[AL78]

MPs, 5CM strong NT, no-one vuln:

---

1♣ is at least three cards. What do you do when it comes back to you?

[LBengtsson]

Why? You are minimum, you hold 4 trumps, partner and west have not bid, and you give the opps. the opportunity to find a better fit in ♦s. I doubt if the opps. will bid 2♠ if you bid 2♣. There is no guarantee that your partner has a fit for your ♣ suit, and could be very weak. I would leave well alone.

[AL78]

That was my thinking, my hand is weak and has got worse after the overcall and partner could not dredge up a response. I was not rewarded for this judgement:

---

Another joint bottom as two pairs found 2♣ which they made, another pair found 2♥ going off which are all better than 1♠E+1. I feel better about the session having some validation that a handful of the dire results weren't down to me personally.

[helene_t]

Maybe south should double 1sp, but north can't do anything.

[akwoo]

Opposite a weak partner, trying to optimize results, I would absolutely bid 2C. With a weak partner, you don't want to defend, and it's much more likely they passed on some marginal hand when they shouldn't have (like right here).

At MPs, South should double 1S with that hand.

This is a hand I get wrong (bidding 2C when I really shouldn't, given partner should be much weaker) when I've been playing mostly with a weaker partner for a while and then start playing with one of my stronger partners again (or with a stronger pickup).

[sfi]

If you reopen on this hand, mostly you find out they were about to miss 4H.

[DavidKok]

I agree with what everybody else said. North is fixed, you don't have a reasonable alternative to pass. South should have doubled.

[AL78]

akwoo, on 2023-January-13, 18:44, said:

Opposite a weak partner, trying to optimize results, I would absolutely bid 2C.

I have only played with this partner once before so don't have a feeling for his strength.

akwoo, on 2023-January-13, 18:44, said:

With a weak partner, you don't want to defend...

Unfortunately this session, like the session the previous week, had a hand bias the other way so defending a lot was unavoidable.

[DavidKok]

I think trying to 'compensate' for your partner is a lousy idea. It might improve your results for one evening (then again it might not), but you are creating bad habits. It is also insulting and makes it difficult for your partner to trust you in the future.

[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-14, 13:52, said:

I think trying to 'compensate' for your partner is a lousy idea. It might improve your results for one evening (then again it might not), but you are creating bad habits. It is also insulting and makes it difficult for your partner to trust you in the future.

I don't do that myself even when playing with a beginner. I believe in playing down the middle and bidding in a consistent way so that my partner can get a feel for my bidding style. This may make me easy to play against as opposed to an erratic player where you can blow the defence because your deduction on the best line fails because what they have is inconsistent with the auction, but I'll accept that.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-14, 13:52, said:

I think trying to 'compensate' for your partner is a lousy idea. It might improve your results for one evening (then again it might not), but you are creating bad habits. It is also insulting and makes it difficult for your partner to trust you in the future.

I agree 100%.
It may help your results with poor partners in a weak MP field, but who cares about results with poor partners in a weak MP field, and who wants to play with those who do?

AL78, on 2023-January-14, 14:00, said:

I don't do that myself even when playing with a beginner.

It's an even worse choice with a beginner rather than with a poor partner.
Although ironically an ambitious beginner may be illuded by the positive result and decide that the compensator is a better partner than you who respect him and play bridge.