routine

[gnasher]

If 1S is raised to 2S, you'll still be at the 2-level and at least you'll be in a 4-3 fit instead of a possible 3-2 fit. I don't see any advantage of 2C over 1S.

I'm more concerned about being raised to the 3- or 4-level.

On a hand where partner would pass 2♣?

Who said anything about passing 2♣? If you bid 1♠ and partner has a good hand, he will often raise spades. If you bid 2♣ and partner has a good hand, he will often cue-bid instead of raising, so you may be able to escape to notrumps.

 

Similarly, if opener bids something like 3♥, partner is more likely to stretch to a 3♠ bid opposite a 1♠ response than to a 4♣ bid opposite a 2♣ response.

 

Regarding the risk of playing 2♣ in a 3-2 or 3-3 fit, it doesn't seem particularly likely that both partner and opener will pass.

 

This argument has more force the weaker you are. Maybe this hand is too strong to be worried about partner going overboard, but maybe that makes it strong enough to bid a least-of-all-evils 1NT, regardless of what range it nominally shows. Personally, I think 1NT is competely normal.

[Apollo81]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s98xxhxxdakxxcakx&w=skqxhaqjxxdtxxcqx&e=saxxhxxdqjxcxxxxx&s=sjtxhkt9xdxxxcjtx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

[jdonn]

Regarding the risk of playing 2♣ in a 3-2 or 3-3 fit, it doesn't seem particularly likely that both partner and opener will pass.

I think it seems quite likely. It's exactly when you are in a bad fit that the opponents are likely to leave you there due to their own length in the suit.

[junyi_zhu]

vul vs not, mps

 

♠JTx

♥KT9x

♦xxx

♣JTx

 

(1♥)-Dbl-(p)-?

This is really a hand that plays better in 1NT than 1S facing a normal take-out double. Therefore, 1S can be a distortion. Well, I think I said early that 8-10(11) 1NT range is just too narrow to cope with. A 6-10 range is more practical. Still, those light doubler may not be happy with this wider 1NT range, because it is easier to be chopped.