First Call

[JLOGIC]

Althou you convinced me 1NT is better, I don't buy this argument, you can make the same statement for x Qxx xxx KQJxxx, overloading 1NT with wide ranging and wide shape of hands.

 

I don't understand your point? I would pass 1S with this hand assuming they opened my suit lol.

[phil_20686]

I didnt think of anything other than 1N until I saw the comments.

 

Since then I have convinced myself that I do not hate 2d if it is natural and forcing. I might get to play in 3D instead of defending 3C sometimes now, when partner has three/four diamonds. The rest of the time I will probably play in 2s as partners default action will be to bid 2S with fewer than 3 diamonds.

 

I think its wrong to bid 2d NF as you might play there when you are pretty playable in both spades and NT (and hearts).

[kenrexford]

Strangely, my preference in this auction is actually to have 1NT as semi-forcing and 2-of-a-minor as a sort of Lawrence-style 2/1-ish call, with mini-fit-non-jump tendencies.

 

In other words, if I bid 2♦, I either have a hand where in a Lawrence-style 2/1 "GF" context I would rebid my suit as NF (parallel thinking) or a hand with forcing strength ("GF" parallel) or a hand that is semi-fittish, meaning the classic pattern for a Snapdragon Double in a different context.

 

With the "diamonds but hate hearts" scenario, I might bid 1NT as semi-forcing.

 

This might be total insanity, or at least sound like it, but it seems effective in practice.

[dake50]

IMP pairs, non vulnerable.

 

Ax

Axxx

K10xxx

xx

 

(1C) - 1S - (p) - ??

 

What is your first call?

 

***

Is this the problem Unassuming Q-bid intends?

Something is right, but advancer needs opener's input.

2D is flawed as that should be long Dia without

another contract to suggest.

1NT is flawed as the stops are prime cards - much prefer

S-Qx H-KJ10x D-KJxxx. Let alone prefer a C-stop,

not required at 1NT level if C-stop will be shown/denied later.

[dave_w]

Don't tell anyone but this is my favourite method in this situation:

1 over 1 is Forcing

2 over 1 is NF

2NT is a 4 card invite+ raise

The cue bid is like a responsive double (ie exactly this hand) and is overloaded like a responsive double should be overloaded (forcing single suited hands) and also with hands with fit. Partner responds as if facing a responsive double. Then we can correct to 2NT (invite "balanced"), correct to partner's suit (invite with 3 card support), correct to a new suit (forcing).

 

Given that I'm not playing that method I'd have thought 2S, 2D and 1NT were reasonable. I'm surprised no-one has suggested 2S yet. And I'm being convinced by JLall that 1NT looks pretty good. Partly cuz it's JLall and partly because he's put a good argument to it.

[dboxley]

I would always bid 1N. If partner passes either 1N or 2D I would imagine 1N is better, and 1N is more encouraging to partner to bid 2S or 2H (he will always bid 2S with 6 or 2H with 4 over 1N, he might pass with one of those over 2D especially if he has 2 diamonds or his hand is a pretty bad overcall/bad suits).

 

This is a well known sequence where 1N does not promise a stopper (the other one being 1N over a negative X), so I am not disturbed by having no stopper.

 

 

I would never have thought of 1NT but I can see that it is much superior to 2D which partner will normally pass with less than an opener and short diamonds (unless it is forcing which is pretty much unplayable). I still lean toward 2C because there is a possible ruffing value playing in spades.

[lalldonn]

I am on board the train that 1NT might not be someone's first thought but seems like a really good idea once you think about it.