[cherdano]

---

All vulnerable at IMPs.

[mikeh]

I literally cannot think of an alternative to passing. Even if LHO were known to bid this way with 4=4=3=2 or any 3 card club suit, why would I assume that is his hand, and (even then) that we have a safe 3m contract?

Was this a BIT by partner situation?

[P_Marlowe]

Maybe 2NT instead of X, our best fit maybe in clubs, ... I am not sure X
gets this message across.

But in all likelyhood I would pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Phil]

I might have made some noise on the last round, like 1N. I certainly would at MPs.

Do I think we have a realistic shot at a plus score defending 2♠? (No)

Do I think our chances of reaching a playable 3 level contract substantially outweigh the chances of a number? (Closer, but in my opinion, yes).

I double.

[bigbenvic]

I've done the damage on the first round by not getting into the auction (I'd bid 1NT like phil) so since I didn't, I'm forced to pass and lead the 10♥.

[rmnka447]

At IMPs with red pockets, you have to be more careful because of the higher penalties if you go set. There are lots of times you'll just have to pass with indifferent hands that you might intervene with at matchpoints. Save the balancing for hands that offer something pretty positive if your side gets to play the hand.

Here your values are all in the suits the opponents have bid. That should tell you that the hand is probably best defended.

Consider opener's hand. If opener has a real ♣ suit, your hand has some defensive prospects. If opener is short in ♣, then it likely has 4 cards in a red suit. That may not bode well for any red suit contract you get to.

Finally, the last reason you want to have something good to balance on is that the opposing 2 ♠ bid forces your side to come in at the three level which will be a level higher and that much easier to defeat.

So this hand is a clear pass.

[han]

I think that double here is for penalties.

[rhm]

han, on 2012-November-30, 05:03, said:

I think that double here is for penalties.

I don`t, but I would not do it anyway.

Rainer Herrmann

[gszes]

Pass

I would have x for the minors over 1s with this hand and would not
be facing this problem. Given the problem at hand it is reasonable
for the x to ask p to look at their spade holding to determine if it is
penalty or minor take out because the opps will almost never settle
at the 2 level with 10+ trumps:).

It wil be obvious to p that our x is TO on this hand but, even with the
message being clear, I do not think bidding on is such a great idea.

P has at least 5 hearts and is a strong candidate to have 3 spades
that leaves only 5 minor suit cards to find us a fit. Exceedingly low
degree of probability and forcing us to bid at the 3 level with no
probable fit. There is also a huge risk factor involved with trying to
play 2s X with not much upside and a huge downside since our
side will rarely have a game to offset any 2s making. Save your
X for hands with a clear cut penalty or more distribution or at
least strongly consider the merits of making an x over 1s to show the
minors.

[Fluffy]

I would double previous round, I also think double is for penalties now

[ewj]

I would double previous round, and yes double is surely penalties....We couldn't double 1S?? But now we want to wade in with a take out double of 2S? Don't think so

[Thiros]

I would actually reopen at matchpoints. If partner has any distribution other than 3-5-3-2, this will usually turn out OK. Six hearts, or four diamonds, or three clubs with partner will give us a home.

Vulnerable at IMPs, of course, it is way too dangerous.