[han]

I don't play constructive raises but I would bid 1NT.. 2H anyway on Tyler's first example. Three queens in a 4333 hand doesn't strike me as an honest raise. It seems to me that bidding 1H-2H on

♠xxx
♥Qxx
♦Qxx
♣Qxxx

as well as

♠xxx
♥Kxx
♦xx
♣AQxxx

is too much of a range as partner is more likely to try for game after this sequence than after 1H-1NT-2D-2H.

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Oct 27 2008, 09:13 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."

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

1NT is absolutely wrong in the system that was stated. How can that even be argued? It denies three spades unless you are a very weak response or a limit raise. Could a wrong bid work well? Sure, I would never deny that. But if you don't bid 2♠ on the given hand, you are misbidding.

I do not see where I failed to respect anyone's opinion merely by stating my own?

[lexlogan]

I would've raised to 2♠, but 1NT doesn't seem horrible. Consider these two hands:

#1 ♠AKxxx ♥AJxx ♦Kx ♣xx

opposite

♠Q9x ♥Q8x ♦Q109x ♣Kxx

#2 ♠AJxxx ♥AJxx ♦Kx ♣Ax

Presumably partner will make a game try with the first after 1S-2S, but will pass after 1S-1NT-2H-2S. With the second, partner might bull into 4S after the raise, but I'd be inclined to bid 2NT after either the raise or preference sequence. So. with me as a partner, the bidding stops at 2S with #1 and reaches 3NT or 4S with #2. Those results look reasonable. I didn't spend any time cooking these examples, they were the first that came to mind where, for #1, the raise encouraged a game try and for #2 it didn't matter.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Oct 28 2008, 06:14 AM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 27 2008, 09:13 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."

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

1NT is absolutely wrong in the system that was stated. How can that even be argued? It denies three spades unless you are a very weak response or a limit raise. Could a wrong bid work well? Sure, I would never deny that. But if you don't bid 2♠ on the given hand, you are misbidding.

I do not see where I failed to respect anyone's opinion merely by stating my own?

It is "wrong" to a walrus. The same as opening 1NT with 14 is wrong to a walrus in the stated system.

That doesn't mean that the bid is wrong or has no merit.

On many judgement issues noone knows what is right or wrong. We only have opinions. There may well be a right answer but noone knows what it is.

This particular hand has a lot of features which are much more suited to playing in NTs than in spades - even with a fit:

4-3-3-3 distribution
Soft cards - queens
good spots

All of these features to me indicate no trumps rather than suit contract. Of course my view may change as the auction develops and I get additional information from partner.

I accept that if I raise spades it maybe possible for us to get to 3NT later. But I cannot see why it is not possible to get back to spades and for partner to think that we have three (or at least might have three) after I bid 1NT. This isn't a matter of system it is a matter of style and judgement.

I have done some simulations with this hand and they indicate to me that opposite reasonably balanced hands 5-3-3-2 and 5-4-2-2s that 3NT is more likely to make than 4♠. Now this is where the judgement gets complicated as partner's likelihood of opening 1NT with either of those shapes needs to be taken into account - with some partners all or nearly all of those hands will be opened 1NT with others none or very few will be opened 1NT.

I am not completely convinced that 1NT is better than 2♠ but I think we should be flexible enough to allow NT bids on hands even when a major fit exists.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Oct 27 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

This isn't a matter of system it is a matter of style and judgement.

That statement is 100% incorrect. The complete opposite is true. What is this, since you want to bid 1NT, you get to change the definitions of 1NT and of 2♠?

Quote

I am not completely convinced that 1NT is better than 2♠ but I think we should be flexible enough to allow NT bids on hands even when a major fit exists.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to play in notrump on a hand like this. If that is important to you, then you should design or play a system that allows for it instead of misbidding in the system that is being played. It would be like opening 1NT with 10 when playing 15-17 because you think opening 1NT with 10 is an effective strategy. If that is the case, don't botch the range you agreed to, just play a range with 10 in it from now on!

[rogerclee]

Here is the main reason why bidding 1N then 2S is harmful to your constructive bidding:

Partner will play you for a doubleton spade and will pass with hands that would have game tried over a 2S raise. Hands like 5431 15 counts and 55 14 counts that are strong hands when they find an 8 card spade fit but not that great otherwise. This is fine when you have a hand with 3 trumps that would reject any game try, but when you have a full 9 count that will accept game tries you are underbidding your hands potential for spades.

What are the supposed reasons for bidding 1NT?

