bid_em_up Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 [hv=d=e&v=e&s=sjxxhaqxdkq10xcjxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP(p) 1♦ (1♠) X (p) ?[/hv] You are South and your RHO passes in 1st seat. Do you open this hand? Now that you have (if you wouldn't open it, pretend you are filling in for someone who did), which "lie" do you pick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I have always found, despite it's weirdness, rebidding the ♣ suit usually works best here. However I can "pretend" Jxx is a stopper. 1NT for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 1NT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 1NT, we want to protect the jack against the lead. Do you open this hand? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Do you open this hand? LOL Not if we are playing Roth-Stone ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 1NT, doesn't show a stopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 We had similar hands before, simply bid 1 NT, this show shape and strength. No need to stop anything in 1 NT. They are allow to take 5 spade tricks and one from another suit. When partner has higher goals and needs a stopper, he may ask with 2 Spade. You can deny and later show half of a stopper after his 3 Spade bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 1NT. There's no other good action, and besides -- putting overcaller on lead will be great if partner has anything in the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Absolutely unanimous 1NT. I've already been wordy, this problem was built for 3 letter answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 It's interesting how this type of problem crops up over and over again, sometimes at the 1-level and sometimes at the 2-level. It seems that once you can get past the "I need a stopper to bid NT" issue, you will find these problems much easier to tackle. Also think about how much more descriptive your other bids become if you, guess what, rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Dont know, but I think, I would go with Pass. And of course I open. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted February 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 It seems that once you can get past the "I need a stopper to bid NT" issue, you will find these problems much easier to tackle. Also think about how much more descriptive your other bids become if you, guess what, rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand. Oh, I had no problem rebidding 1N....for which I was promptly criticized. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I don't know about the expert opinion but I accept bidding 1NT with this hand but no 2NT (as in a recent problem). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I don't know about the expert opinion but I accept bidding 1NT with this hand but no 2NT (as in a recent problem). Yeah, I think as presented 1NT is going to be a landslide winner. I expect you would get some difference of opinion if the overcall had been 2♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 It's interesting how this type of problem crops up over and over again, sometimes at the 1-level and sometimes at the 2-level. It seems that once you can get past the "I need a stopper to bid NT" issue, you will find these problems much easier to tackle. Also think about how much more descriptive your other bids become if you, guess what, rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand. While this certainly solves the problem in terms of not having to think about it any more, it is not all that clear to me that it solves the problem of reaching the best contract... Don't you occasionally play 3nt with the suit opponents bid wide open, and lose the first five or six tricks? Or is that an acceptable outcome for the joy of being able to "rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand"? Of course, it seems reasonable for partner to check back somehow for a stopper if you routinely bid notrump without one. But in practice I don't think I have ever seen anyone make a stopper ask in an auction like this one, where the opponents have bid only one suit and partner has rebid notrump voluntarily. Anyway, on this hand the ♠Jxx seems good enough to me and I'll go with the crowd and bid notrump. Someone has to bid notrump first if partner has singleton king or Qx or something like that. But I expect a frequent bad result here if partner's spade holding is weak. If my spades were three small I think I'd try 2♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 It's interesting how this type of problem crops up over and over again, sometimes at the 1-level and sometimes at the 2-level. It seems that once you can get past the "I need a stopper to bid NT" issue, you will find these problems much easier to tackle. Also think about how much more descriptive your other bids become if you, guess what, rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand. While this certainly solves the problem in terms of not having to think about it any more, it is not all that clear to me that it solves the problem of reaching the best contract... Don't you occasionally play 3nt with the suit opponents bid wide open, and lose the first five or six tricks? Or is that an acceptable outcome for the joy of being able to "rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand"? Of course, it seems reasonable for partner to check back somehow for a stopper if you routinely bid notrump without one. But in practice I don't think I have ever seen anyone make a stopper ask in an auction like this one, where the opponents have bid only one suit and partner has rebid notrump voluntarily. Anyway, on this hand the ♠Jxx seems good enough to me and I'll go with the crowd and bid notrump. Someone has to bid notrump first if partner has