How sure are you about your methods ?

[Cyberyeti]

Try re-reading my posts.

 

At one point you asked me what I would bid, despite my first post saying I'd bid 4S.

 

Now you suggest that I bid 7S over 4S. Take a look: I stated very clearly that the doubler should bid 5N.

 

Sorry I find something about your posts very difficult to read and tend to miss stuff in them, I read the first post 3 times without seeing you say you were bidding 4♠, very few people seem to play 5N as GSF these days (we do), although I suppose with only one suit bid it has to be.

 

It's also awkward in that QJ10xxxx and A♦ is an excellent grand unless 222, QJ9xxxx less so but still good and Q109xxxx is bad, but better than the same hand with an 8th one, because you know the K is right with at least one more.

 

Do you have any arrangement as to what 5N-6♦(Q)-6♥ means (if that's how you play your responses) ?

[mikeh]

Sorry I find something about your posts very difficult to read and tend to miss stuff in them, I read the first post 3 times without seeing you say you were bidding 4♠, very few people seem to play 5N as GSF these days (we do), although I suppose with only one suit bid it has to be.

 

It's also awkward in that QJ10xxxx and A♦ is an excellent grand unless 222, QJ9xxxx less so but still good and Q109xxxx is bad, but better than the same hand with an 8th one, because you know the K is right with at least one more.

 

Do you have any arrangement as to what 5N-6♦(Q)-6♥ means (if that's how you play your responses) ?

My first post, in the first line, said 'I bid what I expect to at least have play: 4S'

 

With all respect, I don't think the problem lies in how I write.

 

As for 'very few people play 5N as GSF these days': that is not my experience.

 

What is true is that 5N as GSF is now less frequent, in that in many sequences 5N has a different meaning. Choice of slams is one, subtle try for 7 is another (bid 5N choice of slams and then bid 6N), but as far as I know, 5N as GSF is still used in sequences such as this, where there is no reason to suspect an choice of slams makes sense.

 

Btw, I note that you choose 5N, lol

[mikeh]

I think the OP indicated that the 1NT call was 12-14. In that case, if you play X by your partner as 14+ or so, then I'm not sure an 8-loser hand with five playing tricks justifies bidding game, even with most of your hooks rating to be on. I think I might settle for 3S (which I think has to be an invite, not a preempt). I suppose with spades, you could pass and come in later, but what's the point? You aren't going to buy this for 2S.

 

After a 15-17 NT and a X, then I think 4S looks pretty normal.

 

Of course the meaning of the double affects advancer's choices. If your double starts at 14, then I would not bid 4S, choosing an invitational sequence.

 

Personally, having played virtually every range of 1N one can imagine (except any involving hands as strong as 18), and having defended in high level bridge against almost as many, my view is that it is losing bridge to play that one's double starts at the top of their range (or, worse, starts at the bottom of their range). I think it important that the double announce real values. There are many reasons for this, but one is that the lower the bottom end is, the more difficult it is for advancer to judge what to do. I want partner to feel that if he has, say, 5 hcp, then we have at least half the points and the benefit of the tempo afforded, usually, by the opening lead. It may not seem that there is a lot of difference between 14 and 15 hcp, but in practice this is an important 'point', at least imo.

 

Contrary to what a lot of players seem to think, it is an error, imo, to assume that one can or should interfere over it with lighter hands than one would over a 15-17 hcp hand. Now, I tend to be aggressive over strong 1N opening hands, when the vul is favourable and I have shape. So I don't have much issue with using the same general approach over weak. When I played weak we used to feast on players who believed that the weak 1N somehow meant that they could bid with crap.

 

When the balance of strength is roughly equal around the table, and nobody has good distribution, whoever gets to 1N usually ends up on top, whether they play there or defend. This is one of the major advantages, perhaps 'the major advantage' of the weak 1N. One reason it is so powerful is that too many players feel that they have to compete, turning an average minus into a bottom or a small swing into a bigger swing.

 

Weak notrump methods have significant disadvantages as well as advantages. Just accept that sometimes the bid works, and don't try to force good results.