't get this. Partner makes a bid that shows he should have opened per agreements. But, he bids it in a manner that is more dangerous. Somewhat typical, of course, but sloppy, IMO.

The 6♠/4♥ idea has some merits, except that I'd expect a 2♥ call after 2♦ with that hand. Had the longer major been hearts, then a double would seem to show that 4-6 hand.

I'd suggest, in the end, discussion of what a pass in first seat shows. Few do this, but I think that there is a lot to be said for discussion of the meaning of a pass. I a home-spun canape system write-up I put together for some friends a few years ago, I had opening bids in "chapters," with an entire chapter dedicated to the opening pass. Not a forcing bid, but a call nonetheless, with meaning attached that was unique because of the lack of weak twos. This was beneficial.

In another system, one where LIA was used and where 1♦ was really funky (8+ with at least three diamonds, some patterns not handled though), the same principles were discussed beneficially. This resulted in a great aucton. Partner had passed in first seat and then later overcalled unfavorable with 2♣ or 2♦ (I cannot remember which). Because of the prior understandings regarding one-level openings, I knew that she had to have playing strength in the form of a minor two-suiter but that she was not 6-4 or 5-5 (hence 5-4) and that she had no major fragment (hence 2245/2254, longer in the minor named). I also knew that the vulnerability just about forced, if say clubs was the suit, something like ♠xx ♥xx ♦Axxx ♣AJxxx. This allowed me to ultimately bid 4♠ to play after my RHO had opened a non-psychic 1♠ in third seat, knowing that I could pick up the suit for no losers with AKQJ8 in my hand 66% of the time. I also could play the entire hand out offensively and defensively to know that bidding 5♠, Opener's suit, if the opponents sacrificed at 5♥. Strange, but beautiful.

In this situation you had, it seems that this discussion would let you establish hand types for passer maximums and then to economically divide up balancing actions. My suggestion:

1minor-P-P-? (at least when unfavorable)

1M = 4M/longer minor (either -- 1NT asks, or maybe 2♣ P/C)
Q = 6♠/4♥
2♥ = 6♥/4♠

Similarly, 1minor-P-1NT-?

2♥ = 4♠, longer hearts
2♣ = 4♠, longer clubs
2♦ = 4♠, longer clubs
X = 4♥, longer second suit (will convert 2♣ to 2♦ with longer diamonds, will convert 2♣ or 2♦ to 2♥ with longer spades)

Something like that is possible if you discuss the parameters of a pass and then take advantage of the limited nature of the bid as now better understood.