Well, playing 1NT is going to be impossible, so even if that is better given our soft cards and flat shape, it is going to be impossible.

The only time we will ever get to play NT instead of spades is when partner is strong enough to drive to the three level (or higher). In this case, partner is going to bid over 1S p 2S anyways and we still have the optin of getting to 3N. In fact, we will be better placed to judge whether 3N or 4S is the right contract at that point because partner will already know we have 3 spades.

Even if you call that a wash on times we get to a good 3N whether we start with 1N or start with 2S, we have gained nothing by bidding 1N. Also, if partner has a hand that will pass 1S p 2S we are a wash because he will pass 1S p 1N p 2x p 2S.

So the relevant hands are only when partner would bid over 1S p 2S but pass 1S p 1N p 2x p 2S. I think we will come out as a big loser by bidding 1N since we are going to be missing games more often as we have misdescribed/underbid our hand (see the beginning of this post).

For 1N to be right you have to think that you get to significantly more good 3Ns instead of 4S by starting with 1N, enough to compensate for the times you miss good 4S games by bidding 1N. There is no way this is the case, and it's not close.

It is a myth that we should bid 1N to show our balanced hand and slow values, it shows neither (as han said). And as jdonn said, 1N then 2S cannot contain a hand with 9 points and 3 spades, and that misdescription WILL hurt you as shown earlier in this post.

Frankly, I am amazed that I had to write so many words to try to show what is so blatantly obvious.

Roland, you are right that most things in bridge are not black and white. However, some are. Opening 1N with a 4333 16 when playing 15-17 NT is one of them. Raising 1S to 2S with a 3(334) 9 count is another one that is equally obvious.

[Codo]

If you play constructive raises, where is your borderline?
If you play 9-11, nobody will discuss that this hand is at most a borderline 2 Spade bid and maybe less.
So, lets say 1 Spade 2 Spade shows 8-10, nothing really spectular.
Now you have 9 HCPs, but nearly the worst points and shape ever.

So you use your judgement and say that this hand is not worth a 2 Spade bid, because it is much worse then f.e. Qxx,xx,xxx,KQxxx.

To call this 100% wrong and/or ridiculous is 100 % wrong and ridiculous.

[mike777]

Codo, on Oct 28 2008, 02:58 AM, said:

If you play constructive raises, where is your borderline?
If you play 9-11, nobody will discuss that this hand is at most a borderline 2 Spade bid and maybe less.
So, lets say 1 Spade 2 Spade shows 8-10, nothing really spectular.
Now you have 9 HCPs, but nearly the worst points and shape ever.

So you use your judgement and say that this hand is not worth a 2 Spade bid, because it is much worse then f.e. Qxx,xx,xxx,KQxxx.

To call this 100% wrong and/or ridiculous is 100 % wrong and ridiculous.

I thought i said long long ago:
4-6 or 5-7 with 3 spades/trumps may be problem.

In bridge you choose which problems....to live with.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Oct 28 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

Cascade, on Oct 27 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

This isn't a matter of system it is a matter of style and judgement.

That statement is 100% incorrect. The complete opposite is true. What is this, since you want to bid 1NT, you get to change the definitions of 1NT and of 2♠?

Quote

I am not completely convinced that 1NT is better than 2♠ but I think we should be flexible enough to allow NT bids on hands even when a major fit exists.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to play in notrump on a hand like this. If that is important to you, then you should design or play a system that allows for it instead of misbidding in the system that is being played. It would be like opening 1NT with 10 when playing 15-17 because you think opening 1NT with 10 is an effective strategy. If that is the case, don't botch the range you agreed to, just play a range with 10 in it from now on!

The only independent authority on 2/1 that I have at my finger tips says this:

On single raises

"They show a fit of three or more cards and the values of a good five to a bad nine in high cards." Hardy pg 17

It does not say anywhere that it is compulsory to make this raise with every hand in this range.

Hardy goes on to say that some 2/1 players play constructive raises where the range would be different.

When I agree to play a system I never agree to throw my judgement out the window. If I don't think a hand is suited for the "book" bid for some reason or another I am always free to make some other bid that I think is more suited.

These forums are full of hands where there is a "book" bid - in this case 5-9 hcp with three spades - but which many offer opinions that some other bid is better.

4-3-3-3 with 9 hcp is nothing like your exaggerated example of a five-point variation from your 15-17 1NT.

