[mike777]

1)1nt not 1h.
2) no

[kenrexford]

Herbert Negative!

[mhais]

1nt

[paulg]

1♥ with the first hand, 1♦ with the second.

I'd prefer to have a bit more for 1NT. If partner is strong then I hope to bid notrump later.

p

[Joe de Balliol]

1) Undecided
2) Yes; I bid 1♦

[Halo]

1NT

[helene_t]

I hope partnership agreements allow me to bid 1NT with a hand this weak. Otherwise I really don't know. 1♠, 1♥, 1NT or pass.

[david_c]

Hmm, I think if I'd taken the trouble to discuss this with partner, I would have agreed that 1NT shows a slightly stronger hand than this. (This only applies over a minor-suit opening: over a major I think 6 HCP is fine.) But without discussion, I would go ahead and bid 1NT anyway. The order of the other suits doesn't really matter.

[Winstonm]

Redouble - I think they can make it.

1H. Can't freely bid 1N this weak, IMO.

Would bid 1D with #2 example.

[han]

Depends on partnership agreements. I would bid 1H on the first and 1D on the second.

[pclayton]

1♥ / 1♦. Clubs aren't good enough to convert and this hand is about a Q light for a 1N call.

[mikeh]

1♥ with both.

The argument for 1♦ on the second is, I assume, that partnr is less likley to get carried away than if we bid 1♥... and perhaps the bid of the cheapest call carries a little more ambiguity. However, I am not playing scared bridge with either hand... I am not broke... and partner will be 4=4=3=2 far more often than he will be 4=3=4=2. I don't mind 4-3 fits, but I hate breaking Burns' Law of Total Trump: playing in a contract where the opps hold more trumps than we do. 1♦, on hand 2, is more likley to offend that rule than is 1♥

[han]

Nice point Mike, you convinced me (but I'm well known to be gullible).

[Fluffy]

1♥+1♦

I don't see why partner has more chances to have a major than diamonds

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Mar 25 2007, 11:24 AM, said:

1♥ with both.

The argument for 1♦ on the second is, I assume, that partnr is less likley to get carried away than if we bid 1♥... and perhaps the bid of the cheapest call carries a little more ambiguity. However, I am not playing scared bridge with either hand... I am not broke... and partner will be 4=4=3=2 far more often than he will be 4=3=4=2. I don't mind 4-3 fits, but I hate breaking Burns' Law of Total Trump: playing in a contract where the opps hold more trumps than we do. 1♦, on hand 2, is more likley to offend that rule than is 1♥

Isn't this a little pessimistic? Partner could also be 3451 or 4450 as well as 4441.

In the case of 4432, 1D in the 3/3 rates to play as well as 3H in the Moysian.
The other case for 1D is if partner continues with a single-suit bid of 1H or 1S, I can then make a double raise as an expression of my medium values.

[dake50]

1N hoping this isn't a hand partner gets hot on.
Some stuff no Major liking C-stopped.

[whereagles]

There's nothing wrong with a lightish 1NT. If pard is strong, he'll bid 2M now and we get to game. Where's the problem?

[Winstonm]

whereagles, on Mar 25 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

There's nothing wrong with a lightish 1NT. If pard is strong, he'll bid 2M now and we get to game. Where's the problem?

Holding, K109x, AQxx, AKJx, x why would partner do anything other than bid 3N over 1N? What is the point of a cue bid over 1N?

The problem as I see it is many people want to have their cake and some icing on it, too, i.e., they want to bid 1N with 8-10 in this sequence but they also want to bid it with 5-6 when they don't like any other bid. IMO, if the agreement is that 1N in this sequence show "values", usually around 8-9, then with less "value" you have to bid something else - but you can't bid 1N as that meaning is "assigned".

[mike777]

If this is the worst 3nt I am ever in at imps..thank God. If you are that worried, assuming 1nt is 8-10 for you just bid 2nt invite with this minimum 4441 hand which will play poorly. Pard will bid 3nt with anything above a dead minimum.