[jdonn]

Walddk, on Oct 28 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

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

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

Overwhelming. I got 32 replies within 5 hours. Unanimous decision: 2♠ it is.

Thanks for posting it Roland. I stand by 1NT being 100% wrong. If that doesn't prove it, then what else can I say...

[FrancesHinden]

I'm surprised this hand has caused so much passion.
But to play devil's advocate against your summary:

Quote

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.

I'm not entirely sure why you want to discourage them from balancing. If partner has, say, a 13-14 balanced hand I think I'd quite like them to be playing at the 3-level. Preferably doubled.

Quote

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.

Responding 2S does not preclude getting to 3NT. It might end in 3NT by either hand depending on methods, but it's not at all clear at this point what the right side actually is.

Quote

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

Possibly true. You do of course have to weigh that against games you miss because partner doesn't realise you have 3-card support.

[pclayton]

I too am amazed at the amount of replies this thread getting. Frankly I consider it a non-problem.

[Walddk]

pclayton, on Oct 28 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

I too am amazed at the amount of replies this thread getting. Frankly I consider it a non-problem.

I don't think any problem is a non-problem. If in doubt, it's silly not to ask if you want to be enlightened.

Roland

[Cascade]

lexlogan, on Oct 29 2008, 04:57 AM, said:

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?)

Yes it was any 431 on the side.

Here are some more specific simulations:

14-15 hcp 5431

Stiff heart

4♠ made 41%
3♠ failed 18%

Stiff diamond

4♠ made 38%
3♠ failed 15%

Stiff Club

4♠ made 32%
3♠ failed 22%

[Cascade]

I have done a single dummy simulation of this situation using GIB.

This is not completely ideal as GIB plays some sort of constructive raises.

It describes the simple raise as "3+ S; 7-10 points".

However the route through 1NT it describes as a wider range "2-3 S; 6+ HCP; 11- points"

My experience playing with GIB in the robot race money tournaments is that in practice GIB voluntarily raises with hands weaker than 7 hcp.

The simulation was based on 100 hands. Each hand was played twice once with the forced start of 1♠ Pass 2♠ ... and once with the forced start 1♠ Pass 1NT ... to the auction.

The simulation was across the range of hands that would open 1♠. I also constrained the second seat hand to not have a clear cut bid. I varied the vulnerability according to board number by the normal rotation as I don't think that was specified in the orginal problem.

Over the 100 hands the simulation was very close. Responding 2♠ lost to responding 1NT 166-167.

I have done some analysis of where the wins and losses occurred.

Non-Competitive Part-score - no swing

22/100 hands

Non-Competitive Part-Score - lose IMPs

4/100 hands - lost 7 IMPs

0-7 (26 hands)

Non-Competitive Part-Score - won IMPs

7/100 hands - lost 7 IMPs

7-7 (33 hands)

Competitive Part-Score - no swing

3/100 hands (36 hands)

Competitive Part-Score - lose IMPs

6/100 hands - lost 20 IMPs

7-27 (42 hands)

Competitive Part-Score - win IMPs

11/100 hands won - won 53 IMPs

60-27 (53 hands)

Game - Same Result

12/100 hands (65 hands)

Game - Lost IMPs

2/100 - lose 13 IMPs

60-40 (67 hands)

Game - Won IMPs

1/100 - won 11 IMPs

71-40 (68 hands)

Different Game - no swing

2/100 (70 hands)

Different Game - lose IMPs

1/100 - lost 13 IMPs

71-53 (71 hands)

(There were no hands where we got to a different game and won IMPs by bidding 2♠)

Game/Partscore - lose IMPs

7/100 hands - lost 37 IMPs

71-90 (78 hands)

Game/Partscore - win IMPs

6/100 hands - won 49 IMPs

119-90 (84 hands)

Game/Partscore - no swing

1/100 hands (85 hands)

Competitive Game - lose IMPs

2/100 hands - lost 18 IMPs

119-108 (87 hands)

Competitive Game - won IMPs

1/100 hands - won 5 IMPs

124-108 (88 hands)

