Kalvan14

Same as Justin said. I would add that 3♣ or 3♦ would should a good 2-suiter, but no tolerance for the other minor (and accordingly 2 or 3 [3 is really unlikely] spades)

2♠, without any doubt. I might even think of a game if pard has the right 14-15 HCP. And yes, I am sure that pard will not go forward with 12 HCP and quacks; and also that he will not "save" me :D The bid is the same at both IMPs and MPs

Pass. pard can read the vulnerability, and I have full confidence in his bid. I play DONT on 1N, so this kind of decision is quite common. Run does not pay (but another thing does not pay: interventions where the 2nd suit is much better than the first, unless you have already decided to run)

All true. OTOH, raising on 3 small cards can result in a horrible lead by pard, if oppos buy the hand.

It looks like that the majority understands 2♠ as spades . IMHO, if S wanted to expose the psyche by RHO (the bidding sequence was (1♦)-X-(1♠)) he should have doubled on the 1st round, to avoid messing up the auction later. Pard's X should promise at least 3-4 in the majors, unless it is a strong hand. So an immediate penalty double should be the best. I would understand 2♠ as a maximum of the passed hand (while 3♥ would be a minimum). Agreed for the interpretation of 2N/3♣ (both ♥/♣, the former with longer ♥). 3♦ would be quite surprising: the only possible meaning would be again a max 2♥, with 3-4 small cards in ♦ (a kind of long suit trial, but without values which would be wasted. xx - KJxxx - xxx - KJx would be a minimum for this bid). XX is certainly a maximum balanced hand, with interest in penalising. It's an interesting thread. Edited a misprint

I also like the theory that 3♠ denies a ♦ singleton. Consequently, it should be an easy forcing pass. I would double with slower tricks (or with a honor in ♦)

I'm a 3-cards raiser, with exceptions (I doubt that there is a consistent rule, anyway). I almost never raise with 3 small, though, and usually I raise with 3 cards on a minimum hand only. A good case should be made for preference to raise ♠ in any case, while a raise in ♥ has not the same pre-emptive value. A last point: a 3-cards raise is ok playing a strong NT; playing a weak NT it is much more important to tell yr partner the general shape and strength of yr hand.

Mine also except that poor me doesn't think a 7th ♦ is worth the extra lenght :). A 7th ♦, and good intermediates, should be fine for me. Good natural bidding, but you should be able to count 13 tricks and bid 7N. I would have bid 2♣, instead of 1♥, but it is a matter of style.

A slight preference for 2♥, but I would not fault a pass. The result at the other table is not really significant: oppos might have forced their luck for tactical reasons, and at 2.00 am the strangest things might happen. I would like to see partner's hand: 1 would anticipate 3-1-6-3 (or even 7 diamonds, taking a card from any suit). A semi-balanced hand (even 3-2-6-2) would be disappointing, unless ♦ are quite good. From the poll results, pass or 2♥ are almost equal. IMHO, this is a situation which might be influenced by the table feeling

There is not a firm rule. It depends on the cards in dummy, what has declarer shown, being a cash-out or not. In general, I prefer not to give count in such a situation; there are exceptions, though.

no, same logic applies. Agreed. Vulnerability does not play a big role, since a pass (certainly forcing) would be a slam try. I fail to understand why LHO did not find 4♥ over 3♥, and now is defending in 5♥. Either he is too smart for me, or the opposite applies.

