[SimonFa]

I haven't been playing very long and we play a system based largely on SAYC as that is the system my more experienced regular partner was already playing when I met him (apparently we don't say its SAYC on our CC as we would have to play it by the book?). I am sure that this situation isn't unique but I can't find anything about it in the forum. It occurred last night at my club when playing with a new partner who was familiar with our system as she had played with my regular partner a few times,

As dealer I picked up my cards and had:
♠AKQx
♥QJx
♦Tx
♣Jxx

Red Vs white I didn't like the look and feel of it for some reason. The bidding went:
1♣,P,1♠,p
2♠, all pass

Partner made 5 tricks and it turned she had something like:

♠Txxx
♥xxxx
♦Jxx
♣xx

As she said during the break, she didn't feel she could leave me in 1♣and I tend to agree with her as in this case its likely we would have been lucky to make 2 tricks. Indeed I have raised this a few time with my regular partner as I believe a 1♣should be at least forcing for 1 round but he isn't sure.

What is the current thinking about this rare dilemma?

It was a Pairs even and as it is in UK our opponents were playing Acol.

PS RHO confirmed that he would have left me in 1♣as he was sat with 5 to the AKQ

[whereagles]

What's the problem of going down in 2♠? Opps are cold for 3NT. Same thing for 1♣ being left in.

Anyway, back to the main point: if you can't stand leaving 1♣ in, you might as well play a polish-style 1♣ and do something useful with the 2♣ opening.

In other words: with less than 5 hcp you just pass 1♣, period. The exception is you having a decent 6-card suit playing weak jump shifts.

[gordontd]

SimonFa, on 2011-April-19, 07:55, said:

As dealer I picked up my cards and had:
♠AKQx
♥QJx
♦Tx
♣Jxx

Red Vs white I didn't like the look and feel of it for some reason.

I wouldn't either - my reason would be that it only has twelve cards

[gordontd]

whereagles, on 2011-April-19, 07:59, said:

What's the problem of going down in 2♠? Opps are cold for 3NT. Same thing for 1♣ being left in.

At this vulnerability 1♣-5 is -500, and 3NT= is -400

[helene_t]

The system doesn't really cater to responses lighter than about 5 HCPs. This is because opener will rebid 2NT with 18 points and if responder has less than about 5 HCPs, 2NT will often go down while 1♣ would have made. Also, the rebid of 3♣ with 15-17 points and a 6-card club suit may work badly when responder is very weak.

Worse, it might go
1♣-(p)-1♠-(3♥)
3NT-(dbl)

You can take a view and respond with a very weak hand, gambling that it turns out well, but you have to take responsibility when opener makes a normal rebid and you get too high.

With the actual hand, pass is very clear. A 2NT rebid would be disastrous and besides, if opener raises to 4♠ it is unlikely to make. You should only make a weak response when there is at least a reasonable chance of making game opposite a maximum with 4-card support.

BTW, with 4-4 in the majors the correct response is 1♥. Why did he bid 1♠? Because his spade suit was better? That's a very poor reason.

If you want to play 1♣ as forcing you will need some artificial responses, allowing opener to rebid 1NT with 18-19 so that you avoid the 2NT rebid. But then you need to do something else with 12-14 points. A popular method in Netherlands and Poland is that responder bids 1♦ with a very weak hand, and opener now rebids a 3-card major with 12-14 balanced. This gets complicated though, and depending of where you live you may also run into system regulations issues. So I don't really recommend it.

[SimonFa]

Thanks everyone for the prompt and very helpful responses.

I hadn't thought about the 2NT bid from opener with 18pts if responding light. But even if he did that would be 21pts, inside the 2NT opening so I suppose that could be safe-ish.

The Polish style looks a bit complicated. We already have a number of conventions that we haven't used enough times to iron out the problems, so I don't want to suggest adding to that problem.

On balance I think we'll stick to where we are and take a risk with the very rare occasions when we might end up going down a lot in 1♣.

Once again, many thanks everyone.