[gwnn]

You pick up 1st seat nobody vulnerable, Pairs,

AKxxx
AKx
Axx
xx

and the bidding proceeds:
1♣*-p-1♦**-p
1♣=15+unbal/16+bal
1♦=0-8 OR 0-1 controls

and you're at the crossroads.
a. 1♥ would show 19+ hcp and partner will force to game with a nice 5 count and at least 1 control (shape relays).
b. 1♠ would show 15-18 with 5+ spades, partner will usually bid again with the (5)6-8 hand and jump to game with the rare 9+ 0-1 control hand
c. 1NT would show 16-18 balanced (no puppet involved)

if you chose a:

1♣-1♦
1♥-1♠*
*2nd negative, inability/unwillingness to force to game or a hand with no controls.

a1. pass 1♠
a2. bid 1NT (19-21 bal)
a3. bid 2♠, natural, limited to about 22 hcp

So to recap:

a. 1♥=19+
 a1. pass
 a2. 1NT (19-21)
 a3. 2♠
b. 1♠=15-18
c. 1NT

Try to evaluate alternatives also, and do not hesitate to be blunt, e.g. "I chose a1 and consider everything else to be retarded".

Thanks and sorry for a potentially convoluted thread.

[jdonn]

The only thing that I think would be ridiculous is bidding 1♥ then passing 1♠. Joshs did that once when I was playing with him on a balanced hand, and I held 8!!!!! hearts.

[hrothgar]

1. I agree with the 1♥ rebid. Three Ace and 2 Kings with a 5332 shape isn't an 18 count

2. After 1♠, I prefer a 1NT rebid. The reasoning might seem convoluted: This hand screams for a suit contract. If I rebid 1NT, partner will have a wide variety of ways to show a shapely hand. A 2♠ rebid will get us to Spades if Spades is right. A 1NT rebid willl get us to Hearts/Diamonds/Club if any of these are right. Moreover, in a lot of those cases where 1NT is very wrong the opponents would have overcalled by now.

I can live with a 2♠ rebid, even though I'd prefer a sixth Spade. But at the table, I bid 1NT

[kenrexford]

This all seems simple if you get rid of the absurd parenthetical "No Puppet involved." Why not use Puppet here? I'll give you an example hand where it would be useful. ♠AKxxx ♥AKx ♦Axx ♣9x. LOL

[han]

I think describing this hand as 19-21 balanced is accurate.

[Mr. Dodgy]

a2

[whereagles]

What's the problem of bidding 1♥ and pass 1♠?

If responder did have some 2-4 hcp and a long suit, he could have bid it already, so his 1♠ is usually some non-extreme shape.

(not that I have anything against rebidding 1NT.. but)

[gwnn]

whereagles, on Nov 20 2007, 12:50 AM, said:

(snip)If responder did have some 2-4 hcp and a long suit, he could have bid it already(snip)

No. any other bid than 1♠ promises at least 1 control and desire to play game.

[awm]

I'd rebid 1♠ for tactical reasons. While I don't have a real problem treating this as 19:

(1) Our most likely game seems to be 4♠. If I rebid 1♠ I expect partner will raise with a fit, so we will essentially always reach 4♠ when it is right. If I bid 1♥...1NT then we could easily miss game if partner is weak with a spade fit, as well as overreaching to some bad games when partner has no spade fit.

(2) When partner is very weak and I have a hand like this, the right partial is likely to be spades. Rebidding 1♠ gets me to spades at a very low level when partner has a weak hand. Rebidding 1♥ followed by 2♠ is more dangerous if it's a misfit, and rebidding 1NT will lead to my playing the wrong partial fairly often (or even missing a game in spades).

(3) I am not sure what the hand is where partner has less than 6 points and less than 3♠ and we make a game. If partner has a six-card heart suit or something he may well bid it over 1♠ in any case.

(4) If we play 3NT, it will be better from partner's side. Bidding 1♠ gives partner the chance to reply with 1NT if he holds something like 6-8 hcp, over which we can play 3NT from partner's side.

[joshs]

jdonn, on Nov 19 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

The only thing that I think would be ridiculous is bidding 1♥ then passing 1♠. Joshs did that once when I was playing with him on a balanced hand, and I held 8!!!!! hearts.

Well actually I passed 1D after 1C-P-1D with a poor control balanced hand with something like KQJxx of diamonds and a 16 count. I admit that the action was very anti-partnership, and was possibly a losing action on average, but it wasn't nearly as bad as passing 1S with this hand....

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Nov 19 2007, 04:39 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Nov 19 2007, 04:30 PM, said:

This all seems simple if you get rid of the absurd parenthetical "No Puppet involved."  Why not use Puppet here?  I'll give you an example hand where it would be useful.  ♠AKxxx ♥AKx ♦Axx ♣9x.  LOL

It gets in the way of garbage stayman which seems like a fairly likely hand type opposite a double negative. Maybe you could add some stuff to make this not a problem, but maybe the OP and his partner don't want this added complexity.

