Responding to 1NT with strong spades

[inquiry]

[hv=s=skj97632hk3daj43c]133|100|1NT - (pass) - ?[/hv]

 

I found the wide variety of treatments on this hand surprizing (large tournament) after a 1NT opening bid. I think there is one right way to bid this hand, and two close to right ways. Of the list above, at least 12 auctions actually occured. How would you bid you, and more importantly, if you can discuss why you picked your choice over some of the more obvious possibilities.

[CSGibson]

Probably the best way to start is 2♥-2♠,3♦, especially if you have an agreement that it is a sequence asking for a cue with a well-fitting hand. Partner will know at least that his pointed queens are much more valuable than rounded queens, and be able to cooperate or not accordingly.

 

Even after 3N, I'll give it a go with 4♣. Anything else and you might as well right-side the contract and bid 6♠ right after the NT.

[rogerclee]

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

[CSGibson]

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

Out of curiousity, what tool do you have to do that? Texas and then 5♣? I just don't have something like that in my bidding system, but it sounds like it might be useful...

[rogerclee]

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

Out of curiousity, what tool do you have to do that? Texas and then 5♣? I just don't have something like that in my bidding system, but it sounds like it might be useful...

2♥, 4♣ is standard. A growing trend is to play that 2♥, 3♥ in this auction shows a spade single suiter and unspecified shortness, and I happen to play this in most of my partnerships.

[CSGibson]

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

Out of curiousity, what tool do you have to do that? Texas and then 5♣? I just don't have something like that in my bidding system, but it sounds like it might be useful...

2♥, 4♣ is standard. A growing trend is to play that 2♥, 3♥ in this auction shows a spade single suiter and unspecified shortness, and I happen to play this in most of my partnerships.

Does this mean that 2♥-4♦ and 2♥-4♥ are also self splinters when using this treatment? (this treatment being, of course, the 2♥,4♣ sequence)

[cherdano]

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

Out of curiousity, what tool do you have to do that? Texas and then 5♣? I just don't have something like that in my bidding system, but it sounds like it might be useful...

2♥, 4♣ is standard. A growing trend is to play that 2♥, 3♥ in this auction shows a spade single suiter and unspecified shortness, and I happen to play this in most of my partnerships.

Does this mean that 2♥-4♦ and 2♥-4♥ are also self splinters when using this treatment? (this treatment being, of course, the 2♥,4♣ sequence)

Yes.

[cherdano]

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

That's the obvious start, the question remains what to do after partner signs off. I would try again with 5♣.

[Codo]

I lack the imgination to bid anything but 2♥ 4 ♣ (Leaving aside some fancy treatments). And there is no way that I will pass partners 4 Spade bid.

 

Maybe I should, because I have no 5 Level safety opposite xx,QJx,KQx,AKQJx, but it is christmas, I don't belive in such a non fitting hand.

[Fluffy]

I might start with 3♠ on my system, but 2♥ followed by 4♣ looks like the best aproach.

[TimG]

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

[mtvesuvius]

I like 2♥ followed by 4♣... My second choice is 4♥ then 5♣, but why go a level higher?

[jdonn]

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

Luckily we have improved on the systems used in the old days, and now we can show a shortness along the way without taking up much more room.

[TimG]

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

Luckily we have improved on the systems used in the old days, and now we can show a shortness along the way without taking up much more room.

Usually lucky, no doubt. But maybe not if opener holds:

 

AQx

Txx

KQx

AJxx

[kaitlink]

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

Luckily we have improved on the systems used in the old days, and now we can show a shortness along the way without taking up much more room.

Usually lucky, no doubt. But maybe not if opener holds:

 

AQx

Txx

KQx

AJxx

I don't understand your point, though I am an intermediate player. Can you please explain, Tim?

[mtvesuvius]

I think he's talking about protecting the K♥...

[mtvesuvius]

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

Luckily we have improved on the systems used in the old days, and now we can show a shortness along the way without taking up much more room.

Usually lucky, no doubt. But maybe not if opener holds:

 

AQx

Txx

KQx

AJxx

I don't understand your point, though I am an intermediate player. Can you please explain, Tim?

btw... Welcome to the forums :P

[kaitlink]

Yes I see that, but isn't this an argument for why transferring is better? It's just on this one hand that we need to protect our K, but usually, it is more likely that the strong NT opener needs to protect some holding.

[TimG]

Yes I see that, but isn't this an argument for why transferring is better? It's just on this one hand that we need to protect our K, but usually, it is more likely that the strong NT opener needs to protect some holding.

Yes, usually it is more important to protect opener's holdings.

