[AL78]

MPs, 5CM, strong NT, 1♣ opening could be short.

♠QJT83
♥T73
♦854
♣T5

Partner opens 1♣, pass on your right. Do you respond 1♠ or pass?

[DavidKok]

I prefer systems where this hand bids 1♦ or 1♥, but if those are my only choices I'll bid 1♠.

[mikeh]

This is the sort of hand on which ‘everyone’ is taught to pass.

It’s also the sort of hand on which every good player bids

As with David, I’d greatly prefer not to have to bid 1S. In both my serious partnerships we bid 1H, showing 4 or more spades.

Obviously responding on these hands can lead to poor results, but experience strongly suggests that one’s results will usually be better than if one passes.

Again, methods matter.

For example, if partner were to jump to 2N after a 1S response, we’ll likely going minus…all the more so if 3S by us is now forcing.

The evolution of bidding methods is in part driven by the wish to improve constructive bidding but also, in part, to improve how we handle weak hands opposite strong ones.

For example, we play 1C 1H 1N as showing the hand with which standard bidders bid 1C 1S 2N. Thus we can get out in 2S, by transferring over 1N

In my main current partnership we go a step further. Since we don’t need 2N as a big balanced hand over 1S, we use 2N as an ostensible gf raise, allowing responder to bid 3H, transfer, and then pass 3S.

I set this out because, while the current expert trend is to respond to 1C on very weak hands, it’s dangerous to adopt that style without significant systemic work to minimize the bad results that can flow from doing so.

Experts don’t use convoluted systems merely to confuse the opps…indeed, while system design definitely should aim at being difficult to play against, the main aim is to improve accuracy on a wide range of hands.

So, if playing a traditional method, I’d still respond but I’d be far less happy doing so than in an expert system. If you are not in a partnership willing and able to invest in learning more complex methods (and I’ve played a lot with occasional partners where that’s not possible), then respond if your partner will understand, and live with the fairly common poor outcomes. If partner won’t understand, pass and discuss later. Partnership harmony is more important than trying to emulate expert bidding at the cost of frustrating partner.

[LBengtsson]

10 losing tricks. Partner has to have a few winning tricks (and a fit) to make anything happen. However, with ♠A108xx it is still 10 losing tricks but I would bid 1♠. Make it ♠K108xx it is again 10 losing tricks and just about worth a 1♠ response.

If you are playing a short ♣, 5M, strong NT system like 2/1, pass could be right but as mikeh has said it is the methods you use to bid these light hands that matter. Without them I would certainly pass.

[AL78]

I decided to bid 1♠, partly on the basis that a former partner used to expect me to respond on such hands opposite a 1♣ opener. The auction proceeds:

1♣ - 1♠
3♥ - ?

In the absence of discussion, what do you think 3♥ means and what would you do now?

[smerriman]

2♥ is 100% forcing, so logically 3♥ has to be weaker. Normally a minisplinter, allowing me to stop in 3♠ with this type of hand.

[mikeh]

I know some players who use this to show a 5=6 hand. I don’t. With 5=6 I eithervreverse (which can be on less than normal reverse values) or (if not strong enough) open 1H.

For me, 3H is a splinter

My preference is that it is invitational or better, reserving 4H to show a good raise with a void

I suspect that either 5=6 or mini splinter is more common.

Either way, I bid 3S.

[AL78]

Having never come across this sequence before, I worked out that since 2♥ was forcing and strong, 3♥ is either a strong very distributional hand (e.g. 6-5) or a splinter agreeing spades. As I wasn't sure, I therefore decided to make what I thought was the least encouraging bid possible. The auction and the full deal is as follows:

---

Three down for a bottom.

Now I have the hand deals available I realise I was dealer and LHO had passed, in which case maybe there is a stronger argument for passing. It is a horrible deal with nothing making but we got out worst. Partner said she was trying to show a strong hand, I pointed out she could have done this with 2♥, but it all came down to her not expecting me to have a 3 count, so I now know in future not to do this again.

We do play weak jump shifts so she reasoned I couldn't have a weak hand with 6+ spades.

[smerriman]

Whether 1♠ showed a 3 count or promised 6 seems irrelevant here - 3♥ is just a basic error. Your partner will need to do some study of reverses (and continuations).

[apollo1201]

Same issue with partner. IMHO, 1S shows a better judgment than 3H.

2H is the normal call but I’d regret it with such a lousy C suit. 2NT is not thrilling either…

As others pointed out, 3H is often used for:
- a a 6-5 with slightly weaker HCPs but likely concentrated values in the suits
- a mini splinter
- or a maxi anti-splinter (AKxx AKx x KQJxx), ie a hand stronger than a splinter where you bid your residue and imply the sg in the other suit

[bluenikki]

apollo1201, on 2022-April-08, 12:01, said:

2H is the normal call but I’d regret it with such a lousy C suit. 2NT is not thrilling either…

Yes. If you reverse with a bad main suit, you have no safety net at all.

And for me at least, I want the reverse to alert partner to slam possibilities in the first suit.

[eagles123]

AL78, on 2022-April-08, 05:27, said:

Having never come across this sequence before, I worked out that since 2♥ was forcing and strong, 3♥ is either a strong very distributional hand (e.g. 6-5) or a splinter agreeing spades. As I wasn't sure, I therefore decided to make what I thought was the least encouraging bid possible. The auction and the full deal is as follows:

---

Three down for a bottom.

Now I have the hand deals available I realise I was dealer and LHO had passed, in which case maybe there is a stronger argument for passing. It is a horrible deal with nothing making but we got out worst. Partner said she was trying to show a strong hand, I pointed out she could have done this with 2♥, but it all came down to her not expecting me to have a 3 count, so I now know in future not to Play with this partner and expect a reasonable game of bridgeagain

We do play weak jump shifts so she reasoned I couldn't have a weak hand with 6+ spades.

EFA

No expert would pass your hand unless they were cheating in some way, your partner as per usual is on crack or something similar!!