[effervesce]

I prefer 2♠, but I don't mind 1NT. [Edit-saw that it was for 2/1 - then 2♠ definitely better than 1NT]

[jdonn]

These answers are pretty shocking. 1NT is simply wrong.

[andy_h]

By bidding 1NT puts a lot of pressure on partner sometimes. Playing 2/1 I would say this is a mandatory 2S bid. Like others have said, support with support. If you do bid 1NT with this, how is partner ever going to know you have 3 card support and a decent hand but less than invitational values (assuming they go through 1NT)? After a direct 2S raise, there's also nothing stopping us from playing 3NT as well.

Let's say you do bid 1NT with this hand. The auction then goes 1S-1NT; 2x-? Obviously now you have to bid 2S as 3S is a huge overbid and most of the time this sequence doesn't even promise 3 card support unless it's in the 4-7 range or whatever it is. Now sit in partner's seat. If he has some unbalanced 5431/5422 type of hand, he sometimes has to guess whether or not to bid on again with marginal invitational values. He could hit gold or it could be a disaster. Telling partner about the fit will greatly help him judge what to do for the remainder of the auction.

[benlessard]

This hand is too strong for 1Nt forcing and a preference to 2S.
This hand isnt strong enough for 1Nt follwed by 2NT to show 10-11 balanced.

So playing forcing 1NT you should bid 2S.
Not playing 1NT forcing but in Imps you should of course bid 2S since the +10 is pointless.

Not playing 1Nt forcing but in MP you still have the same problem, if partner pass 1Nt then 1Nt vs 2S is a fair gamble but if partner bid 2m you are a bit stuck, a 2S preference will be an underbid and 2Nt/3S will be a gross overbid.

All in all 2S is clearly better. This hand as the NT feel but the strength will be too tough to show if you bid 1Nt.

[P_Marlowe]

andy_h, on Oct 23 2008, 12:08 AM, said:

By bidding 1NT puts a lot of pressure on partner sometimes. Playing 2/1 I would say this is a mandatory 2S bid. Like others have said, support with support. If you do bid 1NT with this, how is partner ever going to know you have 3 card support and a decent hand but less than invitational values (assuming they go through 1NT)?

He will never know this in the bidding.

But it is important to know, that the only thing
we are hiding, is the 3 card support.

Bidding 1 NT means, you are betting that the stock
exchange goes down.
You take a view, thats all what there is too say.
As long as you know, what risks you are taking, the
bid is fine, even if I would not make it myself.

Saying 1NT will prevent you from reaching thin games
is fine, but ignores the fact that you will also stay out
of 3S partial or of games, which have no play at all.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cascade]

andy_h, on Oct 23 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

He could hit gold or it could be a disaster.

Look at the hand ♠Q ♥Q ♦Q ♣K we haven't got gold.

[neilkaz]

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 12:05 AM, said:

2♠. You cannot suppress 3-card spade support (with this good a hand) because you think it is more descriptive. You know nothing about partner's hand, and you will cause all kinds of problems later if it becomes relevant to support spades.

Just support with support.

Complete agreement and you can accept a game try with 3NT if you wish.

[mike777]

flytoox, on Oct 21 2008, 11:57 PM, said:

Pd and I have diff. opinion about the following hand:
S: Q9X
H: Q8X
D: QT9X
C: KXX

PD opened 1S, right hand passed, playing 2/1 with the above hand, what do you bid? 2S or 1N?

I choose 1N due to the balanced hand with Queen and 8,9, but Pd thinks 2S much better, which I dont agree.

Your opinion?

THanks in advance.

Hongjun

2s easy...next hand.

I think the tough ones are 5-7 total points with 3 spades.

[CSGibson]

2♠. This is one of the most obvious bids I have ever seen on this forum.

[andy_h]

Cascade, on Oct 24 2008, 08:19 AM, said:

andy_h, on Oct 23 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

He could hit gold or it could be a disaster.

Look at the hand ♠Q ♥Q ♦Q ♣K we haven't got gold.

umm?
We have only heard 1♠ from partner. There are also the subset of hands where ours fit inbetween gold and disaster...
How do you know we haven't got the nuts? Even with a bare minimum as AJTxx AKJx Jxx x or KJxxx Kx KJ AT9x or AJTxx Jx AKxx Qx and game is easily in the picture (Note that moving on with these hands after a 1NT-->2S can turn out really bad. Maybe if you change a card or 2, surely hearing a 2S response will delight you way more than a mere 1NT-->2S which could still be based on a doubleton support). Knowing if we have 2 or 3 trumps is a huge factor in helping partner out. I would go as far as saying that 1NT is just 100% wrong.

