easy

[bluecalm]

My preference is to double but I think it's close and 1♥ certainly ok.

Not much to say about it. It's good if partner knows what to expect.

[JLOGIC]

On the other end of the spectrum I'd overcall 1♥ with

 

KJ

AQJxxx

KJx

Kx

 

or so.

What? That is absurd. I don't even understand the point of this, just to miss a game sometimes? Or to have to overbid later in the auction in order to catch up, and get too high opposite a zero count?

 

And if partner bids 1NT I would bid 2H, we can always get back to 3NT later.

 

I've seen some good arguments that this should be NF and weak. I definitely think 2 of a minor should be non forcing fwiw.

[aguahombre]

On the other end of the spectrum I'd overcall 1♥ with

 

KJ

AQJxxx

KJx

Kx

 

or so.

What? That is absurd. I don't even understand the point of this, just to miss a game sometimes? Or to have to overbid later in the auction in order to catch up, and get too high opposite a zero count?

 

That one is beyond almost everyone's maximum....even Woolsey's, I think. I have seen him advocate some awsome 2-level overcalls, though.

[gwnn]

What? That is absurd. I don't even understand the point of this, just to miss a game sometimes? Or to have to overbid later in the auction in order to catch up, and get too high opposite a zero count?

That sounds a little bit of an overreaction, I changed QJx to KJx and it went from a good maximum 1♥ to a hand where 1♥ is absurd and incomprehensible? I guess I would also double there but maybe not with Kxx in diamonds, I am not sure about it, I don't have a good rule/scientific method of sorting them out. Would you still have been so disgusted if my example hand was with Kxx of diamonds? Just wondering (I know that QJx to KJx or even Kxx is a big upgrade; in both cases we usually take 1 more trick and they will get a ruff much less often - but still)

[Phil]

And if partner bids 1NT I would bid 2H, we can always get back to 3NT later.

 

I've seen some good arguments that this should be NF and weak. I definitely think 2 of a minor should be non forcing fwiw.

I thought this was standard?

[Rodney26]

And if partner bids 1NT I would bid 2H, we can always get back to 3NT later.

 

I've seen some good arguments that this should be NF and weak. I definitely think 2 of a minor should be non forcing fwiw.

He's probably suggesting starting with a double and bidding 2♥, although you probably recognize that and are suggesting methods where weak takeout should be able to pick a major over 1NT might make sense.

 

He is right that 1♥ followed by 1NT, as I suggested, is ridiculous. The hand is too good. I posted too quickly.

 

I like driving the hand to NT regardless of the sixth heart when partner bids NT. Losing four tricks to a diamond stiff and two aces on your right seems way too likely. I'm not sure what han wants to hear from partner to want to play 4♥ over 3NT. Whether I start with x or 1♥, 3NT is my call over 1NT in both cases.

[Phil]

He's probably suggesting starting with a double and bidding 2♥, although you probably recognize that and are suggesting methods where weak takeout should be able to pick a major over 1NT might make sense.

No, if I'm 4-4 in the majors I will sit for 1N usually. But you are correct I was referring to x - p - 1N - p - 2♥.

 

I'm inferring Han is as well.

[JLOGIC]

That sounds a little bit of an overreaction, I changed QJx to KJx and it went from a good maximum 1♥ to a hand where 1♥ is absurd and incomprehensible?

It's really not, you made the hand much more than 1 point better than the previous hand (surely you see that KJx is not only 1 more HCP than QJx, but with RHO opening 1D it is often 2 tricks instead of 1, 2 stoppers instead of 1, and something that is not as likely to get ruffed out by LHO in 4H if they have xx and RHO has the other 2 honors etc etc).

 

Lets say you made the hand 1.75 points stronger in playing strength. That is the equivalent of going from opening 1N with a good 17 to an average 19 or something. The first is whatever, the 2nd is really bad.

 

Kxx vs QJx you have not changed the point count at all, you have just made the hand have better points, in that case it would be enough for me to double but no it's not really that much of a change.

 

I have never really understood the argument of "if I only add one point to a hand, how can your opinion change so much about it?" one point is a lot, everything is based on points and one point always changes things. In this case though you are really not appreciating the difference of KJx vs QJx in RHOs suit imo, it is much more than one point.

[hanp]

And if partner bids 1NT I would bid 2H, we can always get back to 3NT later.

 

I've seen some good arguments that this should be NF and weak. I definitely think 2 of a minor should be non forcing fwiw.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that and I don't play that with anybody but I liked the arguments!

