2over1

[Laplace0]

How to bid the following hand in 2over1:

♠87 ♥86 ♦J106 ♣AKT986

after a 1♦ opening bid by Partner and silent opponent.

2 ♣ is GF and 3♣ is invitational with 9 to 12 points (Hardy). I excluded the non forcing 1NT bid for obvious reasons.

[shyams]

I'd actually respond with 1NT.

 

If partner has a vanilla hand and is unable to move over my 1NT, I am fine with it. I realise that occasionally our side will miss out on game (when cards fit perfectly) but I am fine with taking that risk.

[smerriman]

I'm not sure what the obvious reasons for excluding 1NT were, since it seems an obvious 1NT to me.

[hrothgar]

How to bid the following hand in 2over1:

♠87 ♥86 ♦J106 ♣AKT986

after a 1♦ opening bid by Partner and silent opponent.

2 ♣ is GF and 3♣ is invitational with 9 to 12 points (Hardy). I excluded the non forcing 1NT bid for obvious reasons.

 

Given your methods, I think that either 3♣ or 1NT is reasonable

Those club intermediates (the T986) are incredibly valuable for a 3NT contract

[helene_t]

9-12 points is probably too wide. But if 9 is really in the range you should upgrade this hand. You have an almost-guaranteed fit and even if partner has a 4441 12-count you will probably make 3♣.

 

8 points is a quite pesimistic evaluation of this hand. You have JT in partner's suit and T98 in your own suit. Those intermediates would be worth some 2-3 points if you had a major suit fit. As it happens you (almost certainly) have a minor suit fit (maybe double fit) so you should not upgrade quite as aggressively, but still. If partner bids 3NT or 6♦ I would not be ashamed of laying this hand down as dummy.

 

You have a cold 5♦ opposite AKxx-x-KQxxx-Qxx and a good 3NT opposite QJx-QT9-AKxx-Qxx, both of which would pass a 1NT response (OK, the first might rebid 2♣ over 1NT so maybe a dubious example).

 

OK, those two hands were made up and you can of course always construct a perfect minimum for partner, so it's not so much that a 1NT response may miss game. It's more that you want to compete to 3♣ over opps' 2♥ or 2♠ contract, and you want partner to be able to sacrifice against a 4♥ or 4♠ contract if they have a suitable hand.

 

But most pairs require a tad more than this for a 3♣ response. You don't really want to invite opposite a balanced 12-14.

 

So 1NT is the normal response. I suppose the "obvious" reasons is that you don't want to play notrumps from you own hand, but that's something you have to live with if you decided to play a natural approach-forcing system with wide-ranging 1-level opening - except for the 1♣-1NT auction, the 1NT response does not promise a balanced hand and does certainly not show honours in the unbid suits. It's just a point count, basically. That it's non-forcing just means that due to a flaw in the system, partner will sometimes have to gamble that 1NT is a reasonable contract.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=S87H86DJT6CAKT986&d=w&v=0&a=1D(2/1)P?]133|200|

Laplace0 '2 ♣ is GF and 3♣ is invitational with 9 to 12 points (Hardy). I excluded the non forcing 1NT bid for obvious reasons.'

++++++++++++++++++++

I rank

1. 1N NAT For obvious reasons :)

2. 3♣ NAT 9-12 HCP Slight overbid but might right-side 3N.

3. 2♣ G/F Gross overbid. [/hv]

[Laplace0]

Partners hand was:

♠Q8,♥Q98,♦KQT7632,QJ

I bid 3C, slight overbid :angry:, LHO jumped to 4S, which I doubled. Final contract 5C doubled 3 down. 4S are cold on a heart finesse, despite this our score was -8 IMPS. Anyway, I feel uncomfortable to bid NT with this major holding. By the way, our side can make only 3 tricks in NT.

[Cyberyeti]

Partners hand was:

♠Q8,♥Q98,♦KQT7632,QJ

I bid 3C, slight overbid :angry:, LHO jumped to 4S, which I doubled. Final contract 5C doubled 3 down. 4S are cold on a heart finesse, despite this our score was -8 IMPS. Anyway, I feel uncomfortable to bid NT with this major holding. By the way, our side can make only 3 tricks in NT.

 

That's 14 cards 2372, 1N-4 is a bargain against 4♠, why are you doubling with possibly only one defensive trick if partner has some clubs ?

[hrothgar]

Partners hand was:

♠Q8,♥Q98,♦KQT7632,QJ

I bid 3C, slight overbid :angry:, LHO jumped to 4S, which I doubled. Final contract 5C doubled 3 down. 4S are cold on a heart finesse, despite this our score was -8 IMPS. Anyway, I feel uncomfortable to bid NT with this major holding. By the way, our side can make only 3 tricks in NT.

 

3♣ is a perfectly reasonable bid

 

Why did you ever double?

You've already said your piece.

[mycroft]

It's very common in my area these days, but I still think its flaws are legion, to have 1♦-2♣ be GF. This is one of the reasons why. If you put this hand into the "not quite enough for 2/1, if you have a fit it'll run in 3NT, if you don't, it's still 2 or 3 tricks better played in my suit" 3♣, then you need a call for the same hand with another king. If that's also 3♣, partner will *never* guess right. But the advantages of this auction are also legion (or people whose bridge I admire wouldn't play it), so this is a hand type sacrificed on the altar of game bidding, I guess.

 

I echo everyone else on the double. When you've shown your values, especially when you've overshown your values, now is the time to let partner make the decision.

[Laplace0]

Sorry, Partner had 6♦ NV against V. My double was DSIP and I don't blame Partners decision going to the 5th level. The blind 4♠ bid with a 5card suit finding a strong 4card holding in partner could be bbo "specific". 1 down in 4 ♠ is bad score in MP if 3♣ are makeable but playing IMP I should perhaps pass, I agree (?). Glad that many of you would have bid 3♣ and thanks all for the comments.