1♣-P-

blah-blah-blah

1NT-P-3♣ = Puppet

Just use systems on as if opened 1NT. I don't see what the problem is.

Plus, I find the "added complexity" argument hilarious. Who plays this strong club system with relays and weird game forcing and all that but lacks an intelligent structure over 1NT (and delayed 1NT) openings?

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Nov 20 2007, 04:25 AM, said:

1♣-P-

blah-blah-blah

1NT-P-3♣ = Puppet

Just use systems on as if opened 1NT.  I don't see what the problem is.

Plus, I find the "added complexity" argument hilarious.  Who plays this strong club system with relays and weird game forcing and all that but lacks an intelligent structure over 1NT (and delayed 1NT) openings?

Ken:

Did you every consider that responder has made two negative responses after the Strong Club opening? Furthermore, opener just made a weak rebid.
Just how often do you think that your Puppet Stayman 3♣ bid is actually going to get used?

Maybe the issue isn't the lack of an intelligent structure over 1NT, but rather, the fact that you don't understand the methods being used yet still feel obliged to post.

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Nov 19 2007, 08:43 PM, said:

Ken:

Did you every consider that responder has made two negative responses after the Strong Club opening?  Furthermore, opener just made a weak rebid. 
Just how often do you think that your Puppet Stayman 3♣ bid is actually going to get used? 

Maybe the issue isn't the lack of an intelligent structure over 1NT, but rather, the fact that you don't understand the methods being used yet still feel obliged to post.

If Responder bids 1♠ as a second negative, that shows an unwillingness to commit to game at this juncture, or, as a completely different possibility, zero controls but wild willingness to commit to game but inability to commit to game because of the definition of bids other than 1♠, which apparently promise one control.

Opener has shown 19+, but any shape apparently.

Responder has initially shown 0-8 or 0-1 controls. So, Responder can have as strong as QJ-QJ-QJ-KQJ, a 15-count, because the options are X or Y.

Responder's second call clarified either unwillingness to commit to game, and again the "or", or zero controls. So, Responder could have QJ-QJ-QJ-QJ, a 12-count.

So, according to the information provided, Responder has not made two negative responses, in the sense that matters. I think that 3♣, Puppet, could come up relatively often in this situation. Responder needs about 6 HCP's, or so, meaning two Queen and two Jacks, for instance. Seems imminently possible.

Further, I'm not sure what difference this makes. If Responder does not have a 0-control hand with enough for game, or at least invitational, opposite 19-21, then we will often play 1NT. I'm OK with that final contract when it is the final contract.

Now, if the definitions to the bids were wrong, and somehow this auctions showed 0-4 and zero controls, which is not what was described, then my analysis is off.

[jdonn]

joshs, on Nov 19 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 19 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

The only thing that I think would be ridiculous is bidding 1♥ then passing 1♠. Joshs did that once when I was playing with him on a balanced hand, and I held 8!!!!! hearts.

Well actually I passed 1D after 1C-P-1D with a poor control balanced hand with something like KQJxx of diamonds and a 16 count. I admit that the action was very anti-partnership, and was possibly a losing action on average, but it wasn't nearly as bad as passing 1S with this hand....

No I'm quite sure it was 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 1♠. I admit, it turned out us unlucky as possible. I know you've passed 1♦ too, with I think mixed results.

[gwnn]

kenrexford, on Nov 20 2007, 06:37 AM, said:

Now, if the definitions to the bids were wrong, and somehow this auctions showed 0-4 and zero controls, which is not what was described, then my analysis is off.

Your interpretation was exactly correct.

[skjaeran]

This hand surely qualifies as a 19-21NT.
So I'd bid 1♥, then 1NT.

[whereagles]

gwnn, on Nov 19 2007, 10:54 PM, said:

whereagles, on Nov 20 2007, 12:50 AM, said:

(snip)If responder did have some 2-4 hcp and a long suit, he could have bid it already(snip)

No. any other bid than 1♠ promises at least 1 control and desire to play game.

Ok. I'm used to play it the other way around: 1♠ is neutral, any escape from it is weak 0-2 hcp and long suit.

If responder had no way to show a long suit so far (e.g. bidding 3/4x instead of the 1♦ negative or evading 1♠), then I'd still bid 1♥ but now would consider bidding 1NT over 1♠ (like bid 1NT 30% of the time or so).

[keylime]

I rebid 1♠, and not 1♥. I want to show my hand, and if pard finds a constructive call, I do have a follow-up coming. Owning 8 controls is an excellent find, and viewing it as a 19-21 NT isn't that far of a stretch. However, if pard is dead broke, LHO may be waiting to take a call now hearing that there isn't a G/F out there on his left. That, and I can still get into a heart partial - I own three of them, and it'll be right sided.

The problem I have with bidding 1♥ first is, if pard has no response structure to show a 4-6 hcp hand with a suit regardless of owning a control or not, he/she is endplayed into bidding 1♠ on enough hand types to get into the wrong partial, including hearts.