[JLOGIC]

And if partner bids 1NT I would bid 2H, we can always get back to 3NT later.

 

I've seen some good arguments that this should be NF and weak. I definitely think 2 of a minor should be non forcing fwiw.

He's probably suggesting starting with a double and bidding 2♥, although you probably recognize that and are suggesting methods where weak takeout should be able to pick a major over 1NT might make sense.

 

He is right that 1♥ followed by 1NT, as I suggested, is ridiculous. The hand is too good. I posted too quickly.

 

I like driving the hand to NT regardless of the sixth heart when partner bids NT. Losing four tricks to a diamond stiff and two aces on your right seems way too likely. I'm not sure what han wants to hear from partner to want to play 4♥ over 3NT. Whether I start with x or 1♥, 3NT is my call over 1NT in both cases.

Since a double + suit is a game force opposite a 1N bid (as it shows values), you really don't need all the room you have on:

 

(1D) X p 1N

p 2H

 

It is a little better on slam hands (unlikely though), and a little better on choice of games hands (but marginal) than cuebidding and bidding hearts or jumping to 3H.

 

Since you "know" 1N is the wrong spot if you have a 4504 10 count, you might play that 2H shows that.

 

I almost always overcall 1M with 5 though, so I don't think the treatment is that useful. However I think

 

1D X p 1N

p 2C

 

or

 

1S X p 1N

p 2C

 

as non forcing is very useful, since I will frequently double with bad/min hands and spade voids and 5 card minors. Heck I might even have 1345 and want to bail out of 1N, I know my partner probably fits a minor somewhere since he usually doesn't have 4 hearts (yeah he may be 5332, oh well, 2C still could be better).

 

So there I think you gain a lot of utility from playing 2 of a minor as non forcing.

[hanp]

And if partner bids 1NT I would bid 2H, we can always get back to 3NT later.

 

I've seen some good arguments that this should be NF and weak. I definitely think 2 of a minor should be non forcing fwiw.

I thought this was standard?

You are right, I forgot that Audrey Grant just included it into her new book.

[bluecalm]

And if partner bids 1NT I would bid 2H, we can always get back to 3NT later.

 

I thought this was standard?

 

Just to clarify, you guys are talking about:

 

1m - X - pass - 1NT

pass 2♥

 

right ?

 

If yes I think it's matter of agreements. Where I play people don't play ELC at all so this is strong and GF but I saw some awesome players bidding 3♥ her with quite average 16's. I guess 2♥ would be 5H-4S for them and weakish.

My guess about standard is that it's not standard though :P

[hanp]

I was going to post that equal level conversion has nothing to do with it, but of course it does. After all, all bridge conventions form one big loving family.

[Rodney26]

He's probably suggesting starting with a double and bidding 2♥, although you probably recognize that and are suggesting methods where weak takeout should be able to pick a major over 1NT might make sense.

No, if I'm 4-4 in the majors I will sit for 1N usually. But you are correct I was referring to x - p - 1N - p - 2♥.

 

I'm inferring Han is as well.

I don't think 4-4's would ever bid on Phil. 1NT should steer us away from that. Something like:

 

♠AK74

♥T87532

♦9

♣A4

 

I'm guessing there are pairs that want to play 2H after 1NT by advancer as showing something like this, and 3H shows the moose and is forcing. Others might opt for different stylistic approaches (such as 1♥ to start).

 

I think Justin's post makes a lot of sense (as pretty much always).

[bluecalm]

I was going to post that equal level conversion has nothing to do with it, but of course it does. After all, all bridge conventions form one big loving family.

 

Haha, right. It's not "equal level" afterall and but the idea is similar enough I think :)

[Phil]

He's probably suggesting starting with a double and bidding 2♥, although you probably recognize that and are suggesting methods where weak takeout should be able to pick a major over 1NT might make sense.

No, if I'm 4-4 in the majors I will sit for 1N usually. But you are correct I was referring to x - p - 1N - p - 2♥.

 

I'm inferring Han is as well.

I don't think 4-4's would ever bid on Phil. 1NT should steer us away from that. Something like:

 

♠AK74

♥T87532

♦9

♣A4

 

I'm guessing there are pairs that want to play 2H after 1NT by advancer as showing something like this, and 3H shows the moose and is forcing. Others might opt for different stylistic approaches (such as 1♥ to start).

 

I think Justin's post makes a lot of sense (as pretty much always).

Never really thought of bidding one suit as takeout for two but whatever floats ya boat.

[hanp]

I would never double with a minimal hand and 6 hearts. But the suggestion made me smile.