[AlexOgan]

Scoring: MP

---

1C - (P) - ??

Playing "normal" 2/1.

Thanks for your comments.

[Apollo81]

I like 1♦ because of the spade situation and the fact that this hand is sort of in between a 1NT and 2NT bid...I can't decide which.

[jdonn]

2NT (if it's invitational) for me. I prefer to show the nature of my hand, and if I bid 1♦ and partner bids 1♥ I'm even worse off.

[kenrexford]

This one is painful, and a lot depends upon partner's opening style and opening 1NT style. Add in the diamond 8, even, and I'll call this an 11+ without hesitation. All values are protected, my longest suit has two top honors, my worst honor group is in the right spot, and I have the heart King (a control).

In the end, 2NT seems right, but 1♦ or 1NT both seem fair, especially with a 14+ 1NT opener, if he is across from me.

[Trudy1959]

i am uncomfortable bidding 2nt given my shape and shoddy intermediates (although 2nt seems to have some preemptive merit vs. opponent's potential major suit fit)

nonetheless, i bid 1d (and if partner bids 1H, i resign myself to 1nt) ... this line is suboptimal, but may induce opponents to enter an auction they had best stay out of. hopefully i am winning sklansky matchpoints.

Best,
Tru

[inquiry]

I would bid 1NT. When I respond 1♦ to 1♣ with a "balanced" hand it will contain fewer than a good 9 hcp. This 1NT bid (for me) is a good 9 to a bad 11. This 11 is a bad 11 indeed. While kenford thinks this is 11+ (it is good to have the QJ in partners suit and our best value in our long suit), we do have 3343 distribution which is a minus factor. For me, the plus features of good values in partner suit are cancelled by the bad features of poor distribution.

Since my 1NT shows this range, it is more or less a good option (true, my hand would be better as a dummy perhaps -- i will live with it).

Not everyone chooses to bid it this way (stronger balance hand 1NT immediately, weaker balanced hand through 1♦--even if it has to be a 3 card dismond suit say with 3334 distribution). This is just the way I prefer to bid it.

[pclayton]

1♦ for me. This hand is 'no-trumpy', but it has no tenaces, and NT wants to be played from pard's side. I'll raise 1N to 2N and 2♣ to 3♣.

Depending on whether or not I'm playing Walsh, I'll either raise clubs or bid 1N over 1 major.

[skjaeran]

I'd respond 1NT (10-12) in my regular methods (T-Walsh variation) - so no problem at all.

The hand is a little light for 2NT IMO, and notrump probably plays best from partner's side. Playing (standard) Walsh, I'd probably bid 1♦, and without Walsh at all, I'd most probably bid 1NT.

[pbleighton]

1D or 2NT, very close. It's a crummy 11 and matchpoints, so I'll bid 1D. At IMPs I'd feel compelled to bid 2NT.

Peter

[whereagles]

2NT if it's 11-12 or similar, 1♦ otherwise.

[Apollo81]

skaeran, on Apr 4 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

I'd respond 1NT (10-12) in my regular methods (T-Walsh variation) - so no problem at all.

I'd also respond 1NT if playing this way.

[mike777]

1nt, no problem yet, assuming we open on junk.

[Edmunte1]

1♦ followed by 1nt showing 10-11 in my methods. If partner responds 1nt i'll pass. I think 2nt is an overbid, no suits, no controls.

[Gerben42]

Too bad no one reads the opening post:

Quote

Playing "normal" 2/1.

In "normal" 2/1 you do not get to play your special methods that say that 1NT can be bid on this hand.

In "normal 2/1" you have the choice between 2NT (the value bid) and 1♦ followed by 2NT (also invitational, but trying to get partner to bid it first).

1♦ for me because I want LHO to bid the 5-card suit he is going to lead so I can prepare.