What is your authority that every 3-card support hand must raise 1♠. I am not used to playing that sort of straight-jacket system.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Oct 28 2008, 01:48 AM, said:

This particular hand has a lot of features which are much more suited to playing in NTs than in spades

So you are planing for an auction like
1♠-1NT
2m-2♠
2NT-3NT

You could also get to 3NT via
1♠-2♠
(something)-3NT

Opener will be more likely to accept your proposal of 3NT in the first auction because you have shown only two spades.

There is only one way of showing 8 support points and 3-card support. If you want to show 3-card support, then the difference between 2♠ and 1NT is one of strength. It's not like 1NT shows a more notrumpish hand than does 2♠. Also, you can't play in 2NT with this hand (assuming you agree that the hand is too weak to invite with 2NT, and too strong to pass opener's 2NT invite).

There can be three reasons for bidding 1NT.
1) The hand is too weak for 2♠
2) The hand is too weak for 2♠
3) The hand is so notrumpish that you want to deny 3-card support.

Maybe this hand evaluates as 7 support points. Then of course 1NT is correct if 2♠ shows 8-10. Or maybe it is right to deny 3-card support with this hand. But otherwise I agree with Josh that 1NT is simply wrong.

[Walddk]

I have now sent an e-mail to 50 North American experts on 2/1 with the following wording:

Hi all,

We have a thread on the BBO forums regarding a single raise or a 1NT response. I'd like to hear the opininon of 10-15 2/1 experts.

S: Q9X
H: Q8X
D: QT9X
C: KXX

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

I would appreciate your reply as soon as possible. 2S or 1NT is OK, but if you want to comment further as to why you bid this and not that, please do.

Regards,

Roland

....

With some luck I'll get the 10-15 replies I am looking for; if I am very lucky even more. What do you expect that I get back? How many % for 2S and how many for 1NT?

[Cascade]

Here are some interesting statistics I computed on this hand:

Opposite a 5332, 5422 or 6322 with 5 spades 14-19 hcp

This hand made double dummy

3NT 60%
4♠ 46%

A random 4-4-3-2 10 count with only two spades made double dummy

3NT 61%
4♠ 42%

A random 9 count with 4-4-3-2 or 4-3-3-3 with three spades

3NT 52%
4♠ 57%

Opposite a 5431 with spades the number were

Our actual hand
3NT 51%
4♠ 59%

balanced 10-count two spades
3NT 60%
4♠ 51%

balanced 9-count three spades
3NT 45%
4♠ 58%

These number suggest opposite a 'balanced' hand this hand behaves more like a 10-count with two spades than an average 9-count with 3 spades.

Opposite the unbalanced hand it behaves slightly better than a 9-count with three spades in 3NT but otherwise more like the 9-count.

As I said earlier which it is more like overall on average might depend on a partnership's propensity to open or not 1NT with a five-card major including 5-4-2-2s.

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Oct 28 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

With some luck I'll get the 10-15 replies I am looking for; if I am very lucky even more. What do you expect that I get back? How many % for 2S and how many for 1NT?

I don't really care. An answer like "this hand is better described as 9 points with 2-card support" (as Wayne suggests) or "this hand is better described as 7 points with 3-card support" would be interesting. A vote for 1NT (or 2♠) without motivation would not be very enlightening.

[655321]

Cascade, on Oct 28 2008, 05:59 AM, said:

When I agree to play a system I never agree to throw my judgement out the window.

Cascade, on Oct 28 2008, 05:59 AM, said:

I am not used to playing that sort of straight-jacket system.

To me, this sort of comment reads like justification for masterminding.

I am fortunate in that my partners don't feel compelled to rescue me from the stresses of decision-making by taking all the decisions themselves.

[Walddk]

helene_t, on Oct 28 2008, 02:06 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 28 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

With some luck I'll get the 10-15 replies I am looking for; if I am very lucky even more. What do you expect that I get back? How many % for 2S and how many for 1NT?

I don't really care. An answer like "this hand is better described as 9 points with 2-card support" (as Wayne suggests) or "this hand is better described as 7 points with 3-card support" would be interesting. A vote for 1NT (or 2♠) without motivation would not be very enlightening.

Don't worry; you'll get explanations too. Six responded so far (it's still very early in NA), and they all tell when they will bid 2♠ and 1NT. I'll bring all quotes eventually.

Roland

[glen]

My opinion:

2♠ and 1NT

2♠ at IMPs (or if 1NT is forcing) - 2♠ will often be okay as a contract, and 2♠ will move us towards a possible game - my partnership will need to be able to investigate 3NT as a possible contract - do Meckwell still play 1♠-2♠;-3♠ as "interested in 3NT played by responder"?

