[gwnn]

Partner opens 1♠, 10-15 with a 5 card suit. It's V/V MP's. The follow-ups are standard 2/1 stuff. He can jump over 1NT with a good 5-5 or thereabouts.

xx
xxxxx
Qxxx
Ax


Is this decision close?

[P_Marlowe]

1NT.

And the decision is not close.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[fromageGB]

Minimum, but clear cut. 1NT , and pass his red suit rebid, or 2♠ over 2♣.

[pclayton]

Looks like a normal pass opposite a limited opener. 1N might improve the contract and it might not.

[jdonn]

Completely obvious to respond.

[han]

I don't believe in pass here.

[SlickRicky]

Hi,

I prefer passing this only because of the vulnerability and form of scoring. I think bidding risks getting too high and going -200 on a partscore hand.

Ricky

[cherdano]

gwnn, on Sep 21 2008, 08:36 AM, said:

Is this decision close?

Whatever you do, it's not a close decision, it's a matter of belief. Even if you aren't convinced either way, you have to pick a belief when forming a limited system partnership
I believe in 1N.

[rogerclee]

I would pass, but I am a chicken and am aware of this.

[kfay]

Meh. I'll bid.

[Free]

Pass is safer and may be theoretically better, but in practice it just doesn't work. I bid 1NT.

[gwnn]

I tried 1NT and then corrected 2♣ to 2♠, play was straightforward for -200.

I spent the next 5 minutes trying to defend my choice in front of my fellow three players at the table. They didn't understand why I didn't pass without the required 8 points or a fit. Partner argued that I could have pulled 2♣ to 2♥ since that implies spade tolerance (playing WJS) - of course we also missed a 5-3 fit.

[han]

If your partnership requires 8 points or a fit for a response than this is an obvious pass.

[gwnn]

They contended that in precision you need to have 8 points or a fit as a responder to make a bid. It seems to me, however, that the question "is it a good idea to respond to 1♠ with this hand if 1♠ can be at most 15?" definitely makes sense even without extended discussion of the detailed agreements of this particular pair. Surely most criteria (such as improving the partscore, making it harder for opps/getting too high etc) hold and are therefore apt for comparison. Of course we did not have the agreement that 1NT promises 8 points.

[han]

I'd be worried about missing 4H if I passed, but it is also possible that we get to a better partscore or make it harder for the opponents (if partner rebids 2D or 2H then it might be both). I think it is clear that both vulnerable is least attractive for bidding, at neither vulnerable we wouldn't even be talking about this. I hope.

[mike777]

gwnn, on Sep 22 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

I tried 1NT and then corrected 2♣ to 2♠, play was straightforward for -200.

I spent the next 5 minutes trying to defend my choice in front of my fellow three players at the table. They didn't understand why I didn't pass without the required 8 points or a fit. Partner argued that I could have pulled 2♣ to 2♥ since that implies spade tolerance (playing WJS) - of course we also missed a 5-3 fit.

Playing BART may help


1s=1nt=2c now you can play BART.

It does not solve all issues but it can help.

[rogerclee]

gwnn, on Sep 22 2008, 10:54 AM, said:

Partner argued that I could have pulled 2♣ to 2♥ since that implies spade tolerance (playing WJS) - of course we also missed a 5-3 fit.

lol

[NickRW]

To my mind you either play that a response shows 8 or thereabouts with fit - or you respond with a bit less in the belief that you'll better the part score, make it difficult for opps etc on the understanding that this will sometimes cause a -200 and also perhaps make responder's hand a little less well defined on some constructive sequences. But the partnership should pick one (or conceivably one vul and one not vul).

Personally I'd go with the latter at MPs - but it is matter of agreement first and foremost.

Nick

[MFA]

I'd pass.