Choice of games

[whereagles]

MPs. Adv/expert field.

[hv=pc=n&s=st52ht92dkt85ckt9&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1ddp1np2sp]133|200[/hv]

 

1NT was 7-10. You upgraded your 6-count because of good intermediates and lack of a better bid.

2♠ = nat ~18-20 H.

Now 2NT/3♠ would be natural, showing a min NT response.

 

So, are you worth a shot, or just play the system?

[MrAce]

MPs. Adv/expert field.

[hv=pc=n&s=st52ht92dkt85ckt9&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1ddp1np2sp]133|200[/hv]

 

1NT was 7-10. You upgraded your 6-count because of good intermediates and lack of a better bid.

2♠ = nat ~18-20 H.

Now 2NT/3♠ would be natural, showing a min NT response.

 

So, are you worth a shot, or just play the system?

 

In the context of your explanations, I do not even think pass is an option.

[whereagles]

Well, maybe someone wants to try an anti-field call. Can work, right?

[Fluffy]

2♠ is forcing and unlimited, so lets move. I would try 2NT

[gszes]

2n

 

My hand is just plain better in NT than spades --- there is

enough stuff in dia to justify 2 stops and if they lead

dia I may easily get some badly needed entries to take finesses

that would otherwise be unavailable in spades. Treating this hand

as anything close to a max 1n is a mistake though. There is no reason

to assume p won't go slamming if we pretend this hand is worth 3n:)))

[MrAce]

Well, maybe someone wants to try an anti-field call. Can work, right?

 

Passing a forcing bid can work, yes. Anything can work. But we do not post in expert forums to see how many people will vote for it just because their previous bid was 1 hcp less than requirements and now have a known fit., Nuno, cmon bro, you are better than this. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[PhilKing]

If 2♠ is forcing, surely it is 18-30 so it's even more forcing. I would bid 2NT under the conditions.

 

However, in my opinion, it is absurd to play 2♠ as strong here, but I know I am in a minority when it comes to doubling 1♦ with a weakish 5404 shape. While I'm at it, 1NT showing 7-10 is an example of the Ostrich system - it only works on the basis that you never get dealt fewer than 7 points.

[whereagles]

Just to clarify: given that 1NT was positive, 2♠ is obviously forcing. However, it will NOT show a monster, as opener would have cued in that case (at least that's our agreement).

[mikeh]

If 2♠ is forcing, surely it is 18-30 so it's even more forcing. I would bid 2NT under the conditions.

 

However, in my opinion, it is absurd to play 2♠ as strong here, but I know I am in a minority when it comes to doubling 1♦ with a weakish 5404 shape. While I'm at it, 1NT showing 7-10 is an example of the Ostrich system - it only works on the basis that you never get dealt fewer than 7 points.

 

I am a strong believer that if takeout doubler of 1M removes 1N to a minor, this is scrambling and not strong. However, I don't play that way after a double of 1m.

 

I suppose that is because, as you suggest, I would tend to overcall most hands with 5440 and a 5 card major and roughly opening values rather than double.

 

As for the ostrich comment, I think that is unfair. Yes, it can sometimes result in responder bidding a 3 card major at the 1-level because he is too weak to bid 1N, but otoh when he does bid 1N, it is now a constructive call, allowing doubler to assess game chances far more accurately than when 1N could be 5-10. As with almost any plausible treatment, there are pros and cons and, as is customary, we tend to see the cons of a method we don't like and ignore or downplay the pros.

 

On the OP hand, I bid 2N, given the methods. I don't think 1N was an overbid given the 10's and the 4th diamond.

 

The more interesting issue is the difference between the various non-pass calls. Surely, if the explanation is correct, we are in a gf auction?

 

I wouldn't be. I would expect partner's range to start at a very good 16.

 

But, given the conditions, 18-20 with a suit should be gf. Now there ought to be a distinction between 2N and 3N, and not based on hcp if the OP is correctly describing the methods. Slam is impossible, game is forced, so it makes sense to me for 2N to suggest notrump but with some doubt and 3N to show certainty.

