[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

(P) - P - (P) - 1♥;
(P) - ?

---

Have we landed or are we scraping up a response?

[jjbrr]

1♠

[rogerclee]

I would just pass even though it could be wrong.

[hanp]

Yeah pass.

[jdonn]

I kind of like pass, game is unlikely and responding can easily get too high. There isn't much need to respond light as a passed hand.

[Fluffy]

obvious pass for me, but I expected roger and josh to bid, a bit surprised

[TimG]

I also pass and am surprised not to be in a small minority.

[karlson]

I'd bid 1n.

[hanp]

1NT? What's the upside of 1NT?

[kenrexford]

Are y'all insane?

This seems like about a complete no-brainer 1♠ hand.

[WellSpyder]

jdonn, on Mar 15 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

There isn't much need to respond light as a passed hand.

Why is that? If anything, I would have thought the opposite since there is less risk of getting too high when partner can pass more freely with a hand that is going nowhere.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, well I thought 1S was a no-brainer, too . I can't imagine what it can gain us, except trouble.

[655321]

I might well bid 1♠, hard to be sure when I have seen the full hand in the other thread, maybe I would pass.

But, for the always-pass-with-less-than-6-HCP brigade, this sort of hand is not where it is most important to respond light. With an unbalanced hand - even with very few points - game is possible if you find a big fit, alternatively perhaps the opponents have a contract on. With this balanced hand, though, we have no big fit available, so the only remote chance of game is if partner is supermax. And on the other side, we have some defense and the opponents have both passed so there is no need to steal.

[Free]

kenrexford, on Mar 16 2010, 12:12 AM, said:

Are y'all insane?

This seems like about a complete no-brainer 1♠ hand.

I'm as stunned as Fluffy. I didn't think you'd be the only one bidding 1♠ here.

I'm also a passer.

[gwnn]

simple 1♠ here. No serious reason. The upsides and downsides are obvious are they not. I think it's a good enough hand to respond.

[effervesce]

1♠ for me, barely. The pips convince me that a contract in 2NT/3NT won't be totally unplayable.

[jdonn]

WellSpyder, on Mar 16 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 15 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

There isn't much need to respond light as a passed hand.

Why is that? If anything, I would have thought the opposite since there is less risk of getting too high when partner can pass more freely with a hand that is going nowhere.

It has nothing to do with that, how can partner have such a minimum hand that he will pass my response anyway when I have this little? It's that there is much less need to steal from or mess with the opponents once they have both passed already.

[Free]

jdonn, on Mar 16 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

WellSpyder, on Mar 16 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 15 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

There isn't much need to respond light as a passed hand.

Why is that? If anything, I would have thought the opposite since there is less risk of getting too high when partner can pass more freely with a hand that is going nowhere.

It has nothing to do with that, how can partner have such a minimum hand that he will pass my response anyway when I have this little? It's that there is much less need to steal from or mess with the opponents once they have both passed already.

So if partner opened 1♥ in 1st seat you'd respond 1♠?

[kenrexford]

I thought this was more basic than all that.

I have the K-Q in diamonds. Whenever partner has a five-loser hand with at least three diamonds, we are in game zone, at IMP scoring. And, as the opponents passed three times, there's a fairly good chance he has a five-loser hand.

Simple one.

♠AKxx ♥AKxxx ♦Axx ♣x

A nice hand, but not mega-super-duper-freakish-holycrap-monstrosity big.

So, we lose a club, a spade, and maybe no more. Room for a bad split or two.

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on Mar 16 2010, 07:11 AM, said:

I thought this was more basic than all that.

I have the K-Q in diamonds. Whenever partner has a five-loser hand with at least three diamonds, we are in game zone, at IMP scoring. And, as the opponents passed three times, there's a fairly good chance he has a five-loser hand.

Simple one.

♠AKxx ♥AKxxx ♦Axx ♣x

A nice hand, but not mega-super-duper-freakish-holycrap-monstrosity big.

So, we lose a club, a spade, and maybe no more. Room for a bad split or two.

I agree and I also respond 1♠. Aside from Ken's example hand, there are all of the strong too distributional to open 2♣ type of hands which both produce an easy game and explain why the opponents are silent. Something like this:

KQJxx
AKxxxx
Ax
---

Some might open this hand 2♣ but it is certainly not unreasonable to open it 1♥.

The opps have 18 HCP and 10 clubs, but there is no reason to assume that either of them have any reasonable action. Meanwhile, on reasonable breaks, we will be cold for a slam! It would be embarassing to play this in 1♥.

The argument for passing is essentially it will turn a plus into a minus when partner gets us too high. That could happen, but, IMO, the upside for responding is far greater than the downside.