[lycier]

Imp , White Vs Red

---

It is often said to believe the partner,however as a partner,sometimes you might not be honest.
This is a classic hand.
After opening 1♣,your responding 1♠ should promise 5+hcp,if you really respond and once you get a bad result ,I am afraid you maybe lose your partner's trust from now on.
However,if you honestly passing,and once you lose the game,I am afraid your partner might think you are a silly precisian and also lost partner's trust.
Now,how to make choice? How do you think of it?

[Zelandakh]

 lycier, on 2015-November-26, 05:21, said:

After opening 1♣,your responding 1♠ should promise 5+hcp,

Why? Perhaps the place to start is in changing this agreement.

[lycier]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-November-26, 05:43, said:

Why? Perhaps the place to start is in changing this agreement.

Why change this agreement?
We are intermediate or advanced players,have nothing to do with this matter,as for changing this agreement,that is a expert's thing.

[helene_t]

I don't think this is a matter of trust. As opener, you primarily describe your hand, so undiciplined openings can erode trust. But as responder, you primarily do what you think is most practical.

I like to respond on subminimal hands when I can handle the most likely rebids. Here, if you respond 1♠ you can't handle a reverse, and maybe you can't handle a 2NT rebid either. Obviously, a 3♣ rebid is not welcome either.

You could also respond 1♦ since then you maybe be able to get to a diamond partscore if partner rebids 1♥. But then you lose the spade suit.

I would pass. If we have a spade fit, LHO may keep it open for us.

[mike777]

one honest spade here we are nv. may lose the d suit.

will rebid 2s if pard reverses with 2h.

[ggwhiz]

The vul matters and my partner understands when I respond 1♠ on this hand, especially with a stiff club that may be short (3 for us). Bury their heart contract, own a spade or other contract if we find a fit.... The upside seems equal to the downside. Reverse the colors and I'm passing.

We've made all kinds of bids over time that the other partner disagrees with, discuss why and change our approach to accommodate each other as indicated. If you lose a partner over 1 occurrence or with no discussion mechanism they probably weren't worth keeping anyway.

[aguahombre]

If 2♦ were a WJR, I would consider it; but we need it to be a strong slammish bid (a Mike Lawrence thing).

Passing initially as Responder has worked well for us vs all levels of competition; maybe it shouldn't, but we will stick with it. Interesting things seem to just happen.

[WesleyC]

Bridge isn't a game of 'promises', especially in terms of HCP.

At favourable vulnerability, the tactical advantage you gain by responding 1S on this hand is huge.

[biggerclub]

I wait for the X before running. And then to ♦ not ♠. If we are down 6 or even 7 undoubled, hardly compensates for their missed 6♣s.

Partner gets the message much more clearly if I wait before bidding.

[1eyedjack]

I tend to gravitate to partners who have sufficient intellect to appreciate when I have a bidding problem without then hanging me for an unfortunate choice.

[Phil]

I think its very bad bridge to pass a hand like this.

[akwoo]

Frankly, I would be unhappy if my partner passed that hand. I think passing that hand is terrible judgement.

If we have any kind of fit this is a very good hand. You make 4♠ opposite ♠KQ ♥xxxx ♦AKx ♣xxxx. (Admittedly, if partner has this hand, you'd expect some opponent to have a bid.)

If you do have a distributional game, it's important to make it as hard as possible for the opponents to find their good 5 level sacrifice (or making 5 level game!)

The only rebid from partner I'm worried about is the 2♥ reverse. (But if you play 1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠ as nonforcing, it's not so bad either.) The 3♣ rebid is fine; partner should be sacrificing there against their 2♥ anyway.

Your hand is a lot better than, say, ♠Qxxxx ♥Qxx ♦Qxx ♣xx, and everyone responds on that.

[steve2005]

I agree with responding light when 1♣ all pass could be awful.
However, I don't think this is the right hand. You can't handle so many of partners possible responses.
You are likely to lose a suit, seems that it will be your 6-card ♦ suit as everyone wants to bid 1♠.
Finally, with such a distributional hand that is weak it is unlikely to go 1♣ all pass. Opps likely have 8+♥ so they might even have game.

[sfi]

Evaluating this as a 3 count looks poor. If partner has a 2NT rebid I want to be in game, so I respond.

After 1S I can handle partner's likely actions, with a 3C rebid being the only one likely to lead to a bad score:

• Over 1NT I'll play 2D (2C asks partner to bid 2D in all my regular partnerships)
  
• I'll pass 2C
  
• I'll strongly raise 2D
  
• I'll show a weak hand with long diamonds over 2H
  
• I'll bid game over a raise (which isn't going to work well if partner raised on 3, but meh)
  
• I'll show diamonds over 2NT and we'll get to game somewhere

If partner's going to get upset that I don't pass 1C with this hand, they need to get over it. (Maybe this is the thread I should direct partners to. )

[glen]

 lycier, on 2015-November-26, 05:21, said:

After opening 1♣,your responding 1♠ should promise 5+hcp ...

Your agreement should not be based on high card points (hcp), but points

[Vampyr]

 sfi, on 2015-November-26, 17:40, said:

Evaluating this as a 3 count looks poor. If partner has a 2NT rebid I want to be in game, so I respond.

After 1S I can handle partner's likely actions, with a 3C rebid being the only one likely to lead to a bad score:

• Over 1NT I'll play 2D (2C asks partner to bid 2D in all regular partnerships)
  
• I'll pass 2C
  
• I'll strongly raise 2D
  
• I'll show a weak hand with long diamonds over 2H
  
• I'll bid game over a raise (which isn't going to work well if partner raised on 3, but meh)
  
• I'll show diamonds over 2NT and we'll get to game somewhere

If partner's going to get upset that I don't pass 1C with this hand, they need to get over it. (Maybe this is the thread I should direct partners to. )

Not all serious partnerships play two-way Checkback. Although possibly they should.

[wank]

 Vampyr, on 2015-November-26, 21:38, said:

Not all serious partnerships play two-way Checkback.

as far as i'm aware they do, unless it's a function of the rest of their sytem. for example if you played a 4cM majors first approach it would be pointless

[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2015-November-26, 21:38, said:

Not all serious partnerships play two-way Checkback. Although possibly they should.

Apologies - I meant all my regular partnerships. Earlier post is now modified.

[Bbradley62]

 lycier, on 2015-November-26, 05:52, said:

 Zelandakh, on 2015-November-26, 05:43, said:

 lycier, on 2015-November-26, 05:21, said:

... responding 1♠ should promise 5+hcp,

Why? Perhaps the place to start is in changing this agreement.

... changing this agreement,that is a expert's thing.

As a non-expert player, I expect that natural No Trump bids generally show some specified range of High Card Points, but natural suit bids generally show some specified range of Total Points.

[lycier]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-November-26, 05:43, said:

Why? Perhaps the place to start is in changing this agreement.

Thank you very much for your advice.

 glen, on 2015-November-26, 19:00, said:

Your agreement should not be based on high card points (hcp), but points

Thank you very much for your guidance,what you said make me to understand its responding principle.

P.S.
Glen,I see your profile,are you really Glen Ashton,famous Canada expert who devised EMT ? Sometimes I can see your articles had been translated into chinese.
Thank you for your contribution to the bridge world.