Responding to takeout

[plaur]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sq964hj32dj63cqt9]133|100|Scoring: MP

1♠* - X - p - ?

* Opps play 12-14 NT[/hv]

What to bid after partners takeout double?

[ArtK78]

1NT.

 

Second choice 1NT.

 

Third choice 1NT.

 

Really, is this a trick question?

[P_Marlowe]

1 NT.

 

Not perfect, but the best description

of my hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[karlson]

1NT should show decent values, but I think this is enough. Take away the ♣Q and you have to bid 2♥ I suppose.

[Walddk]

Your are lucky to have 6-9(10) hcp and a spade stopper, the range for a 1NT response to a take-out double.

 

♠ xxxx

♥ Jxx

♦ Jxx

♣ Qxx

 

This is much tougher. My choice would now be 2♣ which sounds less encouraging than 2♥. The hand is no longer suited for a 1NT response because, apart from showing a spade stop, it is constructive, as opposed to a response in a suit as cheaply as possible.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

1N is my bid, but I am overbidding and aware of it. This hand is too weak for 1N.. which should show a good 7 - 10 hcp.

 

Note that Roland and I disagree to a small extent on this range.. this is not the biggest disagreement we have had.. anyone else remember the attempted Danish conquest of Hans 0?

 

However, 2♣, the 'correct' bid is also horrible... this hand will not play particularly well in a 4-3 club fit, and may be really horrible in a 3-3... and the lack of a raise by rho suggests (but does no more than mildly suggest) that partner has a couple of spades: hence 2=4=4=3 is not impossible.

 

The fact is that this is a hand on which we have no accurately descriptive call available and, as is so often the case, it seems best to opt for the call that combines cheapness with minimal distortion. 1N is both the cheapest call and, imo, the least distortion.

[Guest Jlall]

I would bid 2C, I don't think this hand comes close to being good enough to bidding 1N, and I believe in the theory of bidding 2C with hands like this that are not good enough to bid 1N. If I didn't then I would change my range on my 1N bid.

[neilkaz]

1NT.

 

Second choice 1NT.

 

Third choice 1NT.

 

Really, is this a trick question?

Art, this is B/I so NO question is stupid or WTP. The very talented Justin and some others bid 2♣ here so 1NT is not clear as day !

 

My range for 1NT here is the same 6 to mediocre 10 I play when forced to play SAYC and RHO passes. I realize that does agree with current expert practice which wants more than a quacky 6 hcp for 1NT.

 

I am somewhat stuck for a bid as I have a sucky 6 HCP, but upon consideration I must disagree with those two giants of bridge. Perhaps its system or perhaps it's my usual PD's tendencies. I bid 1NT all day long here...since ,,

 

1) I may even have a 2nd ♠ stop

 

2) 2♥ is absolutely out of the question with 3 weakish ones as my PD will stretch to O/C 2♥ with any mediocre 5 and an opening bid.

 

3) 2♣ is simply going to catch PD with 3 of them too often for our liking !! If 1NT gets X'd around to me, I can pass and try it or XX and get into PD's best suit anyhow.

 

4) I have 6 quacky HCP which aren't really good at suit contracts. They aren't good period !! But maybe I can get more value out of them and the 10 and 9's at 1NT.

 

 

1NT all day every day for me but lets be kind to those who post in B/I as there are no WTP's here ! I am aware that some PD's may take this as an overbid, but think the consequences of 2♣ may be lots more severe.

[andy_h]

Agree with mikeh

[the hog]

!st 2nd and 3rd choice is 2C. This hand id not good enough for 1NT

[Walddk]

I don't think this hand comes close to being good enough to bidding 1N

If this hand is not close to being a 1NT response, how would you teach your students? Are we totally out of line when we tell them 6-9(10), (10)11-12 and 13-15 for 1, 2 and 3NT respectively?

 

I am not saying that my range is the only truth, but it is certainly easier for the students to comprehend, because we use the same when responding to 1x by opener. In effect, partner did open 1x when he doubled.

 

In my experience, after close to 40 years in business, it complicates things if you introduce too many exceptions to rules of thumb.

 

No matter what, the only thing that is out of line in my view is Art's 'wtp' cliché. OP's question is very good, and this is the right forum for it.

 

Roland

[1eyedjack]

I bid 2C.

 

I reckon that 1NT is likely to be a better contract than 2C, but neither bid is guaranteed (or even likely) to end the auction. 2C is the bid least likely to result in partner overheating.

[jdonn]

2♣ for me, 6-9 is an awful range for 1NT, it's very old fashioned and people should know better by now IMO. I think 8-11 is about right. Doubling is not like opening, it's done a fair amount lighter. A 1444 hand with partner would for most people double with a 9 count, some even lighter because they just can't resist. Many of these same people would pass a 1444 11 count rather than open it.

 

I agree with Roland, this is a very good problem for the B/I forum. Better to give your thoughts than just say 'wtp' on a hand where there is clear disagreement.

[inquiry]

I am firmly in the 2♣ camp

[Walddk]

2♣ for me, 6-9 is an awful range for 1NT, it's very old fashioned and people should know better by now IMO. I think 8-11 is about right. Doubling is not like opening, it's done a fair amount lighter. A 1444 hand with partner would for most people double with a 9 count, some even lighter because they just can't resist. Many of these same people would pass a 1444 11 count rather than open it.

