[jillybean]

Thanks Mike another great explanation, now if only I could retain just a little bit of your wisdom, or perhaps common sense. When you quit your day job and become a bridge teacher let me know.

[helene_t]

You can have an aggressive style by partnership agreement, or you can make aggressive decisions, when you are captain. But when making the 1NT freebid you're not captain. That bid is a descriptive one so it must be in accordance with partnership agreements.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Oct 4 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

You can have an aggressive style by partnership agreement, or you can make aggressive decisions, when you are captain. But when making the 1NT freebid you're not captain. That bid is a descriptive one so it must be in accordance with partnership agreements.

Helene,
My 'partnership agreements' rarely extend past which keycard and what signaling we are using. Expecting agreements on what 1nt in this sequence shows is far beyond my abilities.

Its more usueful for me to understand why 1nt is a poor bid here.

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Oct 4 2007, 09:39 PM, said:

My 'partnership agreements' rarely extend past which keycard and what signaling we are using. Expecting agreements on what 1nt in this sequence shows is far beyond my abilities.

Its more usueful for me to understand why 1nt is a poor bid here.

But the reason why 1NT is a bad bid is that you have the implicit agreement that it shows 8-10, because that's what "the book" defines it as and it's a good principle to assume p to know such things. Of course if you have reasons to assume that p will take it as 6-9, you should bid 1NT with 6 and not with 10.

This is different from situations in which p has described his hand and rendered captainship to you. If p opens 1NT and "the book" says you should use Stayman if you have a fourcard major but you think that that's impractical, you have the freedom to jump to 3NT if you want.

[barmar]

jtfanclub, on Oct 4 2007, 11:34 AM, said:

Responder has a subminimum for a 1NT call, and I'd still lay odds that 2♦ isn't going to make. Give partner a few jacks, say...

J6
QJ9
KJ54
J973

Now it looks like a more ordinary 1NT, and the question becomes can you nail them for 500?

With the original hands, it looks to me like 2♦ has chances. If East has a singleton ♣, he's losing 2 ♥, 2 ♦, 1 ♣. And if he has a doubleton, maybe it's Kx, still just 1 loser. Considering how poor his ♦ are (QJ9xxx), I'll bet he has one or the other to compensate.

With your hand with the extra jacks, East rebid a really ratty ♦ suit: Q9xxxx. Partner's major suit jacks don't really change anything. Declarer still has no ♠ losers and only 2 ♥ losers.