Sense check

[mikeh]

Please explain why, and what is constructive here, 8-10?

Mycroft did a pretty fair job of answering this, altho I don't agree with everything in the post. I don't agree with the 'shortness' idea for partner, altho I may well just be quibbling on that. I will add a little, while repeating much.

 

To me, the main concern isn't so much the fact that 1N will often be a bad contract when we hold crap like the OP hand, and partner has a typical 4=4=1=4 12 count.

 

Yes, we rate to do poorly on a diamond to RHO's queen, a diamond back, and now we need to take 4 pitches from dummy, which is a typical scenario in these auctions. However, while this is ugly, it isn't that my suggestion of 1♥ would always work out so much better. It might, and I'd expect it to on average do a trick or two better, but on occasion we play the dreaded micro-moysian when partner doubled with 4=3=4 or the like, and 1N would have been better.

 

So on balance, when partner has a minimum, I think 1N on a 4-bad 6 count is a net loser but not by a huge margin. Being vulnerable makes the problem worse, of course, since now -300 when we could scramble -100 in 1♥ is terrible at mps and a nasty hit at imps.

 

A bigger concern, by far, is that partner will often hold some extras, especially when rho has passed. I don't want to overstate this: rho may have a hand like ours, shorter in diamonds perhaps, and have a pass, and it may be LHO who has the best hand at the table.

 

However, partner can easily hold a decent 15+. Partner could even be something like 3=4=2=4 18 with no diamond card.

 

When one plays constructive advances of 1N, which I do and which for me over 1m would be a good 7 - 10 hcp, then doubler can safely invite with 15 since on a bad day we have a decent 22 with opener marked for most of the missing hcp, and thus declarer is usually able to play the hand with a high degree of inferred or actual knowledge of the layout. And on a good day, we have 25 hcp with opener marked with all or almost all of the missing values and, again, declarer has a significant advantage in the play, assuming a skilled declarer.

 

If doubler has 17-18, then he has an easy 3N bid.

 

However, if you widen the range of the response to 0-10, or 4-10 or even 6-10, you make it more dangerous for doubler to invite or to bid game.

 

The most common game after 1N is 3N. Even if doubler holds something like AKQxxx AJx xx Kx, intending to double then bid spades, imo his correct call after 1N is 3N. Note that I am not creating a hand for the OP example, just speaking generally.

 

I am primarily an imps player, so bidding games is extremely important. A narrow range for 1N makes game bidding, and game avoidance, very easy. A wide range makes game bidding chancier. Even on invitational sequences, the wide range creates problems. When I show 7-10, I can happily accept with 9-10 and reject with 7-8. When I show 4-10, I accept with 7-10 and reject with 4 to 7 (the overlap being because there are good and bad 7 counts). When we see this, then it is obvious that either doubler passes, and we miss some games, when he is worried about our 4-5 count hands, or he invites, hoping we hold a max, and we are too high at 2N, because we hold crap, or we are too high at game, because we accepted with a good 7 and he was hoping for 9-10.

 

1M, otoh, is always suspect as to hcp. It always shows 0+, for me 0- bad 8. 1♥, in particular, is always known to be suspect, since what else does one bid with xxx xxx xxxx xxx?

 

This makes advancing the 1♥ problematic, but we don't solve that by making 1N potentially very weak. Instead, by making 1N very weak, we create further problems.

 

There are other issues, such as partner inappropriately doubling the opps, but in a good partnership that won't happen often. Give you, on the OP, Qxxx in diamonds and another hcp somewhere, and that still won't be a far better hand defensively. My view is that when a competent opp keeps bidding in the face of a constructive 1N, the takeout doubler should be careful when wielding the axe. In particular, no good player doubles for a 1 trick penalty, so if they do play doubled, they rate to go down....just not as far as partner was expecting :P If I am a trick light for my 1N, then if they make, partner probably didn't have his double.

[PhilKing]

FWIW, I think anything resembling a decent 10 count NT hand should jump to 2NT, playing for the "Haggis Sandwich". You don't need 25 points for game when RHO is close to broke.

 

If I can dig out the 1♦-x-(pass)-1♥ thread from a few months ago, we can see what happens when you bid a three-card suit. My view was that in that particular auction, there was a cased for playing 1♠ as an extra values scramble (suggested by Rainer). Failing that, I just think it leads to heaps of trouble. However, I can't find the thread.

[mike777]

Lawrence gives three examples on pages 100-101 after 1d=x=p=?

 

874..Q74...QJ5...J873= disgusting minimum nt

 

Q7..93...KQT4,,,Q9864= happy to bid nt

 

A84...Q4...Q764,,,QJ86= maximum nt

 

You can compare tht to the OP hand:

Qxx

Jxx

Jxxx

Qxx

[mike777]

Roy Hughes in his book Contested Auction recommends over 1minor=x=p=? that 1nt is roughly 8-11. p.80

 

"Make the lower response with a very weak hand."

[wank]

 

Lawrence gives three examples on pages 100-101 after 1d=x=p=?

A84...Q4...Q764,,,QJ86= maximum nt

 

 

the bloke might have written more books than me, but this is bollocks. 1nt with an 11 count is gamebonusphobia.

