responding to 1minor

[oojah]

How do you respiond to 1m with a balanced hand, no 4 card major and

11-12 hcp?

13-15 hcp?

[awm]

Obviously this is a matter of agreement. My preference is:

 

With 13-15, bid 2NT game forcing.

 

With 11-12, bid a four-card minor. Then bid 2NT later if appropriate.

[kenrexford]

I have been experimenting for a few years now with an idea I heard from Fred Hamilton. I like it. Maybe try it.

 

The idea is rather simple, buit often missed.

 

Figure out your minimum for a 1NT opening. That might be 15, or it might be a good 14.

 

Then, make your 1NT "range" up to anything that would not be willing to play 3NT if partner is balanced but could not open 1NT. Typically, this is about an 11-count. So, your 1NT response might be, say, 6-11.

 

You might object that this range is too much. However, if partner is balanced, so what? You will play 1NT instead of 2NT, or you might get to double the opponents.

 

But, you continue, what oif partner has more than 14 HCP because he is unbalanced? If he is unbalanced, he will bid again. At that point, you can then bid 2NT, or something more approproate for the actual auction.

 

The experience has been good.

[han]

You make it sound better than it is Ken, there are many 14-, 15- and even some 16-counts where partner won't be able to act over 1NT. Not saying the method is unplayable, just that you will miss some good games.

[pclayton]

Since this is the BI section, we should discuss what is considered 'standard'.

 

Over 1 minor - 2 NT shows a good 10 to 12.

 

3N is 13 -15.

 

This is a far cry from Goren, but I like the Goren 2N of 13-15 better. Frequently a 10 -11 count cannot make 8 tricks opposite a minimum opening.

[awm]

Since this is the BI section, we should discuss what is considered 'standard'.

 

Over 1 minor - 2 NT shows a good 10 to 12.

 

3N is 13 -15.

 

This is a far cry from Goren, but I like the Goren 2N of 13-15 better. Frequently a 10 -11 count cannot make 8 tricks opposite a minimum opening.

Technically SAYC includes 2NT forcing though.

 

Not like anyone plays SAYC, and I agree that 2NT invitational is "de facto" standard.

[helene_t]

RIght, the 2NT response is something you should not do opposite a pick-up partner (unless having agreed to play Acol in which case 2NT is clearly non-forcing).

 

Bid the other minor (even if it's a 3-card), and if p shows a minimum, invite game with 11 points and bid game with more than that.

 

1♦-2♣

2NT*

is a problem in Standard American. As a responder with 11 points you have to guess. Or better, discuss with partner before playing :)

[MickyB]

You make it sound better than it is Ken, there are many 14-, 15- and even some 16-counts where partner won't be able to act over 1NT. Not saying the method is unplayable, just that you will miss some good games.

Partner is likely to have tolerance for your minor (indeed, he's promised it for 1♣:1NT), so you just have to rebid a five-card minor (or 1♦:1N, 2♣ on a (14)53) if you have 15 or 16 points. 44(41)s can be an issue, I admit.

 

Responder has to initially cater to opener having a weak no-trump, otherwise he will land up too high on those hands.

[kenrexford]

You make it sound better than it is Ken, there are many 14-, 15- and even some 16-counts where partner won't be able to act over 1NT. Not saying the method is unplayable, just that you will miss some good games.

Not as much as I also thought.

[vuroth]

Since this is the BI section, we should discuss what is considered 'standard'.

 

Over 1 minor - 2 NT shows a good 10 to 12.

 

3N is 13 -15.

 

This is a far cry from Goren, but I like the Goren 2N of 13-15 better. Frequently a 10 -11 count cannot make 8 tricks opposite a minimum opening.

Technically SAYC includes 2NT forcing though.

 

Not like anyone plays SAYC, and I agree that 2NT invitational is "de facto" standard.

SAYC: after 1m

2NT: 13-15

3NT: 16-18

 

So it's not just Goren.

 

I agree, though, that it's not what I would expect from a pickup partner, even one playing "sayc".

[mikeh]

As Adam pointed out, the answer is really whatever you agree.

 

Certainly in NA, there are a lot of players who use 2N to show 11-12 (Phil suggests 10-12, but at least where I play that is uncommon).

 

I don't like this for a number of reasons.

 

As for Ken's idea, I don't have a problem with the concept of adjusting the 1N response to a range where we don't expect to miss game opposite a balanced minimum, but 11??? I read of a study, years ago, that suggested that in expert bridge a balanced 12 made 3N opposite a balanced 12 about 50% of the time. I cannot imagine a successful method that set out to avoid games with balanced 14s opposite balanced 11s. So if I used that approach, my number for 1N would be a maximum of 10... which, come to think of it, is 'standard'. Waddya know..maybe there is some rationale to the standard approach :P

 

I really like the 2N to be natural and forcing. It avoids the need to jump to 3N with, say, a balanced 13. After all, while matchpoints gets us all thinking (too much) of 3N, real bridge (ok, my bias is showing) sometimes needs us to find a minor suit game or even a moysian major suit game instead. And the bludgeon of 3N makes that very difficult.

 

But then what do we do with our 11-12 hand?

 

Over 1♣, we can punt with 1♦ on a 3 card suit if need be. I strongly advocate opening 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 for a variety of reasons and the increased availability of the punt on 3=3=3=4 11 counts is one minor aspect of this.

 

When partner opens 1♦, our options are limited. I really don't like making limit raises, even of a known to be 4+ suit, on balanced 11 or 12 counts with 3=3=4=3. And I cannot 'punt' in a 3 or 4 card club suit, since I play that as game force. If you don't: if the sequence 2♣ then 2N is non-forcing (which I doubt it is for many) then the punt may work.

 

Otherwise, you have to either:

 

1) limit raise with 3=3=4=3 or (gulp) 3=3=3=4

2) bid 1N with 11 and pray

3) bid 2N with 12 and pray

4) bid a 3 card major: always 1♥ with 3=3=4=3 or 3=3=3=4

 

Those of us who play 2♣ as gf have an even bigger problem with 3=2=3=5 hands, since now we 'have' to bid 1♠!

 

The answer is, as I think the above shows, that there is no perfect answer. Whatever you choose will solve some problems while creating others. Which is the best compromise will depend on your attitude and individual experience. I think that if you play predominantly mps, using the non-forcing 2N is probably the best, while if you play predominantly imps, the 3 card major works fine... however, it works best in a weak notrump context, where a single raise of the major shows either a strong notrump or 4 card support in an unbalanced hand. It is a little more problematic in a strong notrump method.