Reopen?

[cherdano]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sat4h76dqt42cj975]133|100|P (1♦*) 1♥ (X**)

P (1♠) X (P)

1N (2♠) P (P)

?

*=1+ (modern precision style, 11-13 if balanced)

** = 4+spades

[/hv]

So partner overcalled and then made a takeout double of 1♠. Since game is still possible you opt to show some values with 1N, hope you can live with that. LHO re-raises, back to you.

 

Edit:

Sorry, missed 2N as an option.

[jdonn]

double

[655321]

3♣

 

Don't want to defend 2♠ when they have an 8 or 9 card fit.

I don't expect partner to have a 2533 for his 1♥ then double, so we should have a fit somewhere.

3♣ looks simplest. Double after we have bid 1NT seems to bring -670 into the picture.

[gnasher]

Rather than guessing a minor, surely it's better to show both at once with 2NT? It is even more obvious than usual that this 2NT bid isn't natural.

[han]

I think that 2NT should be used as minors here. This seems much better than "let's play 2NT".

 

If you don't play 2NT as minors then you are quite stuck. I think that double should be penalty as we have already shown a reasonable spade holding. While partner's bidding shows that we have the balance of strength, they have at least an 8- or 9-card spade fit and defending 2S doubled seems quite risky. Picking one of the minors when partner's most likely shapes are 1-5-4-3, 1-5-3-4, 1-6-3-3 and 2-5-3-3 seems too likely to get us to a poor fit. And letting them play 2S doesn't seem right either (though I would prefer that over the penalty double).

 

I'll vote for "abstain" to show my preference for 2NT.

[ArtK78]

2NT for minors.

 

But I would not have bid 1NT the first time. Partner asked you to bid a suit, and you refused with a spade holding of ATx? 2♦ on the previous round and 3♣ now.

[pclayton]

2N should emphasize the minors, but it can be passed since we have already showed a spade stop.

[Apollo81]

2NT