[mike777]

the bloke might have written more books than me, but this is bollocks. 1nt with an 11 count is gamebonusphobia.

 

see Hughes book also. :)

[PhilKing]

Lawrence gives three examples on pages 100-101 after 1d=x=p=?

 

874..Q74...QJ5...J873= disgusting minimum nt

 

Q7..93...KQT4,,,Q9864= happy to bid nt

 

A84...Q4...Q764,,,QJ86= maximum nt

 

You can compare tht to the OP hand:

Qxx

Jxx

Jxxx

Qxx

 

5-11 1NT. Sounds playable. :ph34r:

[Hanoi5]

I stand with the 1H crowd. 1N should be more constructive and partner should know that my lowest level bid in any suit could be 3 cards.

[Trinidad]

the bloke might have written more books than me, but this is bollocks. 1nt with an 11 count is gamebonusphobia.

That obviously depends on what your takeout doubles look like.

 

For me ♠Axxx ♥Kxxx ♦- ♣Jxxxx is an obvious takeout double of 1♦: Together with the 5 points for the void, this easily counts as 13 points... when we play in a suit. In a NT contract it is worth its 8HCP. Opposite such a hand you don't want to play 2NT -let alone 3NT- with your non-descript 11 HCP hand.

 

Rik

[PhilKing]

That obviously depends on what your takeout doubles look like.

 

For me ♠Axxx ♥Kxxx ♦- ♣Jxxxx is an obvious takeout double of 1♦: Together with the 5 points for the void, this easily counts as 13 points... when we play in a suit. In a NT contract it is worth its 8HCP. Opposite such a hand you don't want to play 2NT -let alone 3NT- with your non-descript 11 HCP hand.

 

Rik

 

It makes sense to base your response structure around hands where you have made a take-out double on an eight count and the next hand passes.

[mikeh]

That obviously depends on what your takeout doubles look like.

 

For me ♠Axxx ♥Kxxx ♦- ♣Jxxxx is an obvious takeout double of 1♦: Together with the 5 points for the void, this easily counts as 13 points... when we play in a suit. In a NT contract it is worth its 8HCP. Opposite such a hand you don't want to play 2NT -let alone 3NT- with your non-descript 11 HCP hand.

 

Rik

Suffice it to say that for most of us a takeout double promises a better hand.

 

I wonder how much disclosure you make to your opps about your takeout double style? I am sure you are very ethical...that is definitely the impression I have formed from your posts so don't take this as a suggestion that you are being unethical. And maybe where you play this is common to the point of being understood. Where I play, were I to find that my LHO was routinely doubling on shapely 8 counts and that his partner was holding back in the auction due to that possibility, I would be extremely annoyed were there no disclosure, since I would misplace values in the auction and the play.

 

I note that to you your 8 count is an 'obvious double' which suggests that you don't even consider it to be the worst hand you could hold. Axxx Kxxx void xxxxx? How low do you go?

 

As an aside, the notion of counting 5 points for the void in your initial assessment is simply a very, very bad idea.

 

I don't count points in that fashion, but back when I did, I may have added points for length, but the notion of points for shortness BEFORE we have any fit strikes me as silly. It is far better practice to not count anything for shortness initially but then be willing to upgrade, sometimes dramatically, if and when a fit is established. That's the sort of thing that good players mean when they talk about a hand 'growing up' in an auction.

 

Thus I would pass your 4=4=0=5 hand and then, should partner come in (other than in notrump or diamonds) I'd go nuts....which would let him know I have limited values but great shape.

[eagles123]

many thanks all for responses, I bid 1H thinking it obvious I see now maybe that's not the case... certainly seem to have split the jury here lol.

[diana_eva]

What about this one?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=SQT3HJ95DQJ87C832&d=s&v=n&a=P1SDP?]133|200[/hv]

 

Real hand from today. I was thinking of this thread when it happened. Looks better than the OP, but is it enough for 1NT?

Edited January 7, 2015 by diana_eva
added missing card

[Hanoi5]

What about this one?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=SQT3HJ95DQJ87C83&d=s&v=n&a=P1SDP?]133|200[/hv]

 

Real hand from today. I was thinking of this thread when it happened. Looks better than the OP, but is it enough for 1NT?

 

Not for me. Especially since a card is missing. But even with 3=3=4=3 and 6 I prefer 2♦.

[diana_eva]

Not for me. Especially since a card is missing. But even with 3=3=4=3 and 6 I prefer 2♦.

 

LOL sorry, I cut it out by mistake when I pasted the URL :P Small club added now.

[mike777]

edit

 

I think Lawrence would say 2d since you have a decent 4 card suit to bid.

[Trinidad]

Suffice it to say that for most of us a takeout double promises a better hand.

 

I wonder how much disclosure you make to your opps about your takeout double style? I am sure you are very ethical...that is definitely the impression I have formed from your posts so don't take this as a suggestion that you are being unethical. And maybe where you play this is common to the point of being understood. Where I play, were I to find that my LHO was routinely doubling on shapely 8 counts and that his partner was holding back in the auction due to that possibility, I would be extremely annoyed were there no disclosure, since I would misplace values in the auction and the play.

