routine

[Apollo81]

vul vs not, mps

 

♠JTx

♥KT9x

♦xxx

♣JTx

 

(1♥)-Dbl-(p)-?

[Fluffy]

pick

[hanp]

1S.

[ahydra]

1NT and hope partner doesn't get too excited :)

 

ahydra

[JLOGIC]

1S obv

[Siegmund]

I voted 1S, but with KT9x in hearts the understrength 1NT isn't nearly as scary as it would be with a bare Kxxx.

[Phil]

1♠. About a Q light for 1N.

[awm]

1NT, not a problem for me since I play the 1NT bid as more like 6-10 than the 8-11 some people seem to prefer. The heart spots (and lack of appeal of bidding a three card suit on a flat hand) compensate easily for the one missing high card point.

 

Do people bidding 1♠ really think they will avoid being raised? Especially these days where 2♠ from opener doesn't show much extra, you can easily end playing a lot higher than you originally intended.

[peachy]

1S for me. 1NT shows about 9-10 or good 8.

[jdonn]

1♠

[jonottawa]

1N not a problem for me as I play it shows this exact hand.

 

But seriously, if clubs were QTx instead of JTx I'd make the 1N overbid, otherwise 1♠.

[Phil]

1NT, not a problem for me since I play the 1NT bid as more like 6-10 than the 8-11 some people seem to prefer.

It might be a problem if your partner doubles on a 4144 10 count and your RHO makes a tactical (systemic?) pass - or your LHO is loaded.

 

By the way, my partners do not automatically boost with 4 trump.

[Hanoi5]

1NT will get you in more trouble than 1♠, therefore 1♠.

[awm]

I suspect that vast majority of the time on this auction partner will have at least mild extras. This means the 1♠ bidders are playing 2♠... which do you think is better, 2♠ or 1NT?

 

Yes, if you give partner the worst possible hand construction then 1NT might already be "too high" but: (1) the opponents haven't doubled yet (2) 1NT probably plays better than 1♠ (3) partner can run from 1NTX to a five-card minor, and this might be better than playing 1♠ (which could even be a 3-3 fit)

[the hog]

I suspect that vast majority of the time on this auction partner will have at least mild extras.

Why?

 

1S for me.

[Phil]

I suspect that vast majority of the time on this auction partner will have at least mild extras. This means the 1♠ bidders are playing 2♠... which do you think is better, 2♠ or 1NT?

 

Yes, if you give partner the worst possible hand construction then 1NT might already be "too high" but: (1) the opponents haven't doubled yet (2) 1NT probably plays better than 1♠ (3) partner can run from 1NTX to a five-card minor, and this might be better than playing 1♠ (which could even be a 3-3 fit)

Hmm - seems odd partner won't raise a 6-10 1N call but he will raise a 0-7 1♠ call with these 'extras'.

[gnasher]

1NT, but I probably think it has a lower limit than most of the rest of you.

 

If I didn't bid 1NT I'd bid 2♣. 1♠ is far more likely to be raised than 2♣.

 

Hmm - seems odd partner won't raise a 6-10 1N call but he will raise a 0-7 1♠ call with these 'extras'.

What's odd about the idea that partner will pass 1NT but raise spades with Kxxx x AQxx AQxx?

[hanp]

If I didn't bid 1NT I'd bid 2♣. 1♠ is far more likely to be raised than 2♣.

If 1S is raised to 2S, you'll still be at the 2-level and at least you'll be in a 4-3 fit instead of a possible 3-2 fit. I don't see any advantage of 2C over 1S.

[Codo]

I 1 NT is 8+, 1 Spade is better.

 

I play 1 NT Gnasher style, so this one is easy for me.

[gnasher]

If 1S is raised to 2S, you'll still be at the 2-level and at least you'll be in a 4-3 fit instead of a possible 3-2 fit. I don't see any advantage of 2C over 1S.

I'm more concerned about being raised to the 3- or 4-level.

[Apollo81]

Isn't 2♣ also more likely to be passed out or doubled than 1♠/1NT? Both of those seem bad.

[jdonn]

If 1S is raised to 2S, you'll still be at the 2-level and at least you'll be in a 4-3 fit instead of a possible 3-2 fit. I don't see any advantage of 2C over 1S.

I'm more concerned about being raised to the 3- or 4-level.

On a hand where partner would pass 2♣?

[cherdanno]

I suspect that vast majority of the time on this auction partner will have at least mild extras. This means the 1♠ bidders are playing 2♠... which do you think is better, 2♠ or 1NT?

Partner isn't supposed to raise freely with just mild extras the way most of us play, I would think.

[awm]

The hands I am worried about are like 4144 or 41(35) 13-15. These are pretty common hands and might raise a 1♠ advance, especially if opener stuck a two-level call in the mix. They would not raise a 6-10 1NT call, given the apparent misfit and at best borderline game values.

 

Even 42(34) 14-15 seems like it might compete to 2♠ over openers 2m rebid, whereas it would pass 1NT.

 

It's true that hands in the 16-17 range are raising to 2NT, but these hands might well be 3♠ raises, especially if holding singleton heart.

[aguahombre]

I would have thought this was an easy policy thing. 1NT 8-10, therefore not available. That leaves 1S. Then comes Adam with great reasoning why the 1NT advance to the double should be lower, and I like it on this hand.

 

Almost makes me want to bid 1NT, despite our given range. But, it will make pard worry on other hands, so will stick to style.