[nick_s]

Scoring: MP

1♠ (p) 1NT (p)
2♦ (p) ?

---

1NT was not forcing

[MattieShoe]

I'd pass. NT seems bad due to ♣ and I don't think 5♦ is likely.

[Jlall]

Meh this is definitely close but I pass, we could def be missing a game sometimes though. I prefer 2S to 3D though, 2S keeps the auction alive and partner will bid again on hands where we have game. That being said, I think diamonds rates to play much better than spades on "normal" hands which is why I pass. 2S could strike big if you make 140 also though and diamonds was only making 130.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass, but I was thinking long about 3D.
Since 1NT is limited to 6-9, bidding 3D wont be a huge
overbid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

If you just bid to make, you should pass. But it is close and it makes it easy for the opponents to balance. I am obviously not afraid of 2 heart, but I fear 3 club, so I would bid 3 ♦ for offensive and defensive reasons.

[Jlall]

Codo, on Oct 29 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

If you just bid to make, you should pass. But it is close and it makes it easy for the opponents to balance. I am obviously not afraid of 2 heart, but I fear 3 club, so I would bid 3 ♦ for offensive and defensive reasons.

Why do you fear a 3C balance so much if you're going to bid 3D anyways? You haven't lost anything by passing unless they can effectively bid FOUR clubs which seems very unlikely.

[pooltuna]

Codo, on Oct 29 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

If you just bid to make, you should pass. But it is close and it makes it easy for the opponents to balance. I am obviously not afraid of 2 heart, but I fear 3 club, so I would bid 3 ♦ for offensive and defensive reasons.

Since you probably would bid 3♦ over both 3♣ and 2♥ give them a chance to find 3♥ by passing now

[bid_em_up]

I bid 2♠. imo, the only way passing 2♦ will win is if 2♠ is going down. Holding the Q10♠, a great fit in diamonds and the KQ♥, I think it is highly unlikely for this to be a possibility.

Otherwise, 2♦ needs to make four if 2♠ is making in order for it to win, and it needs to make five (unlikely) if 2♠ is making three (more likely).

Plus, sometimes partner is 6-4 on this auction with a better than minimum hand and you will actually get to game. Even if you don't, but you make four spades, you still outscore any number of diamonds.

jmoo.

edit: And if they balance in 3♣, I can still bid 3♦ and partner will have a better picture of my hand.

edit#2: I consider this to be a wtp at IMP's. At matchpoints, it's a little closer, but not by much.

[bill1157]

I would bid 3♦ definitely. I can see the bidding proceeding:

3♦-3♠/4♠ if partner has (as he might) a pretty good hand.

Bill

[jdonn]

2♠ I'm going for it. I can think of too many hands that make game. 3♦ simply shows more imo, and anyway I think spades will play better than it may seem at first glance.

[nigel_k]

3♦. Not great cards but still pretty good for a 6-9 1NT and really don't like passing these auctions unless (sub) minimum or a misfit. If it was a forcing NT I would bid 2♠.

[mcphee]

Passing with 5 card support often works out rather poorly and game is not as unlikely as it may seem. The real issue here is pairs and if 2S will score better than the D partial when that is where we rest. I will take the 3D move as 2S could look a lot worse than this hand, I'd like to offer some encouragement and this looks best.

[zheddh]

3D. Game is certainly possible and 3D rates to make quite often. Maybe 2S might work better, but I would stick to 3D.

Pass i think is not so good an option.

[Phil]

I pass.

1N is SF, so partner will have 4-5 diamonds much of the time. The most common pattern will be 5=1=4=3. There's so many ways 2♠ could play poorly, for instance a trump lead - which is very likely on this auction. This not only will stop a club ruff, but may foul our communication so we need to play diamonds early - which may expose us to a diamond ruff. If someone wants to try a sim, that would be interesting.

I think we have the opportunity for a system pickup here, since its less attractive to pass opposite a forcing NT, since pard can be 5=3=3=2.

Its a long event and I'd rather keep pard happy and not get stressed out

Hopefully I didn't take too long and piss off our opponents who have the 'obvious' 3♣ balance .

[mikeh]

I'd bid 2♠ and think that it is clear...this is mps, and this is a pretty good hand for spades. It is not that I am looking for game, but rather that 140 seems obtainable and we'd have to make 2 more tricks in diamonds for that suit to be right. While postulating hands, to justify a call, is not a persuasive way of argument, nevertheless an innocuous hand such as AJxxx xx AKxx xx.... I have an excellent chance of 140 on hands where 130 is the max in diamonds, and 170 when 150 is the max.

A very important point, I think, is that our hand will usually stop the tap. Compare this to Qx KQx 10xxxx xxx....now 3 rounds of clubs could be a problem for partner, in spades, but not in diamonds, if he is 5242 or 5341. As it is, they can't tap partner in either round suit. It is this factor that makes me think that we are unlikely to either fail in 2♠ or make it and be outscored in diamonds. I can always back into 3♦ if they balance in clubs over 2♠...which they won't 'cos my sequence sounds like a misfit.

And, of course, he might hold a hand just short of a jumpshift. While that is a minor factor (we can't bid every good game...no methods allow that), it is another factor to put into the mix.

[Phil]

Ok I'm changing my vote to 2♠ just because MIKEH is posting again.

No other reason, really.

[Jlall]

All,

The problem with bidding 3D on this fairly unexceptional 7 count with no shortness is that you are also bidding 3D with a hand like a 1453 10 count (some of the other posters have suggested 1N has a range of 6-9, I do not accept that all 10 counts would bid something other than 1N!). Sure you could choose to bid 4D with this hand, but now you're bypassing 3N and getting to an uncomfortably high level for no reason.

Anyways, if your range is that wide for bidding 3D it will be very hard for partner to judge when to go on.

The "best" solution to this problem in my mind is to false preference with hands where you will only have a game if partner can bid again over this (something like 17/ bad 18 or a 5-5 or 6/4 16 or great 15). You keep the auction alive but do not offer too much encouragement.

At imps 2S would certainly be my call as missing an occasional game is not really acceptable. However, I disagree with the 2S bidders on this hand with respect to how well spades will rate to play when partner has a typical hand. I think 2S will often go set when 2D can make. As I said though I find it very close between pass and 2S, wouldn't be surprised if 2S was the long run winner.