1NT at pairs if 1NT is semi-forcing or non-forcing - we may miss game after 1♠-1NT;-2X-2♠ (opener treating 2♠ as a doubleton if 8-10) but staying low can be good at pairs, and we get to 1NT when it can be a great pairs contract

[cherdano]

Cliff notes version:
If you raise to 2♠, you will be able to show a balanced hand with 3 spades worth a good single raise. If you bid 1N, you will not be able to show a balanced hand with 3 spades.

[Walddk]

Walddk, on Oct 28 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

I have now sent an e-mail to 50 North American experts.

Overwhelming. I got 44 replies. Unanimous decision: 2♠ it is. Here is what the experts say:

Peg Kaplan:
I respond 2S, and do not think it very close. (I don't think 1NT is ridiculous; I just don't like it). Here's why. It's not good enough for a 3 card limit raise. (Too soft values; not enough shape). If partner bids a suit over 1NT, what is my response now? If I bid merely 2S, he won't think I have 3 spades. If I bid 3 spades, he'll think my hand is better than it is. If I rebid 2NT over 2 of another suit, I'm showing more than I have. Would I like to have a doubleton somewhere? Ya; you betcha. But, 2S is closer than anything else, and covers rebids better than any other call.

Richie Reisig:
2S. The only time I prefer 1NT when weakish (holding 3 card supp) is when I'm VERY weak. Meaning, I don't want partner to get excited and overbid. The problem on bidding 1NT forcing - is what will you bid next (over 2C/2D)...if 2S - you sound like 2 card support. Whenever you raise immmed. - opener re-evaulates based on the fit...when you deny support - you send the wrong message.

David Grainger:
2S. In 2/1 with the forcing NT, 1NT with 3 spades should either have a limit raise, or be less than either constructive (7+-10+), or semi-constructive (6-10-), depending on agreement (I prefer the latter). Even if playing bart, the bart sequences tend to show hands with 2 spades. So even though you may really want to suggest NTs, you 1) won't be playing 1N anyway, and 2) will be forced to show a much worse hand than you have over partner's next call, and you'll still be in spades, unless you upgrade to invitational values, on this hand which is really just garbage. (Getting to 3N opposite balanced 13-14s or 5431 14-16s with stiff H/C is not going to be pretty). I would respond 1NT holding a hand such as xxx xxx xxx Kxxx or Qxx xxx Kxx xxxx, but having the intention of never letting the hand be played in NT.

Debbie Rosenberg:
2S. With 3-card spade support, I'd bid 1N only with a hand either too weak or too strong for 2S. Too weak would include hands with fewer than 6 support points, a flat hand with 6 HCP, or a flat 7 with poor spots and bad trumps. Too strong would be defined as a hand with 10-12 support points, though a flat 10 HCP, with poor spots, might still bid 2S. With the "too weak" hand, my plan is to take a preference next time. Partner will expect only a doubleton trump for this action. With the "too strong" hand, my plan is to jump in spades next time.

Danny Sprung:
2S. Support with support. The only hands I bid 1nt with 3 card support for a major are limit raise with 3 trump, or a total sub minimum response, say 2 queens.

Henry Bethe:
2S; but I am biased as I play that 1NT virtually denies 3 card support, certainly constructive 3 card support. This hand is surely not good enough to bid 1N and then 3S, and is far too good to bid 1N and then 2S.

Phillip Alder:
I would bid two spades. This hand is not quite good enough to invite game. If I had, say, the jack of hearts instead of the eight, I would bid one notrump, then two notrump. This hand does have notrump written all over it, but partner could be short in hearts or clubs, which would not be so good. And to have the sequence start 1S-1NT-2X-2S, partner will assume I have only two spades.

Brad Moss:
2S.

Larry Cohen:
2S. Not close. I play 2S can be up to a decent 10 -- and this hand, in spite of those decent spots is 4x3 and not worth 1NT followed by 3S.

Jack Oest:
Two Spades. While I understand the hand looks like NT, I might never recover from a 1NT start. Assuming partner rebids his second suit, what then? My 2S bid now sounds only like a preference and partner will pass on many hands where he might have moved had he known he was facing three card support. Raising spades now does not preclude getting back to NT later.

Bob McPhee:
2S for me Mr Wald. This is what I have.

Robb Gordon:
2S. This certainly is not close to a 3 card limit raise!

