short style question

[gwnn]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s982hkj52d765cqj9]133|100|Scoring: IMP

p-1♥-x-p[/hv]

[gwnn]

17 votes and no posts? :(

[ArtK78]

I don't know what there is to say. It seems like an automatic 1NT call, unless you require more than this to bid 1NT opposite partner's double.

[pclayton]

1N. A little lite, but I probably have a double stop on most layouts.

 

Where you looking for more than this Csaba?

[awm]

Obvious 1NT bid for me.

 

There is some question what the point range should be for 1NT opposite a double like this. I very much prefer to play a range of something like 6 to 9, very much like what I would play opposite an opening bid. This hand fits nicely into that range.

 

The reasoning is: (1) Partner's double usually shows opening values. Yes I know we all sometimes double a point or two light on a 4441 or whatever, but a lot of us open nice 11 counts these days too. (2) We have their opening bidder on lead and most of our strength behind their strength, so even if we end up in 1NT with 18 high our chances of making it are pretty decent. (3) Playing a stronger range (8-10 or whatever) means we have to respond on three-card suits that much more often. Given the style of doubles that a lot of people on BBF seem to endorse these days, even responding in a four card minor is not unlikely to violate Burn's law. I don't see much benefit in playing sub-moysians especially when at least one hand is very balanced.

[jdonn]

Even if you play 1NT as starting at 8 it looks like the least misbid on this hand. More interesting problem with a jack less. That is as low as I would want to start it. You have a death wish if you are regularly bidding 1NT with less than 8 I would say, indeed I don't really even feel safe with that much.

[pclayton]

Its a style question. If you are allowed to double 1♠ on: void, Qxxx ATxx K9xxx or x QJxx ATxx K9xx then your 1N response needs to be up to snuff (8-11).

 

If you don't double on these hands and would require a Q more, then drop the 1N response a little.

 

Note: haven't mentioned this in awhile, but in the former style, 2m over 1N should not be forward-going, and maybe should be in the latter.

[jdonn]

Its a style question. If you are allowed to double 1♠ on: void, Qxxx ATxx K9xxx or x QJxx ATxx K9xx then your 1N response needs to be up to snuff (8-11).

Allowed to? Do you know an advanced or better player who wouldn't?

[gwnn]

Where you looking for more than this Csaba?

 

No, but I am both interested in the full votes and who voted. This is not to say I ignore certain people's opinions, but it is interesting to see posters' styles in general. Poll results are helpful in case there's a huge unanimity and harmony between posts and the result.

 

Of course this hand is probably just a style question and there's no need for detailed reasoning.

[pclayton]

Its a style question. If you are allowed to double 1♠ on: void, Qxxx ATxx K9xxx or x QJxx ATxx K9xx then your 1N response needs to be up to snuff (8-11).

Allowed to? Do you know an advanced or better player who wouldn't?

No but I also don't know of anyone good that plays 1N as less than 8 either (except Adam).

[gnasher]

You have a death wish if you are regularly bidding 1NT with less than 8 I would say, indeed I don't really even feel safe with that much.

Which fatal risk are you concerned about? That partner is going to raise you, or that 1NT will play worse than 2m?

[gnasher]

No but I also don't know of anyone good that plays 1N as less than 8 either (except Adam).

I don't know if I count as "good", but I play a 1NT response to a takeout double as about 5-10. Mike Lawrence, who probably qualifies as good, says it includes hands in the 4-10 range, occasionally 11. *

 

Obviously, one would only be at the extremes of this range if one had nothing else to bid.

 

* Takeout Doubles, 1994, p99

Edited October 3, 2008 by gnasher

[jdonn]

You have a death wish if you are regularly bidding 1NT with less than 8 I would say, indeed I don't really even feel safe with that much.

Which fatal risk are you concerned about? That partner is going to raise you, or that 1NT will play worse than 2m?

That partner will raise me. That I will get doubled either before or after that happens. Or that I will just go down undoubled. I also fear bidding 2NT with 11 or 3NT with 13 for similar reasons. I guess I'll survive, but my bridge score is likely to suffer.

[gnasher]

I understand the fear of being raised if you have a 6-count and your partner expects 8. Equally, if you agree upon a wide range like 6-11 you'll miss some games.

 

Are you saying, though, that on the hands where partner isn't going to raise you, you expect to score worse by bidding 1NT on a 6-count than by bidding a 3-card minor? If so, why?

[jdonn]

Are you saying, though, that on the hands where partner isn't going to raise you, you expect to score worse by bidding 1NT on a 6-count than by bidding a 3-card minor? If so, why?

I don't recall saying that. Are you saying that if you hold a 3334 six count with a stopper in hearts, you will bid 1NT?

[gnasher]

I don't recall saying that.

Then I must have misunderstood.