Doubled Game - lose IMPs

2/100 hands - lost 10 IMPs

124-118 (90 hands)

Doubled Game - won IMPs

1/100 hands - won 5 IMPs

129-118 (91 hands)

Double Game/Partscore - won IMPs

1/100 hands - won 9 IMPs

138-118 (92 hands)

Opponent's Game - no Swing

1/100 hands (93 hands)

Opponent's Game - lost IMPs

1/100 hands - lost 11 IMPs

138-129 (94 hands)

Opponent's Game - won IMPs

1/100 hands - won 11 IMPs

149-129 (95 hands)

Doubled Partscore - lost IMPs

1/100 hands - lost 16 IMPs

149-145 (96 hands)

Doubled Partscore - won IMPs

1/100 hands - won 15 IMPs

164-145 (97 hands)

Game/Slam - win IMPs

1/100 hands - won 2 IMPs

166-145 (98 hands)

Defensive Card Play - lost IMPs

2/100 hands - lost 22 IMPs

166-167 (100 hands)

All of this proves little as this is clearly a small sample except that in a 2/1 type system with the knowledge that partner might bid 1NT with three spades as GIB appears to be programmed for that it is likely to be close between bidding 1NT or raising to 2♠.

Many of the swings against 1NT were in the part-score battle where it was easier (lower) for 4th hand to compete over 1NT than over 2♠.

1NT seemed to gain though on a higher proportion of the bigger swings.

I noticed that two of the swings against the 1NT response came from very odd 'GIB-type' actions. On one hand after bidding 1NT it doubled a 2♦ overcall presumably for penalties - in practice if I responded 1NT I would never double a two-level contract without showing my support for partner. On the other hand it passed opener's 2♣ rebid - again 2♠ seems automatic. These resulted in a making doubled contract (game as the opponents ran from 2♦ into some other contract) and a missed 4♠ game respectively.

Quite likely there were other odd GIB actions and maybe these evened out but these two seemed to stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.

[Walddk]

I am impressed, Wayne. A lot of work for you. We are dealing with a 'trivial' single raise or a 1NT response and get all this as a bonus. Bridge is fascinating.

Roland

[Edmunte1]

Walddk, on Oct 28 2008, 12:42 PM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 28 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

I too am amazed at the amount of replies this thread getting. Frankly I consider it a non-problem.

I don't think any problem is a non-problem. If in doubt, it's silly not to ask if you want to be enlightened.

I completely agree with that, Roland, dubito ergo cogito

[Cascade]

Walddk, on Oct 30 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

I am impressed, Wayne. A lot of work for you. We are dealing with a 'trivial' single raise or a 1NT response and get all this as a bonus. Bridge is fascinating.

Roland

You too did a lot of work.

I think the reality is that we don't know the answers to a lot of these questions. Or even if we do we don't really have any idea how good the alternatives are.

The real answer to a question like this will depend on many factors and it is unlikely that it will be the same for everyone. Not least of which is partner's style and judgement - exactly which hands will partner open 1♠ on? This is far from a non-trial question.

Indeed bridge is fascinating. And a question like this sparks my interest in simulations which don't give answers but in many situations help to give me a handle on how different actions work.

[mikeh]

Wayne, I am impressed by your hard work.

I personally don't put much store in simulations in which the outcome is assessed on a double dummy basis. I also note that your simulation constrained 2nd seat from having a clear overcall (which introduces further subjectivity into the analysis.. I don't have a problem with that since I don't like any simulations that ignore the opps) but did not discuss what to me is a far, far more salient point: 4th seat.

One huge advantage that 2♠ holds over 1N is that 2♠ will often shut 4th seat out, where 4th seat had a relatively easy 2-level overcall or even a light takeout double (standard practice is to use the double of 1N as takeout of spades).

A 4th seat overcall creates a horrible scenario. Opener, not knowing of the fit, will often be forced to pass. We can survive that, sometimes, by having responder bid 2♠ next... but this assumes that he is allowed to.. what if the bidding is at the 3-level by the time it comes back?