4N is certainly to play (3♠ is a cue-bid, once I refuse to play 3N; now 4♣ is the 2nd cue-bid, and I must have a control problem - otherwise I would have bid 4N over 3♦). So, since it is unreasonable for me to wait 2 bidding turns to check RKC, or A, it must be sign-off by default, evidencing a problem in ♥). I cannot say I liked 3♦ very much: misfit in ♣, and Quacks outside ♦ :)

Agree. Same here. Would prefer 3♦, but, being unavailable, I'll do with 3♠

It's quite funny. Saturday I had a very similar problem. Against my 3♥, LHO started underleading an ace (100% sure, since dummy had a singleton). The problem were again trumps: ♥A987 in dummy, and Q6543 in hand. Since LHO had a difficult lead, I wond in hand, and played the ♥Q to pin the J or T in RHO hand. Obviously, LHO had a singleton ♥K :)

Well done! Taking the deep-finesse is the winning move! I was South. Upon receiving the lead I went 5 mins into the tank, played the ♠Q, took a deep breath and ran the ♦9 (wanted to tempt RHO to cover). To my relief, it held. From there on it was plain sailing. Not easy to find the solution on abstract because it requires a bit of table presence to realize RHO was doubling on the bad diamond break. OYOH, the diamonds spots were a kind of hint :)

My bad. I missed the point. Ok. Going back to the original question, I would consider balancing with 1N with worse clubs and a honor in ♥ or ♠ (♥ by preference). The actual hand has its strength in the ♣ suit: no reason, IMO, to make a bid other than 2♣

No. My hand has been already made clear to partner. Up to him.

why pard did not return a ♠? there is something funny going on here: - pard must have 5♥ (I can easily be bidding on 3 cards, and in any case he can always cue-bid ♣) - the only (reasonable) honors that LHO can have are KQ in ♣ - pard cannot be singleton in ♣ (I would expect a splinter, rather than 4♥). So he has 2 or 3 small ♣ (guess 2) - pard 2nd ♥ must be an indication of something Overall, i believe i would return the ♦8 (and start thinking who could be my next partner ;) )

which is the greater quantity, a "bajillion" or a "gazillion", or is this specific to zar language? i think 1S is fine. why open a distorted pre-empt when you have the master suit. Of course, the hand becomes interesting if the opps pre-empt to the 4 or 5 level. At least you have two quicks should partner then hand the opps the cube (for you backgammon players). your choice of rebid should P response 1NT is also interesting. Cool hand! DHL The rebid depends also on the oppos' bidding. If it goes 1♠-(P)-1N-(P) [which is unlikely], I would likely bid 2♥: what I would like is Pard giving preference to ♠ [and over 2♠ I bid 4]. What I would dislike is playing 4♠ with a singleton in dummy. But, as I said, it's a hand which is highly influenced by the table mood.

1N is not a terrible bid (it's the only alternative to pass, IMHO). It just is not very useful, that's it. I would anticipate that our line cannot play more than a partial contract in this hand; as such, i prefer to play in spades. At the lowest possible level. Pass has the added value that LHO might be lured into bidding.

Pass. Pard is unlikely to have ♥ (and even with 4 cards in ♥ the play might not be so easy). I would expect to find in front 9 cards in ♣/♦.

yep, that is the downside and happens occasionally. Well, mine was mostly a rethorical question. I'm pretty well aware of the difference between the 1 and 2 levels :D OTOH, it is a matter of style: I like to get in, and, on the long run, I've not suffered from this flaw. I can understand that other players have different standards; the important thing is to behave in a consistent way. Otherwise poor pard will have to start forking out money to shrinks :)

hmm I was always taught if it's close then overbid :D It's more fun that way too. Same here: "he fears his fate too much, or his deserts are small....". Sorry for bringing up once again my fav gadget: however, a 2N lebensohl, forcing 3 ♣ would solve everything. Now, 2♠ is 6 cards, minimum; 3 ♠ is a full-fledged reverse; and finally 2N-3♣-3♠ is something in between. This hand.

1♠ first-hand: no doubt abt. it. Everything is there: the boss suit, the deputy-boss suit, 2 aces, 6 losers. What do you want more? 3rd hand would be a bit more tricky: 4♠ is probably the best bet.

Maybe the 2/1 GF (unconditional) should have just 1 minor condition attached: forcing up to 4m (which is the way I played it with one of my partners)