[mcphee]

Amazed that more than ONE person in the entire world would bid 1N when not F. As a fan of constructive raises to me this is 2!S. What dear old pard does next is up to them.

[helene_t]

han, on Oct 22 2008, 08:44 PM, said:

It is a common misconception that a "standard" 1NT response to 1 of a major shows a balanced hand, it doesn't.

I wasn't aware that it was common. Maybe among players who were taught bridge in the pre-Goren days?

[TMorris]

Playing Acol with 4 card majors. I think it's close between 1NT & 2S, generally with a completely flat hand I'd bid 1NT. The downside is if partner has a flat 15 to an ok 16 and passes but even then game is not that brilliant and I will have plenty of company & might beat the 2S bidders by playing in NT. Mind you I play mostly pairs. At teams I would be more tempted by 2D so as to not miss the flat 15-16 hand opposite.

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Oct 23 2008, 07:04 AM, said:

These answers are pretty shocking. 1NT is simply wrong.

To me it's more shocking to see a statement like "1NT is simply wrong". The world is not black and white, it's grey. I would raise to 2♠, but that doesn't mean that 1NT is "simply wrong."

I respect your view, Josh, but you should also respect others'. Wayne (cascade) is a NZ internationalist and a bridge teacher who can accept 2♠ as well as 1NT. There is nothing shocking about choosing 1NT as far as he is concerned, and I am in the same camp.

Roland

[ulven]

TylerE, on Oct 22 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

Constructive raises are the worst treatment ever. I'd rather play F------y than CR.

It's amazing how one can view the same situations so differently ;-)

I love CR and I think 2S is a really no-brainer on this hand. Really obvious actually and I consider 1NT, while perhaps not shocking, a mistake (unless playing 4-c M when the verdict would be reversed). This is NOT a bidding problem.

The biggest flaw with 1NT is that partner will often enough have an 'in-between' hand, rebidding say 2m. Now our hand is too weak to do anything but bid 2S and partner will no be able to move on many hands where game makes, since it can be a non-fitting 2-card preference.

Why would you not bid 2S? While it's very likely that we have a wasted honor, it's a fact that when partner has a sidesuit we'll have at least 2 very fitting cards. If we have say Qxx KQxx Qxx xxx this is potentially worse, if partner is short in hearts.

[helene_t]

I think this hand is clearly within the range of 2♠, whether it is constructive or SAYC-like. I don't see how this can be a problem. Is anyone suggesting the hand is too weak for a constructive raise or too strong for a SAYC-raise?

[pclayton]

Walddk, on Oct 27 2008, 06:13 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 23 2008, 07:04 AM, said:

These answers are pretty shocking. 1NT is simply wrong.

To me it's more shocking to see a statement like "1NT is simply wrong". The world is not black and white, it's grey. I would raise to 2♠, but that doesn't mean that 1NT is "simply wrong."

LOL Roland.

You must realize that everything on the forums is black and white, and that all bidding theory that existed prior to eighteen months ago is patently wrong.

The real world? Let's not go there

[han]

There are only so many words that you can use to express that something seems really wrong to you. Since the poster asked for opinions it would be a disservice not to give yours if you think it is really clear. This whole I'm-shocked-because-you-are-shocked thing seems overdone to me.

I don't think it is necessary to add to every single post we make a polite disclaimer about how this is only our opinion and bridge is a difficult game etc. etc. If I think something is clearly wrong then I'm just going to say so and if it turns out that some multiple world champion later posts it is clearly right, maybe I have learned something.

[TylerE]

My problem with constructive raises is that you can have the auction:

1♥-1NT-2♦-2♥ on:

♠xxx
♥Qxx
♦Qxx
♣Qxxx

or

♠xxx
♥xx
♦Kxx
♣AQxxx

This to me is far worse than having a 4/5 point range on 1M-2M

[rogerclee]

TylerE, on Oct 27 2008, 10:02 AM, said:

My problem with constructive raises is that you can have the auction:

1♥-1NT-2♦-2♥ on:

♠xxx
♥Qxx
♦Qxx
♣Qxxx

or

♠xxx
♥xx
♦Kxx
♣AQxxx

This to me is far worse than having a 4/5 point range on 1M-2M

I would bid 1NT with the first hand playing forcing NT. Please don't yell at me .