Further, and perhaps finally, the choice between 2♠ and 1N cannot be made in isolation. Single raises of major openings are part of the fundamental structure of the overall method. I note that, for example, your GIB program permitted a 1N on 2-3 spades, 6-11 hcp. Whatever that method is called, it is NOT normal 2/1.

Since GIB is designed, in later bidding, to accept that a 1N response may include a 3 card raise with 9 hcp, it is not surprising that it may go right more often than most of us players of a mainstream 2/1 would expect... we do NOT include this hand-type in our 1N response, so will never cater to it in later bidding.

As I read your simulation, it suggests that IF you design your methods to permit 1N with this hand, it is playable. But that was not the question.. the question was whether, in the context of a normal 2/1 approach, 1N is acceptable.. and it is apparent that the collective judgement of a lot of very experienced players (including some notable theorists) is that it is not.

[Cascade]

Mike

This simulation was single dummy not double dummy. Single dummy is how you and I play every hand we play. There is no double dummy component to this simulation except that GIB internally simulates hands double dummy and then chooses the best option in the card play.

There was no constraint on 4th seat because GIB's bidding engine took over and bid all hands after the three bids of the original problem.

Indeed the biggest losses were in competitive partscore situations where bidding 1NT lost 20-53. However those losses in this simulation were picked up over a variety of situations at higher levels where bidding 1NT initially worked out better than bidding 2♠ in this particular simulation.

I am not an expert on normal 2/1 whatever that is. I know though that some versions use a direct constructive raise. GIB appears to play 2/1 - 2/1 bids are forcing to game and it plays a forcing 1NT. In that context it plays raises as 7-10 with three spades. I would assume that Matt Ginsberg consulted some 2/1 experts when constructing this system for GIB. Maybe standard 2/1 is more rigid than systems and styles that I am used to but I would be surprised if there is a standard that is as rigid as some have suggested in this thread.

I do not know enough about the internal structure of GIB to know precisely how its subsequent bidding is influenced by it failure to make a 7-10 three-card raise. It is not entirely clear what GIB's style is but it seems more flexible than that of others in this forum who have argued that this is not a matter of style and judgment.

The conclusion that can be reached is that playing GIB's 2/1 style based on this simulation we cannot conclude that bidding 1NT is worse than bidding 2♠ with this particular hand.

It is possible but I would be surprised if a subtlely different 2/1 system would produce significantly different results (unless of course this particular simulation is aberrant - which is possible it is just a small sample).

I usually play a quite different structure in which 1NT is not forcing and 1♠ could be four. Although 90+ % of the time (maybe higher - I don't have the numbers here) 1♠ shows five or more. So much so that our normal practice is to raise 1♠ to 2♠ with three trumps. It is very much the exception to bid 1NT with three-card support. This is the sort of hand where I would bid 1NT. When encountering the problem in a different context of 2/1 and forcing NT I naturally considered my experience from using other systems and could not immediately see why 1NT would necessarily work out badly - it would act as a brake which could be good given that we will show soft cards and poor distribution for a potential spade contract.

I would have thought that if 2♠ was so clearly indicated in 2/1 that even given the constructive raise style of GIB that the immediate raise would perform better in this simulation. Maybe it would in a longer simulation. Perhaps I will extend the simulation.

For now I would like to suggest that raising to 2♠ on this sort of hand may not be as clear-cut as expert opinion suggests.

[cherdano]

Why did raising to 2♠ lose 22 IMPs on defensive card play? This seems pretty random. I would expect to lose IMPs on defense when bidding 1N with 3-card support.

I am surprised there were so few instances where bidding 1N or bidding 2♠ led to a different game. But then, there is no reason to assume that GIB would get the subtleties of the COG auctions right after either start.

[Cascade]

cherdano, on Oct 31 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

Why did raising to 2♠ lose 22 IMPs on defensive card play? This seems pretty random. I would expect to lose IMPs on defense when bidding 1N with 3-card support.

I am surprised there were so few instances where bidding 1N or bidding 2♠ led to a different game. But then, there is no reason to assume that GIB would get the subtleties of the COG auctions right after either start.

