intervening 1nt bid

[jillybean]

We have Lebensohl when the opps get into our NT auction but how about when the opps interfere with 1nt in our auction?

 

1♣ (1n) ?

 

We have the balance of the points and I want to compete to a major partscore.

Do you play 2x is competitive and how do you play X here?

[pooltuna]

We have Lebensohl when the opps get into our NT auction but how about when the opps interfere with 1nt in our auction?

 

1♣ (1n) ?

 

We have the balance of the points and I want to compete to a major partscore.

Do you play 2x is competitive and how do you play X here?

generally X is penalty, and any suit call is non forcing and non invitational, 2NT is a qbid

[blackshoe]

2NT is a qbid

Sloppy terminology, IMO. By definition, a cuebid is "a bid in opponents' suit". Notrump is not a suit. The real question, though, is "what does it mean?" Truscott (The Bidding Dictionary) suggests "A freakish hand, probably a two suiter, with game interest or better", and defines it as forcing to game, and containing 10+ HCP, possibly 9. Is that how you would understand it?

 

As to X and new suits, yes, penalty and weak (usually a six card suit, I would think).

 

It's also possible to play your favorite defense to 1NT here, with the caveat that showing a two suiter including opener's suit can be done with appropriate support (3 cards opposite a major) in that suit. Just make sure you and partner are on the same page.

[quiddity]

With the balance of the points (around 10+) I would usually double first to let partner know. The opponents will often scramble to some 2-level contract and you have to have agreements about whether subsequent doubles by your side are takeout or penalty, and whether passes are forcing and through what level.

 

In the specific auction 1m (1N) it might be useful to play that 2 of the other minor shows both majors.

[gnasher]

1x (1NT) 2NT is more useful as a high-card raise than as the traditional meaning of a strong two-suiter.

[nigel_k]

Definitely double for penalties even with a bit less than 10 HCP.

 

Standard is that suit bids are nonforcing but I think you need some artificiality here because there are many hands where you want to compete but don't have a suit that you are happy to introduce at the two level when partner might not have any and opponents are know to have values.

 

I just play that 2♣ is two places to play - any two suiter or one suit with some help in partner's suit. Partner's next bid is correctable. Then you have a bit more safety on many common hand types and lose only the ability to play clubs if they would have let you.

[aguahombre]

2NT is a qbid

Sloppy terminology, IMO. By definition, a cuebid is "a bid in opponents' suit". Notrump is not a suit.

I can live with sloppy. When I want to show a damned good raise, and all the opposition has bid is a natural NT, then all I have to "cue" is NT. Call it what you want.

[JLOGIC]

I play with one partner that 2N is limit+ 4+ trumps or some extreme 2 suiter. I'm not sure how this is playable. In practice we always have the limit + hand, but if we correct partners major to another suit I think we show a 2 suiter. Probably we should just give up on the extreme 2 suiter option since we don't even bother to have special responses over this (too much memory work for a hand type that never occurs).

[blackshoe]

The problem comes in looking at whether the 2NT bid requires an alert. Depends on the jurisdiction, of course, but I think it does in the ACBL. And then when it's explained, I would say "shows a limit raise or better and at least four cards in partner's suit" rather than just "cuebid". Not alerting because "cuebids are not alertable" is also a bad idea imo. :(

[Free]

After 1m-(1NT) I play:

Dbl = penalty

2m = nat

2Om = both Majors

2M = nat

 

Showing the Om rarely pays off, showing both Majors is way more useful.

[Cascade]

Does anyone play double not for penalties?

 

I have often wondered about this. Since double often allows them to run to a safe place that they might not have been able to get to undoubled and when they have a strong no trump it is relatively rare that we have a game that we need to protect.

 

I don't recall being able to double often and when i have i haven't had that many lucrative penalties.

[gwnn]

2♣ both majors

2♦ one major, about 8 points

2M one major, less than 8 points

 

it may make sense to revert 2♦ and 2M.

 

over 1M-(1NT)-?

2♣ both majors, could be 52(most common), 53 or 63

2♦ good 3 card raise of partner's major

2oM,2M=normal meaning, not too strong.

[jillybean]

How about this, you simply treat the auction as if your partner opened 1nt

 

1♣ (1N) 2♦ is a transfer to ♥'s and so on.

[aguahombre]

i don't think so

[jillybean]

Why not? Partner simply passes the transfer with a weak hand, or bids again with an invitational hand, the stronger hand is playing and the 1nt overcaller is on lead.

And easy on the brain cells :)

[nigel_k]

You aren't going to transfer and bid again very often because you would double with those hands. So you are losing when you wanted to bid 2♦ to play or when they benefit from their extra chance to call, and also when someone forgets. You are gaining when it's better to play the major suit contract by opener or when you use the 2♠ bid for something else.

 

It's not that clear which is better but I wouldn't do it.

[jdonn]

Jilly it's not a bad idea but the "invitational hand" will usually want to double 1NT anyway, especially with a long suit to lead. So I don't think you are gaining much, and meanwhile you lose the chance to bid one of the minors (or use one of the minor suit bids to show the majors, or both) so I wouldn't do it.

[hanp]

Transfers are a bad idea in my opinion. You lose one bid and you give them the option to double. I don't think 2H = hearts is particularly hard to remember, so why play something that is artificial and worse?

 

After 1m - (1NT) I think it is better to use 2C as majors, and I would play 2D as natural. After 1M - (1NT) I prefer to use both 2C and 2D as natural.

[jillybean]

Ok :)

[mikeh]

One common treatment, at least out here on the westcoast of Canada....where kathryn is....is to use a 'raise' of opener's minor as showing the majors, with less than a doubling hand.

 

The idea is that if we have a long enough minor fit that we want to play 2(opener's)minor even after the 1N bid, the odds are huge that 4th hand has either a 5 card major or a stayman hand. So we won't usually be playing 2opener's minor when it is 'right' for us to do so. Thus 2 of that minor is weak, both majors.

 

We used to call it Kokish, but I played it against Eric many years ago and he didn't recognize it...and claimed it wasn't his idea.

 

With another partner, currently, we play DONT over their notrump overcalls....the double for a one suiter promises some values so we can pass....we do give up the 'gotcha' double and this is non-trivial....years ago in a team game, playing penalty doubles, we went +1400 and -1400 on back to back boards against two contenders for the (then) McKenny trophy...first they overcalled 1N and then, not thinking lightning would strike twice, I did. Pushed both boards.

 

Bidding the suit below opener's suit shows primarily the bid suit, but tolerance for opener.

 

It has come up rarely so can't really say how effective it is.

[hanp]

The idea is that if we have a long enough minor fit that we want to play 2(opener's)minor even after the 1N bid, the odds are huge that 4th hand has either a 5 card major or a stayman hand. So we won't usually be playing 2opener's minor when it is 'right' for us to do so. Thus 2 of that minor is weak, both majors.

Say the auction went 1D - (1NT) - ..

 

Why does this theory apply to diamonds but not to clubs? Bidding 2C for the majors has the advantage that you are more likely to find your best fit when you are 5-4. 2D natural has the disadvantage that they were opened by the opponents, but the advantage that partner has something in diamonds.

 

I'd say 2C for the majors is better, it's also more natural to me since I play Stayman. And Landy.