singleton king or Qx or something like that. But I expect a frequent bad result here if partner's spade holding is weak. If my spades were three small I think I'd try 2♣. First off, I guess I need you to define "voluntarily"! I mean we are responding to partner's double. By your definition, any bid we we make in NT is "voluntarily" so I don't understand why the adjective is being used. Secondly, I guess if your partner has never made a stopper ask on this auction, then I feel bad for you. I'm not saying this auction crops up often, just that I would think it would be completely natural to ask for one if the hand was suitable. If the hand is balanced itself, then perhaps there is no better contract and you may get a half stopper out of partner. My main point is that you can take one of two tacks. You can rebid 1NT on these hands and either misdescribe your hand in terms of having a stopper or discuss with your partner that on these types of auctions you may not have a stopper (and obviously opponents as well if they ask, as I do not believe this to be alertable). OR, you can choose to only ever bid NT with a stopper and be forced to have your other bids be less descriptive. I certainly know where I stand on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Of course, it seems reasonable for partner to check back somehow for a stopper if you routinely bid notrump without one. But in practice I don't think I have ever seen anyone make a stopper ask in an auction like this one, where the opponents have bid only one suit and partner has rebid notrump voluntarily. I have seen it several times. Why wouldn't you do it? Even if you think people don't then that is the problem, the 1NT bid isn't the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted February 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 The funny part to this story (at least to me) is that the auction then proceeded: 1♦-(1♠)-X-(p)1N-(p)-2♠*-(p)3♥**-(p)-3N***-(p)p-(X)****- *Stop ask** Denies real stop, better hearts than clubs***Insane, imo****Sheer Idiocy At this point, the opponent holding AKQxx(x) of spades and the Ace of diamonds as an entry, doubles. I'm not sure if he had 5 spades or 6. The auction now continues: 5♦-(p)p-(X)***** *****Why did I double 3N? Partners hand:[hv=s=sxhkj9xdjxxxxcakx]133|100|[/hv] Making 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Making 5. So obviously 1NT worked fine? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 So you were criticized by the AKQxx(x) A holder, am I right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted February 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 So you were criticized by the AKQxx(x) A holder, am I right? Umm, no. By partner, who stated that 1N should show a full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 So you were criticized by the AKQxx(x) A holder, am I right? Umm, no. By partner, who stated that 1N should show a full stop. The same one that forgot he had a singleton spade and 5 card diamond support? That partner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 It's interesting how this type of problem crops up over and over again, sometimes at the 1-level and sometimes at the 2-level. It seems that once you can get past the "I need a stopper to bid NT" issue, you will find these problems much easier to tackle. Also think about how much more descriptive your other bids become if you, guess what, rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand. While this certainly solves the problem in terms of not having to think about it any more, it is not all that clear to me that it solves the problem of reaching the best contract... Don't you occasionally play 3nt with the suit opponents bid wide open, and lose the first five or six tricks? Or is that an acceptable outcome for the joy of being able to "rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand"? Of course, it seems reasonable for partner to check back somehow for a stopper if you routinely bid notrump without one. But in practice I don't think I have ever seen anyone make a stopper ask in an auction like this one, where the opponents have bid only one suit and partner has rebid notrump voluntarily. Anyway, on this hand the ♠Jxx seems good enough to me and I'll go with the crowd and bid notrump. Someone has to bid notrump first if partner has singleton king or Qx or something like that. But I expect a frequent bad result here if partner's spade holding is weak. If my spades were three small I think I'd try 2♣. I don't think 1NT is a be-all, end-all brilliant solution; I just think it's the best practical, least of evils bid...particularly as compared to making the first 2 bids in different suits (minors, no less) with a 4-3-3-3 hand. It's also mitigated (to the extent that it's problem) by: 1) The fact that you're only at the 1-level2) The fact that if you're at a higher level (e.g. 3NT), it will be because partner has more points, and thus a better chance of spade stopper(s)3) The possibility of later stopper-asks for those who chose to use them4) The fact that NT scores better, if we're playing pairs (i.e. even when one of the minors is safer, it may not be better on those hands where, say 2NT makes). I'm not totally dogmatic about it, but I think that on balance (particularly as 1-level overcalls get lighter and lighter), letting the 1♠ bid push you away from a 1NT rebid on a balanced minimum causes more problems than it solves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted February 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 So you were criticized by the AKQxx(x) A holder, am I right? Umm, no. By partner, who stated that 1N should show a full stop. The same one that forgot he had a singleton spade and 5 card diamond support? That partner? Yup. One and the same. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.