[MickyB]

Scoring: MP

1♠:1n
2♠:??

---

[gwnn]

yep

[helene_t]

We don't have a gadget to show this hand, do we?

More controversial, maybe, if we had a 7-card minor. Would 3m be forward going or sign off (assuming an initial 3m would be Bergen or SJS or such and that 1N was wide-ranging)?

I would assume forward-going with an advanced pick-up partner but I might be wrong.

[han]

3m is sign off, but I pass.

[P_Marlowe]

The good new is, partner has a 6 carder.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cascade]

I think 3♦ rates to be better than 2♠ even given partner's six-card suit.

The way I play we could even have a 6-4 diamond fit since partner will bypass a four-card diamond suit to rebid a good six-card major.

I know I have a void spade partner is unlikely to have worse support for diamonds.

[inquiry]

System wasn't mentioned, but given the 1NT response, 2/1 GF seems clear. In this case, Pass is right.

Of course, there are gadgets that could be used that would give you options on this auction, but this wasn't a gadget ask post. Good rule of thumb on misfits is stop when you can (yes if partner has a minor this is not a misfit and you may even have game). Maybe you need a gadget. 2♠ not only should be six card suit, it should be weak hand option.

[Cascade]

inquiry, on Feb 25 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

System wasn't mentioned, but given the 1NT response, 2/1 GF seems clear. In this case, Pass is right.

Of course, there are gadgets that could be used that would give you options on this auction, but this wasn't a gadget ask post. Good rule of thumb on misfits is stop when you can (yes if partner has a minor this is not a misfit and you may even have game). Maybe you need a gadget. 2♠ not only should be six card suit, it should be weak hand option.

Would 3♦ show a much better hand in 2/1?

I thought it would show a weakish hand with diamonds in which case I am sure we have a much better chance of making 3♦ than 2♠.

[rogerclee]

My instinct is to bid 3♦ here. I think partner probably has a mean support of around 1.8 diamonds.

[dake50]

What is your main aim in 1NT force?
To bundle these types out of two over one? Then accept this is impossible case.
Or to best partial these types without game suggestion? Then 3D.
I like no-game-suggested, so 3D.

[whereagles]

I'll bid 3♦. Since pard hasn't got hearts, there's good odds he'll have a couple diamonds.

At imps I'd pass, though.

[Codo]

MickyB, on Feb 24 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♠:1n
2♠:??

---

We play the Polish Club, we play the Polish Club

I do not understand how you can put this hand and this signature together, because in wj2005 you have a tool (2NT) for this hand in the standard system.

Else 3 Diamond

[han]

True Wayne, partner's diamonds won't be worse than our spades. But partner's spades may be considerably better than our diamonds, and 3D needs one more trick than 2S.

[cherdano]

han, on Feb 25 2008, 09:13 AM, said:

True Wayne, partner's diamonds won't be worse than our spades. But partner's spades may be considerably better than our diamonds, and 3D needs one more trick than 2S.

Also, we have an ace in diamonds that is useful for playing in spades, while we don't know whether partner has an ace in spades (and whether it is useful for playing in diamonds).

[pclayton]

If I had a direct 3♦ available to show an IJS, I would bid 3♦ here.

Quote

Per Han: True Wayne, partner's diamonds won't be worse than our spades. But partner's spades may be considerably better than our diamonds, and 3D needs one more trick than 2S.

While it is true that pard's spades could be better than our diamonds, we know that our spade support is at best equal to pard's diamond support, and is probably worse. A lot worse. Furthermore, the weak hand with the single suiter should strive to play the hand, since we'll take exactly one diamond trick in spades, but could take 4-5 diamond tricks in diamonds, along with pard's spade toppers.

The other factor is that if pard has three hearts, we won't have an additional loser playing in diamonds, but we will in spades.

If we didn't have a IJS available, I think 3♦ overstates the hand and I would fear we would could get too high.

Yes I realize its MPs

[Apollo81]

Leave it before it gets worse. If we bid 3♦ parter might not even pass, and that would be really bad. If you play 2/1 and don't play 1♠-3♦ as natural then he might think you have an invite or something which makes it way more likely that he wont pass.

[whereagles]

Apollo81, on Feb 25 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

Leave it before it gets worse. If we bid 3♦ parter might not even pass, and that would be really bad.

Well, if he has 7 spades and bid 3♠, the worst that can happen is we go 1 further down

[MickyB]

We were playing 3♦ as an IJS.

While I like Polish Club, many of the treatments in WJ05 are hideous. I'd love to have 2NT available for the minors, but it's more useful as natural IMO.

Obviously I did the wrong thing, or I probably wouldn't have posted it. I passed, partner had a 6232 15-count, AQ6xxx spade and Kxx diamond opposite.

[Apollo81]

whereagles, on Feb 25 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 25 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

Leave it before it gets worse.  If we bid 3♦ parter might not even pass, and that would be really bad.

Well, if he has 7 spades and bid 3♠, the worst that can happen is we go 1 further down

and it's MPs, so that is a huge loss