Our CC says under "takeout doubles, style": "very aggressive with good shape, conservative with poor shape", which I believe is a concise and accurate description of our actual style. At some point we prealerted them like that, but we stopped that since opponents were annoyed about something that obvious to the point that some almost got aggressive and TDs said we should stop.

 

I note that to you your 8 count is an 'obvious double' which suggests that you don't even consider it to be the worst hand you could hold. Axxx Kxxx void xxxxx? How low do you go?

Well, to me it is obvious, but also obviously a minimum. We learned to play bridge in the USA and -at the time, I don't know whether that is still the case- an opening bid could not show less than 8 HCP by agreement. Though a takeout double is not an opening, I suppose we had this subconciously as a bottom for the double. I might double with Axxx KT9x - T9xxx, but not "on every day that ends with 'y'".

 

As an aside, the notion of counting 5 points for the void in your initial assessment is simply a very, very bad idea.

 

I don't count points in that fashion, but back when I did, I may have added points for length, but the notion of points for shortness BEFORE we have any fit strikes me as silly. It is far better practice to not count anything for shortness initially but then be willing to upgrade, sometimes dramatically, if and when a fit is established. That's the sort of thing that good players mean when they talk about a hand 'growing up' in an auction.

Well, as I said, we learned to play bridge in the USA, with ACBL's Audrey Grant's ♣, ♦, ♥, and ♠ series from an ACBL teacher. Both Grant and our teacher taught us to count 1-3-5 dummy points when making takeout doubles, particularly takeout doubles of 1m. (And, in responding to the double, we were taught that 1NT shows 8-11, the same range as a suit bid with a jump.) So, it is the style that we were taught right from the beginning (right in the heart of your NBO!) and we stuck to it. After all these years, we do not really rely on HCPs and 1-3-5 dummy points anymore, but I still see an ace and a king (1.5 quick tricks) and great shape, or a 7 loser hand.

 

As to counting points for shortness: Generally speaking I fully agree with you that you should count them only once you have found a fit. However, when you have a 4405 hand, the probability that there will be a fit is very high, so some optimism is warranted. And we are asking partner to pick a suit where he has almost the entire 1 level...

 

Obviously, we also get aggressive in the auction later with nice hands that passed initially. I guess our range is just about 1-2 HCPs lower than yours.

 

 

Rik

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies to my question.

 

Now change to a passed hand and is your bid still 1♥ or can we expect partner to have better than a minimum and therefore 1 nt is a good spot?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq62hj62dj863cj95&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1ddp?]133|200[/hv]

[Trinidad]

Well, a 1NT advance would show 8-11 for me. I typically don't open 11 point 4333 hands, so the fact that I am a passed hand makes little difference. But if I would play a kamikaze 9-11 1NT opening, it would certainly make sense to play that the 1NT advance shows 6-8 if made by a passed hand.

 

Rik

[the hog]

Thanks for the replies to my question.

 

Now change to a passed hand and is your bid still 1♥ or can we expect partner to have better than a minimum and therefore 1 nt is a good spot?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq62hj62dj863cj95&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1ddp?]133|200[/hv]

 

Still 1H. After all a passed hand can have a 10-11 count, yes?

[mikeh]

Thanks for the replies to my question.

 

Now change to a passed hand and is your bid still 1♥ or can we expect partner to have better than a minimum and therefore 1 nt is a good spot?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq62hj62dj863cj95&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1ddp?]133|200[/hv]

There is no sense in changing the meanings of your action. Being a passed hand doesn't promote the trick-taking power of your hand, as far as I know. And a passed hand can still hold constructive values. This isn't at all the same as, say, bidding 2/1 with 10 hcp as a passed hand, playing 2/1 gf. In that situation, your passed hand status rules out having an opening hand. That reasoning is inapplicable here.

[Mbodell]

What about this one?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=SQT3HJ95DQJ87C832&d=s&v=n&a=P1SDP?]133|200[/hv]

 

Real hand from today. I was thinking of this thread when it happened. Looks better than the OP, but is it enough for 1NT?

 

This is quite a bit different than the OP because the suit X was spades and hence the "easy bail out" is at the 2 level instead of the 1♥ call from OP. And the T in QTx of spades is a big card. I think I still bid 2♦ here, but if you make the 7♦ a spade so you have a 6 count with 4=3=3=3 and QT73 of spades I'd now bid 1nt.

[diana_eva]

This is quite a bit different than the OP because the suit X was spades and hence the "easy bail out" is at the 2 level instead of the 1♥ call from OP. And the T in QTx of spades is a big card. I think I still bid 2♦ here, but if you make the 7♦ a spade so you have a 6 count with 4=3=3=3 and QT73 of spades I'd now bid 1nt.

 

OK. Yes there's no easy way out at the 1st level, unlike the OP. I always played 1NT as constructive and was surprised to see my pd chose 1NT with that. Didn't make much difference for that hand. We landed in 3NT, but we would have gotten there over a 2♦ as well.

 

Very instructive discussion, thanks eagles.