 

But, I think the advantages of transfers lie more in the ability to bundle more hands into a single call -- in this case you can use 2H to show either a weak hand with spades or a variety of stronger hands. In the old days, 2S just showed the weak hand with spades and another bid (3S) was needed to show stronger hands. The modern methods are undoubtedly more efficient.

[jdonn]

Yes I see that, but isn't this an argument for why transferring is better? It's just on this one hand that we need to protect our K, but usually, it is more likely that the strong NT opener needs to protect some holding.

Yes, usually it is more important to protect opener's holdings.

 

But, I think the advantages of transfers lie more in the ability to bundle more hands into a single call -- in this case you can use 2H to show either a weak hand with spades or a variety of stronger hands. In the old days, 2S just showed the weak hand with spades and another bid (3S) was needed to show stronger hands. The modern methods are undoubtedly more efficient.

So transfers are more efficient, and it's more likely opener should declare. So what was your point to begin with, other than to show your advancing age. :P

[Winstonm]

I voted for transfer and then 3D. Although in slam try range, we need to find out if we have fitting hands. I believe it important to bid the suits for that reason.

 

The worst response over 3D would be 3N. Over this I can continue with 4H or simply make a general slam try of 5S.

 

I prefer the 5S bid as that indicates that controls in clubs and hearts are not critical, and hence the problems must be in the two bid suits.

 

Edit: Also, unless 4C would show definite shortness, I would avoid it to prevent partner from overvaluating K or KQ in clubs.

[MFA]

I voted for transfer and then 3D.  Although in slam try range, we need to find out if we have fitting hands.  I believe it important to bid the suits for that reason.

 

The worst response over 3D would be 3N.  Over this I can continue with 4H or simply make a general slam try of 5S. 

 

I prefer the 5S bid as that indicates that controls in clubs and hearts are not critical, and hence the problems must be in the two bid suits.

 

Edit: Also, unless 4C would show definite shortness, I would avoid it to prevent partner from overvaluating K or KQ in clubs.

Perhaps Jacoby + 3D + 5C (over 3NT)?

It is a 'void', but is it also 'wood'?

[Winstonm]

I voted for transfer and then 3D.  Although in slam try range, we need to find out if we have fitting hands.  I believe it important to bid the suits for that reason.

 

The worst response over 3D would be 3N.  Over this I can continue with 4H or simply make a general slam try of 5S. 

 

I prefer the 5S bid as that indicates that controls in clubs and hearts are not critical, and hence the problems must be in the two bid suits.

 

Edit: Also, unless 4C would show definite shortness, I would avoid it to prevent partner from overvaluating K or KQ in clubs.

Perhaps Jacoby + 3D + 5C (over 3NT)?

It is a 'void', but is it also 'wood'?

Problem is that 5C may be better used as Exclusion, don't you think?

 

I am out of the loop as far as playing, but unless there has been significant improvements in bidding in the past couple years it is still hard to get to these types of grand slams - so I am still simply trying to bid the small slam when I should and avoid it when it isn't a good bet.

 

When you bid 2H, 3D, 5S you effectively eliminate clubs and hearts as problem holdings. The question then for partner to ask is why couldn't you take over and make an ace-asking bid? Why 5S? The answer to that question is that slam needs more information than simply aces. Reason then implies that fits within the bid suits must be the problem.

 

As a BTW, a hand such as Qx, Qxx, KQx, AKJxx probably could not avoid slam in the suggested auction by understanding that AKJ has to be across from shortness if partner has clubs and hearts both controlled - after all, heart King could be Ace.

 

And I don't worry about that hand. There are worse bridge sins than getting to slam off two cashing aces - and holding out for perfection in bidding is a losing cause.

[MFA]

I'm not so sure it makes sense to have this 5♣ bid as exclusion.

What hand decides to show the diamond suit, gets the worst possible reply, and then figures that slam is all about aces outside clubs (with spades as trumps)? Hmm.

 

Anyway, I would certainly not bid like this unless I knew for sure that partner would be on the same wavelength.

 

5♠ makes sense but showing the void, if possible, would be a tad better.

[Winstonm]

I'm not so sure it makes sense to have this 5♣ bid as exclusion.

What hand decides to show the diamond suit, gets the worst possible reply, and then figures that slam is all about aces outside clubs (with spades as trumps)? Hmm.

 

Anyway, I would certainly not bid like this unless I knew for sure that partner would be on the same wavelength.

 

5♠ makes sense but showing the void, if possible, would be a tad better.

Probably so. I am convincable with a reasoned argument. And your is such.

 

Of course, just to toss a monkey into the mix, I could transfer, bid 3D, exclude and then bid 5N pick a slam. :P