I see your point, Josh, but if I understand this correctly the consequence is that you must invite (2NT) with 12-13 and only jump to 3NT with 14 or more. I don't think that it is mainstream to have as many as 13 hcp for an invite.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

2♣ for me but I don't feel strongly about it. While 1NT may take us too high, 2♣ might make p compete with 3♣ if he has four of them and opps balance, and if he doesn't have four of them .....

 

I see Roland's point of teaching the same NT ranges in response to a t/o double as in response to a suit opening, but

- I am not sure if we teach a 1NT response to one of a suit as 6-9 and we probably don't teach a 2NT response as 10-11. Depends on teaching methods and geography of course.

- One of the most persistent beginner's mistakes is to respond to t/o doubles the way one responds to one of a suit (say a non-jump with 14 points). So maybe the similarity between t/o doubles and openings should not be stressed too much.

[Walddk]

So maybe the similarity between t/o doubles and openings should not be stressed too much.

I merely want to keep the structure with regard to notrump responses after a take-out double. It's completely different as far as suit responses are concerned because the lower limit is ZERO, whereas it's 5-6 when responding to 1x.

 

Roland

[the hog]

So maybe the similarity between t/o doubles and openings should not be stressed too much.

I merely want to keep the structure with regard to notrump responses after a take-out double. It's completely different as far as suit responses are concerned because the lower limit is ZERO, whereas it's 5-6 when responding to 1x.

 

Roland

Don't forget that many people X with shapely hands and less than the traditional point count opening. So your 1NT response should be stronger.

[whereagles]

Prefer 1NT on this hand. It's an overbid, but playing 2♣ on what could be a 3-3 fit isn't attractive.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't think this hand comes close to being good enough to bidding 1N

If this hand is not close to being a 1NT response, how would you teach your students? Are we totally out of line when we tell them 6-9(10), (10)11-12 and 13-15 for 1, 2 and 3NT respectively?

 

I am not saying that my range is the only truth, but it is certainly easier for the students to comprehend, because we use the same when responding to 1x by opener. In effect, partner did open 1x when he doubled.

 

In my experience, after close to 40 years in business, it complicates things if you introduce too many exceptions to rules of thumb.

 

No matter what, the only thing that is out of line in my view is Art's 'wtp' cliché. OP's question is very good, and this is the right forum for it.

 

Roland

I would never teach anyone these rules of thumb, and I don't think that responding to takeout X is the same as responding to a 1C opener. If you teach people these ranges that's fine for you but I don't know of anyone who actually plays them when the auction has gone 1S X p ? where I come from.

[whereagles]

Justin, Roland is just saying that you should keep it simple and systematic. Most hands are straightforward anyway, not borderline.

 

One can, ofc, teach borderline bidding from the beginning, but that may be counter-productive.

[ArtK78]

1NT.

 

Second choice 1NT.

 

Third choice 1NT.

 

Really, is this a trick question?

Art, this is B/I so NO question is stupid or WTP. The very talented Justin and some others bid 2♣ here so 1NT is not clear as day !

I never said the question was stupid. I just consider the answer to be absolutely clear.

 

And it is also clear that some disagree with me strongly on this.

 

I can only assume that the question came up after the hand and there was a similar strong disagreement about what was right.

 

To me, this is a clear 1NT call. I would never consider anything else. If others think differently, fine. That is why the forum is here.

[jdonn]

2♣ for me, 6-9 is an awful range for 1NT, it's very old fashioned and people should know better by now IMO. I think 8-11 is about right. Doubling is not like opening, it's done a fair amount lighter. A 1444 hand with partner would for most people double with a 9 count, some even lighter because they just can't resist. Many of these same people would pass a 1444 11 count rather than open it.

I see your point, Josh, but if I understand this correctly the consequence is that you must invite (2NT) with 12-13 and only jump to 3NT with 14 or more. I don't think that it is mainstream to have as many as 13 hcp for an invite.

 

Roland

I don't know if it's mainstream, but it's certainly becoming more and more so as time passes and I think it's clearly best. Like I said, lots of people make shapely doubles on 10 and 9 (8?) counts, in which case average 13 counts would not be good enough to want to be in game.

 

I certainly don't agree with you on teaching the same range as over an opening bid simply because it's easier. The situations are different enough to warrant different ranges. Likewise I would teach a range like 8-11 for responding 1NT to an overcall and 12-13 for responding 2NT if it's played as natural (and I'm far from comfortable bidding 2NT on even those hands...)

[mcphee]

I also concur with biddindg 1NT which I also think is a bit light. Some like 7-10 others 8-11, whatever it is not of major importance. I do not see another bid I can claim to be better than 1N. Needless to say a 4-3 C fit will not play great, consider a 3-3:)

[TimG]

I can only assume that the question came up after the hand and there was a similar strong disagreement about what was right.

These sorts of questions are not always prompted by "strong disagreements". Why couldn't the opening poster and his partner have thought along these lines: a reasonable case can be made for a couple of calls, let's post it to BBO and get the opinion of a few more players before we decide how we want to solve the problem?