Jill Meyers:
Since I play forcing nt over 1s I would bid 2S directly. If I bid 1nt and then correct partner's rebid to 2s my hand will seem weaker or fewer trumps and I don't have enough to rebid 3s over partner's rebid (3s being 3 card LR).

Fred Gitelman:
2S. The main reason is that I think this hand is too strong for spades to consider bidding 1NT followed by 2S. This would be especially true if non-vul when I would often bid 1NT on close to nothing as a "tactical psych". 1NT then 2S is an intentional distortion IMO - partner will never expect a hand with both 3 spades and this many HCP. 2S also has tactical advantages - it makes it harder for LHO to get into the auction via an overcall (unless you play that OBAR thing and, if you do, good luck to you when you actually have a real hand). For me 2S is completely normal. I try to keep an open mind about such things, but honestly it would not occur to me to be anything other than 2S.

Mildred Breed:
I respond 2S. Since I play F1 NT, it is clear-cut to me. If 1NT is not forcing, there is more to be said for the 1NT bid.

Nader Hanna:
2S. If I bid a forcing 1NT then minimally support Spades it shows a weaker hand or only two card support. The hand is not good enough to jump to 3S (limit raise with 3 card support) after partner’s rebid over 1NT. If partner makes a game try over 2S I can bid NT to suggest a maximum balanced raise with scattered values.

Bobby Wolff:
2 Spades - Just about right. Too strong for 1NT and then 2S and not strong enough for 3S.

Bart Bramley:
2S. I have no objection to bidding 1NT with this hand TYPE, but 9 HCP is too much for 1NT. However, I will reject all game tries except 2NT, which I will raise to 3NT. Despite the 9 HCP, the bad shape and lack of aces and kings makes this a minimum raise. I assume we are playing 5-card majors. If I’m playing a style that includes frequent 4-card spade suits I would bid 1NT.

George Jacobs:
2 Spades. No reason to mastermind. You are probably not planning to jump to 3 Spades to show a limit raise later.

Mark Feldman:
2S.

Matt Granovetter:
2S.

George Holland:
2S. I am prepared for all game tries by partner.

Andy Stark:
2S, like a shot. Too weak to bid 1NT, then raise to 3S. Too good to bid 1NT, then rebid 2S which implies a doubleton spade.

Nikolay Demirev:
2S for me with the most developments. I trust partner to offer 3nt later and I see no particular need to make sure my hand will declare. However, if playing semi-forcing or forcing NT and 1S-1nt-2C-2D!-2S! showing 9+ with a doubleton in pairs I will lean towards responding 1nt, especially if we tend to open the major with 15-17 on certain hands. The implied alternative 1S-1N-2x-3S is not in consideration for me. I am a whole red K short for that.

Jan Martel:
I thought 2S when I read the BBOF thread, but I think it's really a partnership question more than a standard 2/1 question.

Kit Woolsey:
My philosophy is to always raise with 3-card support regardless of the hand. Just because I am balanced doesn't mean that partner is. The raise is more preemptive, blocking a 2-level overcall, and establishes a trump suit quickly. In addition, when I bid 1NT partner knows that I don't have support (unless I have a 3-card limit raise which I can show next turn). Thus, when I later take a preference to 2S he will know it is a doubleton and can act accordingly.

Bruce Gowdy:
I bid 2 spades 6-9 points 3 card support. I like using the "8 missing AKQ count for limit raises"--thus on this hand you have an 8 count (there are two missing AKQ in each suit), but without an ace I reduce the value of the queens-thus for practical purposes this is a nine or even a ten count.. Therefore I cannot bid a forcing nt and then jump to 3 spades showing a 3 card limit raise. If the club King was the ace, now I bid 1nt forcing and jump to 3 spades next. Note that 1spade-1nt-2 spades- 3 spades is not invitational in a sense, but still just a limit raise-inferring that you would have bid 3 spades over any two level response.Further on this holding, if it went 1 spade-1nt-2spades, I would raise that to 3 spades as the presence of a 6 bagger in pards hand increases the value back to limit raise status.

John Stewart:
2S, no choice for me.

Jon Wittes:
2S, clear cut. I would only respond 1NT on hands that are too weak for a constructive raise, or hands that I intended to show as a balanced limit raise. This hand is clearly in neither of those categories.

Valerie Westheimer:
2S. I wld play that 1NT, then choicing back to 2S over partner's expected minor-suit rebid is much weaker than the hand I have here. Set trumps, support when you have support, keep partner happy

Jeff Rubens:
My view on your problem is that this is clearly a two-spade response in Bridge World Standard, too strong for one notrump + two spades.