 

As for the notion by nuno that partner would cuebid with all monsters, that makes no sense to me, since it then requires that he start his natural bidding at the 3-level on precisely those hands on which bidding space is most needed. However, I am trying to respond within the confines of the described methods, no matter that I don't like them.

 

Btw, I wouldn't play partner for a suit such as AKQxxx since most hands with that kind of suit bid 3N, assuming that we play that 1N showed a stopper.

[whereagles]

Using the cue to show all monsters is done because the same agreement is used over a minimum suit response. Obviously, it's not optimal.. but we keep it like that for this sequence just for the mnemonics.

 

Besides, I can't remember the last time I held a monster in this situation, so I don't mind dumping all that stuff into the omnibus cue... lol.

[lmilne]

I always enjoy these threads where relatively undiscussed areas of bidding end up in discussion. Particularly situations like this where people have an assumed "standard" which often ends up not being the case!

 

For me, 1NT is positive and 2♠ is therefore forcing (and unlimited). This applies even more so in my partnerships where we have overcalled hands up to 18-counts or so, so double and rebid is a pretty serious show of strength.

 

As to the hand - 2NT. It just feels right. Easy to construct hands where 4♠ is down and 3NT makes, and with our 10♦ the opposite situation is much harder to imagine. A side benefit is that 2NT should discourage partner from spade slams compared to 3♠.

 

edit: just re-read the post. Pass is IMO misguided. We don't mind playing a 23-point game with opener on lead, a good stopper, and knowing where the points are. This isn't the time to go low.

[mr1303]

I'm going to raise spades here. 3NT from p after a spade raise is still an option and I could be much worse for spades for my 1nt bid.

[ahydra]

As long as we're sure 2S is GF (should be, given the descriptions), then 2NT looks correct. Then we see if partner insists on spades or not. If we're worried about being passed in 2NT, then bid 4S instead.

 

ahydra

[Trinidad]

2♠ is absolutely GF. If advancer shows something poistive after the double and the doubler shows the "too strong to overcall" type hand, we are in a game forcing auction.

 

So, I would just bid 3♠. If partner wants me to choose between 3NT and 4♠, he will bid 3NT next (and I will be delighted to pass).

 

But I need to show my spades at some point, otherwise we may end up in 3NT, off the first 5 heart tricks.

 

Rik

[benlessard]

I just think that we should be in GF and 2NT shouldnt show a minimum hand but is just uncertainty about the contract. With all the bidding space you have here you shouldnt play the wrong game too often.

 

Wing it here should look like

 

Jumping to 3NT would strongly 2D stop and no S fit or 1.5 stopper and no S tol.

 

4S would suggest 3S and the A of D and a min. 3S would suggest 3S a doubleton but positionnal D. 3K a max hand.

[whereagles]

Doubler had

 

AKQ93

KJ4

A

J632

 

Heart and club Qs were onside, so lots of tricks no matter what you do.

 

2NT is a good bid here, but doubler might raise to 3NT and we're left to guess whether to pull or not, so 3♠ seems better in theory.

 

In practice a lot depends on the play/defense, so there is no clear best contract.

[WesleyC]

I think 2S should be GF in this auction. Under that assumption 2NT feels better than 3S because we've got a fairly strong preference for NT and if partner is worried about hearts or clubs (say AKQxxx x Ax AJxx), they have room to investigate that over 2NT.

 

Philking brings up an interesting question about the range of the 1NT advance. I think the range should vary based on how much room you have over the takeout double. Specifically, the more room you have to bid suits at the 1 level, the less you need to fudge a 1NT on marginal values.

 

That would lead to ranges that looked a bit like:

 

(1S) X (P) 1NT = 4 to 10

(1H) X (P) 1NT = 5 to 10

(1D) X (P) 1NT = 6 to 10

(1C) X (P) 1NT = 7 to 10

[mr1303]

If I bid 2NT and partner raises to 3NT, surely I have to pass, otherwise I definitely would be better off just bidding 3S in the first instance.

 

If I bid 2NT, my plan is to raise spades after partner shows a second suit. Note that I bid 4S after 3C/3H, not 3S. I don't particularly want partner to get it wrong