Its not that easy to read but here are the two hands that GIB defended differently and that cost.

Enter S hand: AJT54.J763.K53.Q
Enter W hand: 7.A954.AJ764.J96
Enter N hand: Q92.Q82.QT92.K32
Enter E hand: K863.KT.8.AT8754
Enter dealer: S
Enter vul (none, N/S, E/W, both): N
1S.P.2S.3C.P.3S.P.4C.P.5C.P.P.P
I play SA
I play S7
I play S2
I play S3

I play SJ
I play C9
I play S9
I play S8

I play H5
I play H2
I play HK
I play H7

I play S6
I play S4
I play C6
I play SQ

I play CJ
I play C2
I play CA
I play CQ

I play CT
I play D3
I play D4
I play CK

I play D9
I play D8
I play DK
I play DA

I play D7
I play DT
I play C7
I play D5

I play C8
I play H6
I play H4
I play C3

I play HT
I play H3
I play HA
I play H8

I play H9
I play HQ
I play C4
I play HJ

I play C5
I play ST
I play DJ
I play D2

I play SK
I play S5
I play D6
I play DQ

Result: N/S -400
1S.P.1N.2C.P.2S.X.P.P.3D.P.3S.P.4C.P.5C.P.P.P
I play CQ
I play C6
I play C2
I play CA

I play D8
I play D3
I play DA
I play D2

I play S7
I play S2
I play SK
I play SA

I play HJ
I play H4
I play H2
I play HK

I play HT
I play H3
I play HA
I play H8

I play D4
I play D9
I play C7
I play D5

I play S3
I play S4
I play C9
I play S9

I play H5
I play HQ
I play CT
I play H7

I play S8
I play ST
I play CJ
I play SQ

I play H9
I play C3
I play C8
I play H6

I play S6
I play SJ
I play D6
I play DT

I play S5
I play DJ
I play DQ
I play C4

I play C5
I play DK
I play D7
I play CK

Result: N/S +50

Enter S hand: KJT865.K73..AT64
Enter W hand: A743.6.J86.Q9875
Enter N hand: Q92.Q82.QT92.K32
Enter E hand: .AJT954.AK7543.J
Enter dealer: S
Enter vul (none, N/S, E/W, both): N
1S.P.2S.X.4D.P.4S.5D.X.P.P.P
I play SJ
I play SA
I play S2
I play CJ

I play H6
I play H2
I play HA
I play H3

I play H5
I play H7
I play D6
I play H8

I play S4
I play S9
I play D7
I play S5

I play HJ
I play HK
I play DJ
I play HQ

I play D8
I play DQ
I play DA
I play C6

I play DK
I play S6
I play C7
I play D2

I play D3
I play CT
I play C8
I play DT

I play D9
I play D4
I play C4
I play CQ

I play SQ
I play D5
I play SK
I play S7

I play HT
I play ST
I play C9
I play C2

I play H9
I play S8
I play S3
I play C3

I play H4
I play CA
I play C5
I play CK

Result: N/S -550

1S.P.1N.2S.3S.P.4S.5D.P.P.X.P.P.P
I play CA
I play C7
I play C2
I play CJ

I play SK
I play SA
I play S2
I play H4

I play H6
I play H2
I play HA
I play H3

I play H5
I play H7
I play D6
I play H8

I play S4
I play S9
I play D7
I play S5

I play HJ
I play HK
I play DJ
I play HQ

I play D8
I play DQ
I play DA
I play C4

I play DK
I play S6
I play C5
I play D2

I play D3
I play CT
I play C8
I play D9

I play DT
I play D4
I play C6
I play S7

I play C3
I play D5
I play SJ
I play CQ

I play H9
I play ST
I play S3
I play SQ

I play HT
I play S8
I play C9
I play CK

Result: N/S +100

[awm]

To summarize the play issues, GIB lost 22 IMPs on defensive card play after 1♠-P-2♠ because it lead a spade after the raise when this was not the best lead. The 1♠-P-1NT auction that ended in the same contract for opponents resulted in GIB leading something other than a spade.

