(1N) ?

[jillybean]

NV, MP, you hold

 

84, AK632, 86, AQ93

 

(1N) ?

[wank]

NV, MP, you hold

 

84, AK632, 86, AQ93

 

(1N) ?

 

assuming 2C shows 5M4m i don't see the point in not using it. if the minor could be longer I'd bid 2H, lest we miss a game.

[menggq]

It's depend on what's convention u play.CAPP? DONT?...u decide with yr pd.

[Phil]

Menngq - the description of the OPs system is in the poll choices.

 

If I don't bid 2♣ on a hand like this, what hand do I need?

[the hog]

I don't like the methods suggested, but if you have a bid to show a Major minor, I don't see the point in not using it.

[Fluffy]

2♣ is a long minor or a 2 suiter, it focuses on the minors and partner will often pass 2♣. It should focus on 4M-5m hands.

 

all NV you have to bid because 2♥ will outscore 1NT -2 if it makes and if it doesn't it probably also beats -90 and -120.

 

I'd bid 2♥ and be very happy about it.

[fromageGB]

Given the agreement is just "single suited or m+M" then I have to assume the major may be 4 cards in the two-suited option. In this case, I vote 2♥.

 

If the agreement was "a 5 card major and a 4+ card club suit" (much better, such as in the Vertigo convention which defines the major lengths), then of course I would bid 2♣. But if this was the case, the question would not have been asked.

[jillybean]

Given the agreement is just "single suited or m+M" then I have to assume the major may be 4 cards in the two-suited option. In this case, I vote 2♥.

 

If the agreement was "a 5 card major and a 4+ card club suit" (much better, such as in the Vertigo convention which defines the major lengths), then of course I would bid 2♣. But if this was the case, the question would not have been asked.

Read the question again :) "single suit minor or M+m" We will always have a 5 card major, often 5M5m, can be 5M4m.

 

It doesnt matter what you bid over 1N, as it turns out the only good bid is pass. I chose 2♥, I didn't want to be at the 3lvl in ♣'s. Here's the full hand.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt96h87dj5cj874&w=sj753ht9dk972ct65&n=sa2hqj54daqt43ck2&e=s84hak632d86caq93&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n2hdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The X (not alerted) turned out to be "stolen bid" -3

[TylerE]

On hands like this with 3-4 defensive quick tricks, I'm a big fan of sitting back and seeing if they'll bid 3N.

[fromageGB]

... We will always have a 5 card major, often 5M5m, can be 5M4m.

 

It doesnt matter what you bid over 1N, as it turns out the only good bid is pass. I chose 2♥, I didn't want to be at the 3lvl in ♣'s ...

On the other hand, if that is your method (I assume when you say "M" you mean any major and when you say "m" you mean clubs, as that is the suit you bid) why did you not bid 2♣? Partner will pass, and the contract is a reasonable one.

 

This is how I play the overcall as well, and this is where the convention wins hands down over many others : you can play in 2m. Give partner a third heart, and of course he will bid 2♥ for pass or correct.

[paulg]

Read the question again :) "single suit minor or M+m" We will always have a 5 card major, often 5M5m, can be 5M4m.

 

It doesnt matter what you bid over 1N, as it turns out the only good bid is pass. I chose 2♥, I didn't want to be at the 3lvl in ♣'s. Here's the full hand.

A system suggestion. Given that you are not comfortable bidding 2♣ on this hand, perhaps it would be better to depreciate the 5M4m option and restrict it to 5M5m as this might enable partner to compete more effectively when he has both minors.

[jillybean]

On the other hand, if that is your method (I assume when you say "M" you mean any major and when you say "m" you mean clubs, as that is the suit you bid) why did you not bid 2♣? Partner will pass, and the contract is a reasonable one.

 

This is how I play the overcall as well, and this is where the convention wins hands down over many others : you can play in 2m. Give partner a third heart, and of course he will bid 2♥ for pass or correct.

 

We don't play it that way.

2♣ is a relay to 2♦ showing a single suit minor or a major + minor, we can't play in ♣'s below the 3 level.

2♦ majors

2♥/♠ = hearts/spades.

[jillybean]

A system suggestion. Given that you are not comfortable bidding 2♣ on this hand, perhaps it would be better to depreciate the 5M4m option and restrict it to 5M5m as this might enable partner to compete more effectively when he has both minors.

Good suggestion, thanks. I'm not 100% happy with the way we are playing this.

[1eyedjack]

To my mind the point of interest that this thread poses is what sort of hands should you be passing rather than competing.

If you had (say) a mechanism to show precisely a 13-count 2-5-2-4 hand by the level of 2H, then you probably stand to gain in the long term by using that mechanism when it comes up even if occasionally you get slapped for a double. Certainly, if you do not have such a mechanism, or to be more precise if your available mechanism is less well defined, then your expected gain may be expected to be reduced. For this purpose I am disregarding the fact that devoting a method to show this hand eats into space available to describe other, and higher priority, hand types.

 

But "probably stand to gain" is a matter of speculation on my part. It is also possible that if you did a simulation (I have not), of a thousand hands where you have a 13-count 2-5-2-4 over a 1N opener, the conclusion MIGHT show that, in the long term, passing over 1NT is the winning option. What, after all, does it profit you to have method to describe your hand perfectly if the conclusion from that description is that you should be defending 1NT?

 

It is a number-crunching problem, and it probably depends on the strength of the 1N opener. I lack the ability to run sims of this nature but it would be a service if someone did one to show the boundary at which competing is borderline. Only with the knowledge of that borderline profile of hands can you seriously design the best method of showing those hands on which it is sensible to compete.

[fromageGB]

But "probably stand to gain" is a matter of speculation on my part. It is also possible that if you did a simulation (I have not), of a thousand hands where you have a 13-count 2-5-2-4 over a 1N opener, the conclusion MIGHT show that, in the long term, passing over 1NT is the winning option.

This is an excellent point, and I too would welcome someone's numerical analsyis, if such a thing is possible.

 

The methods I use do not show a hand as precisely as 2524, but having 2♣ to show (x5)x4+, and 2♦ to show (x5)4+x (5 card unspecified major and at least 4 of the given minor) have proved perceptually beneficial, with (x4)(x5+) being shown by a double. ( We accept loss of the double as the cost of being able to distinguish between 4 and 5 card majors.) In both cases, you often play in 2 of the minor when the major is not fitting.

 

This is the really important distinction in my view. If you have a 2-suited bid, partner needs to know whether the major is 4 or 5 card. And resolution at the 3 level is too high, as 2m is often good where 3m would be bad.

 

Another factor, though, that must be taken into account as well as the purely mercenary cost-beneit analysis, is the fun you have in playing such a defence !

[tolvyrj]

Ok, first what ever u dont pass. This hand is way too good for that.

So u got hammered this time, so what; so did everybody else. Dont

try to invent convention to a certain case, but a such that is most profitable in a long run. This is a precentage game B-) .

My choice for Nt defence is DONT, its simple and effective and can be used many times when they start with 1NT.