[MFA]

Imps / vul vs not.

♠ 4
♥ K7543
♦ A2
♣ AQ742

(1♠) - pass - (1NT) - ??

1NT was acol style 6-9.

[jdonn]

I'll bid 2♥, bad suit and all. 2♠ is risky since partner may have to go to hearts anyway, and 2♣ doesn't have enough upside.

[rogerclee]

2♥, with double being the closest (and IMO, only reasonable) alternative. On a hand like this, even though the suit is bad, there is just a huge upside to finding a heart fit that we have to take our best shot at it.

[hotShot]

Where are the spades?
Opener 5 responder 2 and 1 in my hand, so partner could have 5 of them.
This reduces the chances of a fit for both sides.
Do I really want to play a 7-8 card fit at the 3 level?

I'll try 2♥.

[Mosene]

Well - I voted for 2♠'s because if we have this bid available, if we don't have enough for it now, it would be so rarely bid that it is a waste of a bid. Otherwise, 2♥.

[Hanoi5]

I voted for 2♠ probably for the same reasons as Mosene, but on second thoughts 2♥ might just be enough since partner has quite a number of spades (probably) and just a few HCP. With better suits (T9's in both ♥ & ♣) 2♠ would surely be better.

[the hog]

2H. Same reasons as josh.

[whereagles]

2♠. The worst that can happen is one more down in 3♥.

[MFA]

Scoring: IMP

---

At the table south tried 2♥, which west calmly passed out. 2♥ went down one after a ♦ lead, although it probably could have been made if declarer guesses to play a trump to the K immediately.
I was kibbitzing and thought I would probably have doubled 1NT myself. But 2♥ is also reasonable. I don't like 2♠ at all.

[Hanoi5]

Well if double means two places to play, that's OK. But if you double and partner bids 3♦ over 2♠, what will you do? 2♥ turned out to be a terrible choice in this particular hand, does it make any of the 2♥ bidders change their mind towards a more 'flexible' bid?

[MFA]

Hanoi5, on Mar 9 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Well if double means two places to play, that's OK. But if you double and partner bids 3♦ over 2♠, what will you do? 2♥ turned out to be a terrible choice in this particular hand, does it make any of the 2♥ bidders change their mind towards a more 'flexible' bid?

I would surely pass if partner bid 3♦ over 2♠. It's not necessarily so great if partner bids diamonds, but at least it will be his best suit.

[hanp]

I would bid 2H. 2S is out of the question, double seems too deep, 2C is even deeper.

[TimG]

Isn't there a pretty good chance of going plus if we pass? I know there is no vulnerable game bonus for that, but it seems to me a better option than the all-in-one-basket 2♥ approach.

[jdonn]

Credit to west for passing over 2♥, it's a correct call but most players will automatically bid 2♠ there.

[MFA]

TimG, on Mar 9 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

Isn't there a pretty good chance of going plus if we pass?  I know there is no vulnerable game bonus for that, but it seems to me a better option than the all-in-one-basket 2♥ approach.

We have to bid. We could easily have game. Or at least a making partscore. Giving up because we don't have a perfect bid is a sure way to get bulldozed in the long run imo.

[Fluffy]

Bidding 2 spades is horrible, our best chance to find a game is that aprtner voluntarilly raises to 3♥

[TimG]

MFA, on Mar 9 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

TimG, on Mar 9 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

Isn't there a pretty good chance of going plus if we pass?  I know there is no vulnerable game bonus for that, but it seems to me a better option than the all-in-one-basket 2♥ approach.

We have to bid. We could easily have game. Or at least a making partscore. Giving up because we don't have a perfect bid is a sure way to get bulldozed in the long run imo.

I don't think this reasoning is quite right. We don't bid every time we could have game (I'm not sure what % you would put with "easily"). And, it is possible to go plus when defending.