Responding to takeout

[kenrexford]

Underlying this problem is a problem with bidding theory generally that drives me nuts.

 

Often, ranges are the same for bids that look like they are the same bid but that are not. However, to make things easy for people, we define all similar-looking bids the same. 1NT is a classic example.

 

I see too many people play the same range, for example, for a 1NT response to a 1♣ or 1♦ opening. Each 1NT looks the same -- a balanced response to a minor opening. But, they are wildly different. A 1♦ opening does not have a waiting 1♦ response available. Most serious partnerships recognize this and have, for instance, something like a 6-9(10) range for a 1♦ opening but an 8-10(11) for a 1NT response to a 1♣ opening, or something like that.

 

Similarly, it seems wrong to have the same range for a 1NT advance of a takeout double whether the double is of a major or a minor and regardless of which major or which minor is doubled.

 

1♣-X-P-? This auction seems to scream for a sound 1NT response. Otherwise, Responder just bids 1♦ a lot or picks a 3-card major if necessary. I would like to have an agreement where this 1NT roughly equates with 1NT after a 1♣ opening from partner, namely 8-10(11).

 

1♦-X-P-? This auction is slightly different. But, the expectation of two majors to pick at the one-level also seems to push the 1NT call toward sound. Maybe the "standard" meaning suggested so far.

 

1♥-X-P-? Tightening up here. Partner is somewhat aggressive doubling here, because he has spades. 4-3-3-3 is very plausible. The double here almost asks, "Do you have spade tolerance? If no, maybe bid a real minor." This might tend to suggest a reason to want a 1NT call as somewhat of a "punt" bid and rather flexible. Range-schmange.

 

1♠-X-P-? This auction tends to be fairly reliable as to the heart length, at least for me. You are begging partner to take the push to 3♥. You have no one-level options except 1NT. So, it seems reasonable to be a tad more reliable as to strength, generally. That compensating strength seems to suggest not so much flexibility but "room," in a sense. The sound values seem, to me, to justify aggressive 2NT calls. The corollary is a weaker 1NT.

 

Of course, I doubt that anyone has this sort of agreement, let alone B/I. But, for me, it seems that...

 

1♣-X-P-1NT = 8-10(11)

1♦-X-P-1NT = 7-10

1♥-X-P-1NT = tactical

1♠-X-P-1NT = 5-8(9)

 

...would make more sense than 7-10, 7-10, 7-10, and 7-10.

[pclayton]

2♣ for me too. I really can't call this a six count under the best of circumstances. Its such a pile of drek. My range for 1N is about 8 to 11, but part of the reason is my takeout doubles can be pretty light.

[han]

2C for me too.

[plaur]

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?

Thanks to all for interesting answers. No, there was no discussion. Partner did not lift an eyebrow when I bid 2♣ and got close to zero mp's on the 3-3 fit, with 120 available in NT.

Some times when I get these bad results I post here and try to learn from the answers I get.