[whereagles]

IMPS, all vuln

♠ Q7
♥ AQJ
♦ T9
♣ KQJ965

We pard
1♣ 1♠
??

What's your rebid? 2 or 3♣?

[mike777]

open 1nt here.

If asked to fill in then 2c now, sometimes I have a max.

[Jinksy]

Playing with a familiar P, I'll venture 3. At the table, I didn't know my P and decided 2 looked safer.

[rmnka447]

You have only 15 HCP. But all your points are working -- even your ♠ Q. Your ♦ 109 can even be useful as a partial stopper.

There are scads of 9-10 HCP hands where a 3 NT game will have a play. So rebidding 3 ♣ at IMPs is virtually mandatory for finding any thin but makeable VUL game.

You might, as some others suggested, also have considered a 1 NT bid instead of 1 ♣.

[chasetb]

How aggressive is your partner? If the middle of the road, then look and see how good your opposition is. Personally, I go 2♣, because we are allowed to be a max sometimes.

[whereagles]

pard/opps all foruners, so they know their stuff

[fromageGB]

Partner is allowed to bid over 2♣, and I think we are unlikely to miss anything if he doesn't.

[mikestar13]

Compare this hand where consensus seem to be accept on a nice 7. Partnership need a style agreement about this type of sequences. If the partnership choice
is "aggressive invites, conservative game bids", 3♣ is a reasonable choice, but partner needs about a good 8/ordinary 9 not to pass.

My firm style preference is "conservative invites, aggressive game bids": note "game bids", not "acceptances"--one is also aggressive in bidding (or forcing to) game rather than inviting. For example in the sequence 1NT-P or 2NT or 3NT (with all bids natural), responder with a light invite (borderline pass) should pass and with a heavy invite (borderline3NT) should bid 3NT: if he responds 2NT, his invite should be down the middle, but opener should carry on to 3NT unless genuinely minimum. Maybe a catchier name for this style is DIIYCHI (Don't Invite If You Can Help It.)

Full disclosure: if the 1NT range is narrow enough, in this sequence I tend to enjoy taking this further and "pass or bash", but my preferred style can be generalized to suit bidding sequences such as the one in this poll, whereas pass or bash cannot.

[wank]

am i a client playing with a pro? that's the only reason not to open 1nt.

[whereagles]

Thx all. In practice it doesn't matter what you bid, as pard has

♠ KJ982
♥ T84
♦ AK8
♣ 82

and will always find an invite over 2♣ (except at one table, where 2♣ was met with 2♠ for a pass out).

[Jinksy]

 whereagles, on 2014-December-24, 04:37, said:

Thx all. In practice it doesn't matter what you bid, as pard has

♠ KJ982
♥ T84
♦ AK8
♣ 82

and will always find an invite over 2♣ (except at one table, where 2♣ was met with 2♠ for a pass out).

I still wake up in cold sweats

[whereagles]

I used to play a style whereby 1x-1M-2any-2M would be 9-11 invite. Hand would fit this, though certainly opener would not pass.

[mikeh]

 mikestar13, on 2014-December-24, 00:24, said:

Compare this hand where consensus seem to be accept on a nice 7. Partnership need a style agreement about this type of sequences. If the partnership choice
is "aggressive invites, conservative game bids", 3♣ is a reasonable choice, but partner needs about a good 8/ordinary 9 not to pass.

There is a big difference between 1M then 3M, and 1m and then 3m.

In the former, the game most often in sight is 4M. A lot of less-experienced players do seem to think that 3N is even more in sight, but eventually they learn otherwise I'd say that 4M is the correct acceptance significantly more often than is 3N.

By contrast, after 1m 3m, the game most in sight is 3N, by a wide margin. A major suit game is possible but only when responder has values and a long major, and 5m is an awful long way away unless responder has a decent hand with shape and support.

In 4M, we can assume that we are going to have trump control due to opener's 6+ suit, so we need to avoid losing too many quick tricks. In 3N, when we have marginal values, we won't be holding 2+ stoppers in all side suits, so we are worried about losing tricks to spot cards in the opps long suit....yes, our 5th or 6th card in the minor will be a winner, but we can't use it to ruff.

In the referenced hand, it was unanimous to raise 3M to 4M because we held 3 controls, an Ace and a King, and a side doubleton and a ruffing value....all the sorts of values that are of particular value in a suit contract.

Understanding the difference between the major and minor auctions is an important aspect of hand valuation. Valuation is always 'in context' which is why it can change throughout the auction.

[neilkaz]

Would've opened 1NT. Now is close between 2 and 3♣ but I'll take a positive view with great ♣ and a Q in PD's suit.

[mikeh]

I think opening this hand 1N at imps is silly, at least if partner is unpassed. Don't you guys ever want to bid minor suit contracts, including slams?

[aguahombre]

 mikeh, on 2014-December-24, 17:10, said:

I think opening this hand 1N at imps is silly, at least if partner is unpassed. Don't you guys ever want to bid minor suit contracts, including slams?

Yes. The pattern 2-2-3-6 is just fine with me for an opening 1NT; but not this time. Not even at matchpoints, IMO. But, form of scoring --- important in competitive auctions and game/slam decisions --- does not enter into my choice of opening bids.

[diana_eva]

 mikeh, on 2014-December-24, 17:10, said:

I think opening this hand 1N at imps is silly, at least if partner is unpassed. Don't you guys ever want to bid minor suit contracts, including slams?

It was an indy.

[whereagles]

Regardless of scoring, I much rather prefer to play 2/3♣ instead of 2♠ (1NT-xfer)