AKJ7632

[jillybean]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sakj7632h98d652c8]133|100|Scoring: MP

(1♦) 1N (2♥) ?[/hv]

 

Your bid, and do you play Leb in these auctions?

[cherdanno]

I bid 4♠, or 4♥ if you play texas transfers in this situation.

[MFA]

I play 4♣ for ♥ and 4♦ for ♠ always as long as it's a jump.

[Cascade]

4♠

 

Transfers would be good with this hand provided you have agreed to play them.

 

I would expect to play Lebensohl on this auction if you play Lebensohl after opening 1NT.

[Fluffy]

lebenshol is on here.

 

its MPs so worse you can get is a bottom, I'd risk 4♥ even without agreements, we desperatelly want partner to declare.

[jdonn]

Yes texas is on for me here and this hand is a perfect example of one of the reasons to use it (or 2-under transfers), it's crucial for partner to declare on this hand.

[jillybean]

[hv=d=w&n=sq8hkt7daqj8cqt74&w=s94ha32dk974cak32&e=st5hqj654dt3cj965&s=sakj7632h98d652c8]399|300|[/hv]

 

Here's the full hand, we didn't get to 4♠ but we will next time.

[the hog]

4♠

 

Transfers would be good with this hand provided you have agreed to play them.

 

I would expect to play Lebensohl on this auction if you play Lebensohl after opening 1NT.

Agree with Wayne.

[hanp]

Agree with transfer to 4S.

[OleBerg]

Leb definitely on.

 

I would probably transfer to 4♠, if I had the option.

 

I do find, however, that the importance of partner declaring is highly overrated:

 

Yes, they might lead through the strength at trick 1, but often there will be nothing behind partners tenaces (If she has any). And whenever a diamond ruff is looming, it will be much more obvious to find, with RHO on lead.

 

Change a small diamond to the ♦J, and I "hog" the hand, thereby also protecting our most vulnerable suit from being punched through. Change it to the ♦Q, and I would consider it an obvious mistake to transfer.

 

Had RHO passed over 1NT, these arguments would apply even stronger, and in addition LHO might have a serious quandry on the lead.

[gwnn]

That's an awful 1NT bid whichever way you look at it. But I can't argue with success :)

 

I don't even bid 1NT on all 15 counts let alone perfectly mediocre 14's. Of course it's not like passing will lead us to Nirvana but it will keep us safe.

[aguahombre]

nonsense deleted

 

Even a bean counter like me would overcall 1NT with the north hand.

[pooltuna]

nonsense deleted

 

Even a bean counter like me would overcall 1NT with the north hand.

yeah if you think not bidding is going to keep you out of ♠s personally I agree with gwnn ( just lets you know you are in big trouble Csaba)

[gwnn]

S will always bid spades with that hand. If you are a bean counter Aguahombre why do you bid 1NT vulnerable at matchpoints on a random 14 count?

[aguahombre]

deterministic, not random. I learned that a while back. Then I saw the diamond bid on my right and figured it was better than a deterministic takeout double.

[OleBerg]

deterministic, not random. I learned that a while back. Then I saw the diamond bid on my right and figured it was better than a deterministic takeout double.

Indeed. Apart from adding a few stray pips, it is difficult to imagine a better hand for a 1nt-on-14hcp overcall.

[gwnn]

xx

KJx

AQxxxx

Ax

[gnasher]

We don't have to change the shape or add any pips - just put the high cards where they'll be more useful. Q8 KT7 AQ84 QJT7 is already better than the original hand (which isn't even close to an upgrade IMO).

 

Make it 8x KQ10 AQ84 QJ107 and an upgrade starts looking possible (though I still wouldn't).

[OleBerg]

We don't have to change the shape or add any pips - just put the high cards where they'll be more useful. Q8 KT7 AQ84 QJT7 is already better than the original hand (which isn't even close to an upgrade IMO).

 

Make it 8x KQ10 AQ84 QJ107 and an upgrade starts looking possible (though I still wouldn't).

Maybe I am not as imaginative as I thought. :(

 

Anyway, if my policy was to overcall on good 14-counts, the hand would quailfy without second thought.

[kenrexford]

4♥

[gwnn]

deterministic, not random. I learned that a while back. Then I saw the diamond bid on my right and figured it was better than a deterministic takeout double.

Is this a joke or what is it? The word 'random' exists and is quite the opposite to 'deterministic'. In the thread you allude to hrothgar said about a method where you overcall a strong club according to a well disclosed procedure (I.e. not random).

[aguahombre]

Yes it was a joke. But I doubt that seeing a call from righty, then attempting --rightly or wrongly -- to convey information with an overcall is random use of that overcall. You might not agree with the NT overcall, but it aint even close to random.

[Cyberyeti]

We don't have to change the shape or add any pips - just put the high cards where they'll be more useful. Q8 KT7 AQ84 QJT7 is already better than the original hand (which isn't even close to an upgrade IMO).

 

Make it 8x KQ10 AQ84 QJ107 and an upgrade starts looking possible (though I still wouldn't).

I completely disagree with your assessment of the hand, this is an easy 1N overcall if 15-17 or similar, the diamonds might almost as well be AKJx or AKQx, so this is a comfortable 15 with 2 10s as well.

 

I would bid 4S either directly or via a transfer if I had one available.

[gnasher]

I completely disagree with your assessment of the hand, this is an easy 1N overcall if 15-17 or similar, the diamonds might almost as well be AKJx or AKQx, so this is a comfortable 15 with 2 10s as well.

That seems to presuppose the availability of entries to take finesses.

 

In any case, AKQx in the suit bid on the right is hardly a good holding for offensive purposes. The function of high cards is to turn smaller cards into tricks; a high card that is just a trick isn't pulling it's weight.

[gwnn]

Yes it was a joke.  But I doubt that seeing a call from righty, then attempting --rightly or wrongly -- to convey information with an overcall is random use of that overcall.  You might not agree with the NT overcall, but it aint even close to random.

I didn't say the 1NT overcall was random. Neither did I say that bidding 1NT is random or conveying information with a 1NT overcall is random. When did I ever say anything like that?? I said, and I quote,

random 14 count

I said this hand is a random 14 count. You may not be familiar with this usage but 'random' is often used these days as a surrogate for 'nondescript'. The idea being that if you picked one hand out of all possible balanced 14 counts that have a heart stopper, the hand picked would likely be similar in strength to this one.