[kgr]

Scoring: MP

---

1♦-(1♠)-DBL-(Pass)
1NT-(Pass)-??
 
1♦=4+card (We open 5cMajor and 4c♦)
 
In our system we cannot invite with 2NT (that is transfer to ♦), but have to go via 2♣ here.
(Partner often opens with 11pts and often opens 1NT with 14).
The bidding did go (2♦ shows minimum):
1♦-(1♠)-DBL-(Pass)
1NT-(Pass)-2♣-(Pass)
2♦-(Pass)-2NT-(Pass)
3NT-AP
 
May partner says I have enough and it is better to bid 3NT iso going via 2♣. Now it is clear for opening leader that his partner does not have ♠ support.
What do you think?

[gnasher]

Quote

Scoring: MP
...
Partner often opens with 11pts and often opens 1NT with 14

I would pass 1NT. With such poor shape and bad pips it's certainly not worth more than an invitation.

Quote

May partner says I have enough and it is better to bid 3NT iso going via 2♣. Now it is clear for opening leader that his partner does not have ♠ support.

That's not much of an argument. If advancer had spade support and a hand worth showing it, he'd have bid 2♠ on the previous round.

[kgr]

gnasher, on Jun 2 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Quote

My partner says I have enough and it is better to bid 3NT iso going via 2♣. Now it is clear for opening leader that his partner does not have ♠ support.

That's not much of an argument. If advancer had spade support and a hand worth showing it, he'd have bid 2♠ on the previous round.

Strange that even while posting this, I didn't think about that.
(Actually my thinking at the table was between pass and invite. I never considered 3NT).

[pooltuna]

kgr, on Jun 2 2010, 04:36 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

1♦-(1♠)-DBL-(Pass)
1NT-(Pass)-??
 
1♦=4+card (We open 5cMajor and 4c♦)
 
In our system we cannot invite with 2NT (that is transfer to ♦), but have to go via 2♣ here.
(Partner often opens with 11pts and often opens 1NT with 14).
The bidding did go (2♦ shows minimum):
1♦-(1♠)-DBL-(Pass)
1NT-(Pass)-2♣-(Pass)
2♦-(Pass)-2NT-(Pass)
3NT-AP
 
May partner says I have enough and it is better to bid 3NT iso going via 2♣. Now it is clear for opening leader that his partner does not have ♠ support.
What do you think?

I think the invitation route is correct. You need to show partner some of his openers opposite this hand where 3NT sinks rapidly.

[bluecalm]

Pass looks good at MP's.
Invitation is possible I think (although I wouldn't do that).
Bidding 3NT is lol bad.

[gwnn]

bluecalm, on Jun 2 2010, 01:35 PM, said:

Pass looks good at MP's.
Invitation is possible I think (although I wouldn't do that).
Bidding 3NT is lol bad.

I agree, pass.

no, never mind, I invite.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2010-June-02, 07:47

[Fluffy]

given the options I pass, I am afraid partner won't stop spades and I cannot ask.

[jjbrr]

pass and i dont think it's close

[Phil]

I was mulling my choice assuming a strict 15-17 1N and thought it was close. If I'm upgrading a lot of 14's I don't think this is close at all so I pass.

[OleBerg]

I find pass obvious, reasoning along the same line as Gnasher.

If I somehow felt the need to do something different, it would be a direct 3NT.

The fate of 3NT will often depend more on how well the cards fit, not whether partner is min or max.

Inviting via 2♣, I do not fear a delayed raise or the implications of a non-raise. What I fear is a double of 2♣ or lack thereof. Furthermore, an invitational sequence invites a double if the layout is foul. Or against competent opposition, tells that a lead-directing double might easily be a winner.