Adam Wildavsky:
2S. Too good for 1N followed by 2S, not good enough for 1N followed by 3S. Note that the hand's not as good as the raw point count suggests, even with all those spots. A CCCC evaluation gives 7.30:
http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/knr.cgi?ha...9X+Q8X+QT9X+KXX

John Swanson:
2S. If I bid 1NT with queens and spot cards I would want the values to rebid 2NT.

Steve Robinson:
2 spades. No aces, only one king makes this hand not worth a three-card limit raise.

Eric Kokish:
2S. Not close to 1NT, whether forcing, semi-forcing, or NF.

Jim Tritt:
2s - I play that if I bid 1nt and then preference to 2s, that would show a hand that would not accept any game try. Direct 2s is better, will accept some game try. This hand not good enough for 1nt followed by 3s.

Roy Hughes:
2S, definitely. 1N would have to be followed by 2S, an underbid which usually contains only 2 trumps, or 3S, which is a big overbid.

Zia Mahmood:
2 spades 100/100..1nt 0/100.

Mike Hargreaves:
2S. Frankly, this is a non-problem in 2/1, whether one plays constructive raises or not. The hand strongly suggests a notrump contract, but responding 1NT, ironically, does very little to get us to notrump... it is, after all, forcing. While I don't mind downgrading really soft hands, such as this one is, I can't not treat it as constructive.... I do have 9 hcp and some spots, and even tho to me it is worth maybe a decent 7 count, that is enough for a constructive raise.

Walter Johnson:
2S and not close.

Gene Saxe:
I have a strong preference for 2S. At the same time, my style is sound invites, aggressive tries/acceptances. If partner has AJxxxx, Kx, x, AJxx where game is about 50%, and you bid 1NT, opener will bid 2S with this hand most of the time, and now, you will be overbidding to raise to 3S. If opener rebids 2C instead, and you preference 2S (why would you jump to 3S?) how can opener raise and try again? However, after a 2S raise, you will have a play with 2-2 trump and Kx of clubs, so you would try. Any red A in addition (or the SK) would make game a very good bet, with Kx or Kxx of C.

Harmon Edgar:
I would bid 2S. Its a GOOD 2s bid but one of the cards is probably going to be useless and you are 4333. 3S is too much of an overbid after 1N.

Marshall Lewis and Jim Gordon also replied. Both vote for 2♠.

[lexlogan]

From Cascade's stats, if partner is at all likely to have a relatively balanced hand worth a game try, 1NT may be a big winner. Now what if opener is 5431? The bidding will begin 1S-1NT-2x-2S. With only 14-15 hcp, opener may give up. If the 59% for game applies to all 14-19 hands with this shape, I'm going to assume 14-15 with this shape is only about 50% or less. Perhaps Cascade can simulate that more specific case. (And did you mean any 431 in the side suits?) With 16+, I assume opener will make another try, and it won't be in notrump. Once he bids his third suit (or rebids his second suit with 55 shape), we can leap to 4S, unless perhaps his singletoon is in clubs.

To summarize: when opener has a minimum hand, we land at 2S, without the opps realizing we have a fit. This may discourage them from balancing.

When opener has a balanced, game invitational or better hand, we land at the superior 3NT contract, played from the correct side and with the spade fit concealed.

When opener has an unbalanced, borderline game try, we stop at 2S, which appears to be a winning contract.

When opener has an unbalanced, stronger game try, we reach the same 4S contract we'd get to via 1S-2S.

I'm always skeptical of simulation results but it looks like 1NT may be a huge winner.

[lexlogan]

rogerclee, on Oct 28 2008, 06:57 AM, said:

Here is the main reason why bidding 1N then 2S is harmful to your constructive bidding:

Partner will play you for a doubleton spade and will pass with hands that would have game tried over a 2S raise. Hands like 5431 15 counts and 55 14 counts that are strong hands when they find an 8 card spade fit but not that great otherwise....

From Cascade's simulations as well as simply loooking at this hand, discouraging partner from making a game try with 14-15 unbalanced appears to be a winning, not losing strategy. The difference between 2 and 3 card support is typically 1/3 of a trick, i.e., one point. Hands simply don't gain or lose a lot of playing strength based on 2 or 3 card support when dummy has no ruffing value. There's a much bigger swing between 3 and 4 card support than between 2 and 3.