 

Are you saying that if you hold a 3334 six count with a stopper in hearts, you will bid 1NT?

Sometimes, depending on the relative quality of the hearts and the clubs. With a 3334 5-count, I'd probably bid 2♣.

 

Modifying my earlier question, are you saying that, on the hands where partner isn't going to raise you, you expect to score worse by bidding 1NT on a notrump oriented 3334 6-count than by bidding your 4-card minor? If so, why?

[jdonn]

Because 1NT is much easier to double and gets doubled much more often (at least when there has been no redouble). I don't see why you threw in "on hands where partner isn't going to raise you" though. Isn't it very relevent that partner may raise you?

[CSGibson]

I voted 1N. It is the best description of what I have, even if I'm a point light.

[EricK]

I bid 1NT.

 

I'm more worried that partner might raise one of my 3 card suits if I bid that than I am that he might raise 1NT. I would like to be a little stronger for the bid, and if you swap my ♣ and ♠ I might very well bid 1♠ instead.

[gnasher]

Because 1NT is much easier to double and gets doubled much more often (at least when there has been no redouble). I don't see why you threw in "on hands where partner isn't going to raise you" though. Isn't it very relevent that partner may raise you?

We already agree that showing an 8-count when you have a 6-count will lead to poor results when partner raises. I was interested in your other concern about bidding 1NT on weakish hands, which, as I understand it, is that bidding 1NT instead of 2m is more likely to lead to a large penalty on hands where partner doesn't raise.

 

I don't think that either 1NT or two of a suit gets doubled much in this situation (except, of course, when responder has passed on a good hand, intending to double everything). After

 

  1S   dbl  pass 1NT

 

most people need a fairly unusual hand to double. It's dangerous to act on a balanced 19-count when both opponents have shown values, responder has suggested weakness, and most of the opposing strength is over you.

 

Similarly, the 1NT advance is most unlikely to be doubled by a responder who couldn't respond 1NT himself.

 

If you respond two of a suit to a takeout double, the most likely way to be doubled is when opener makes a takeout double and responder leaves it in. It seems to me that this is rather more likely than being doubled in 1NT: having shape makes it safer for opener to act, and a weak responder will be more comfortable defending when his hand can contribute some trump tricks.

[pclayton]

Because 1NT is much easier to double and gets doubled much more often (at least when there has been no redouble). I don't see why you threw in "on hands where partner isn't going to raise you" though. Isn't it very relevent that partner may raise you?

We already agree that showing an 8-count when you have a 6-count will lead to poor results when partner raises. I was interested in your other concern about bidding 1NT on weakish hands, which, as I understand it, is that bidding 1NT instead of 2m is more likely to lead to a large penalty on hands where partner doesn't raise.

 

I don't think that either 1NT or two of a suit gets doubled much in this situation (except, of course, when responder has passed on a good hand, intending to double everything). After

 

  1S   dbl  pass 1NT

 

most people need a fairly unusual hand to double. It's dangerous to act on a balanced 19-count when both opponents have shown values, responder has suggested weakness, and most of the opposing strength is over you.

 

Similarly, the 1NT advance is most unlikely to be doubled by a responder who couldn't respond 1NT himself.

 

If you respond two of a suit to a takeout double, the most likely way to be doubled is when opener makes a takeout double and responder leaves it in. It seems to me that this is rather more likely than being doubled in 1NT: having shape makes it safer for opener to act, and a weak responder will be more comfortable defending when his hand can contribute some trump tricks.

Gnasher, do you prefer 1N on lighter hands just over 1M, or over 1m as well?

 

It seems to me that if the bidding starts 1♣ - x - p - ? that I have more options to show a weaker hands and that 1N should be a better hand.

 

Furthermore, I am also of the opinion that the lower range for a double of 1m is below the double of 1M.

[gnasher]

Gnasher, do you prefer 1N on lighter hands just over 1M, or over 1m as well?

After 1♣, I'd expect the lower limit of 1NT to be a point or two stronger. One wouldn't conceal a four card major, or bypass diamonds on a weakish hand. Given that, it's reasonable to bid 1♦ on a poor 3=3=3=4 as well, so as to allow a narrower range for 1NT.

 

After 1♦, it's no more attractive to bid 2♣ on a three-card suit or a poor four-card than it is after one of a major. To bid a three-card major really is asking for trouble, so I think that the range of 1NT should be the same as after one of a major. The frequency of hands at the lower end will, of course, be less.

[skjaeran]

This is a clear 1NT response for me. Not an absolute minimum.

[peachy]

clear 1NT for me. 1 point light, but other bids are worse and more misleading, IMO.

[P_Marlowe]

1NT, wtp?

 

And no, this is not a min. for me.

 

Sry, not a very enlightened post, but I read

qwnns post and felt I had to respond, ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe