With both sides vulnerable, partner opened one spade in second seat.
After the intervening opponent doubled (takeout) I jumped in a minor (clubs) with ♠ K3 ♡93 ♢Q4 ♣ KJ87632. We are playing 2 over 1 (game forcing), so this hand is too weak for two clubs. We are also playing inverted minors so three of a minor after one of the same minor means 6-9 points and a six card suit (partner may have only two clubs for a one club bid). I would have opened three clubs if first to speak except in fourth position.
Give me a third spade and I would raise spades. Replace the king of spades with a spot card and I would definitely bid three clubs. Take away the queen of diamonds instead, and I would probably bid three clubs. In any event, I felt I was bidding a single purpose hand that couldn’t play in either red suit, and could play well opposite a singleton spot club (which she had). It could make game in spades, but only if partner had heavy “extras,” say 17 points with a good five card suit, or 15 points with a six bagger. It might also make game in no trumps if partner had stoppers in the red suits AND “transportation” to my hand.
I felt I was too strong to pass, but too weak to make an encouraging bid. I had a “standalone” hand that could make four or five tricks by itself but only if clubs were trump, and nine tricks if partner came through the with four or so tricks promised by an opening hand. On the other hand, I felt that my long but weak clubs were useless opposite partner’s presumed singleton and that my five high card points and two trumps (outside my clubs) did not constitute enough support to raise to two spades.
Was mine a good response or was there a better bid, perhaps 1NT, that would have been less descriptive but imposed fewer limitations on partner?