In one case GIB lead a spade from AJTxx setting up declarer's king; in the other GIB lead a spade from KJTxxx but declarer was void, and the immediate pitch on dummy's ♠A allowed the contract to make. Both hands were in game contracts declared by the opponents.

Especially considering that the spade raise did include the queen, there are probably plenty of hands where a spade is a fine lead. The fact that two hands where GIB lost in this way appeared in the sample (and that both were defending game contracts) is probably random luck (and small sample size). One could imagine hands where leading from ♠KJxxx is in fact necessary to beat the contract and is more likely after the raise than after 1NT.

While Cascade clearly put a lot of work into this, I think his results are unfortunately somewhat random. Very frequently the difference is on the order of one hand out of a hundred. That could just be luck. The only thing that seemed at all significant to me was that bidding 2♠ wins consistently in competitive partscore auctions (at least for GIB vs. GIB). This was over a fair number of hands and by a fairly wide margin, implying to me that "hiding the fit" is less effective than "obstructing the opponents" in a competitive sequence.

The other statistics besides competitive partscores generally involved only one hand either way and/or scored out very close to even. The margin lost by 1NT on the competitive partials is mostly made up by the two "misdefended opponent game" hands where GIB made a bad opening lead after the raise (but not after the 1NT response).

[Cascade]

I have extended the simulation to 1000 hands played single dummy by GIB.

Each hand is played twice once forcing the auction to start 1♠ Pass 2♠ and once forcing the auction to start 1♠ Pass 1NT.

GIB took over and bid and played the hands after those two starts. As I stated earlier GIBs methods are the 2♠ raise shows 7-10 hcp and a simple spade preference after a 1NT response does not seem to deny three spades. In practice in my experience GIB when left to its own devices seems to make the 7-10 raise with a wide range of hands (even with fewer than 7 hcp). I am not sure how frequently GIB actually bids 1NT with three-card support and a weak hand (6-9 or so hcp).

Over 1000 hands the 2♠ raise lost IMPs compared with the 1NT response. The IMPs score was 1974-2021.

That is an average IMP advantage for the 1NT response of 0.047 IMPs per board.

The standard error was 0.183172987 IMPs per board.

Statistically this means the difference between the two bids was not significant. A sample approximately 100 times bigger would be needed before we could hope to get a definitive answer to which is the better bid.

For the 1000 hands (actually the original 100 hands reported earlier and 900 new hands) I did not go through and analyze where the IMPs were won and lost for each call. There are 189652 lines of GIB output to wade through.

The frequency of IMPs won/lost (from a 2♠ response) is shown below:

15 2
14 4
13 8
12 17
11 13
10 53
9 5
8 8
7 31
6 40
5 25
4 14
3 12
2 26
1 72
0 308
-1 86
-2 22
-3 18
-4 15
-5 53
-6 44
-7 23
-8 8
-9 16
-10 27
-11 17
-12 14
-13 16
-14 1
-15 0
-16 2

Again the only conclusion that can be drawn from this simulation is that the results from GIB playing its version of 2/1 do not support the hypothesis that there is an IMP advantage to responding 2♠ rather than 1NT to 1♠.

[bruceboje]

There are some valid reasons why the responders hand looks suited to notrump. But to bid 1NT is violating the standard 2/1 response.

The trouble will start when partner rebids 2 of minor. Now there's no good bid to describe this hand.

[fred]

Cascade, on Nov 7 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

Again the only conclusion that can be drawn from this simulation is that the results from GIB playing its version of 2/1 do not support the hypothesis that there is an IMP advantage to responding 2♠ rather than 1NT to 1♠.

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for your interesting work on this problem, but this conclusion seems wrong to me (sorry!).

I believe that in order to draw this conclusion you would also have to simulate auctions in which the bidding starts 1S-1NT and 1S-2S and the responder has a wide variety of other hands that would be bid the same way as this one.

Suppose for example that the auction starts 1S-1N-2x-2S and opener has to decide whether or not to take another call. Whether or not the partnership bids 2S on hands "like this one" will have an impact on that decision.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the partnership will do less well in these auctions if it is normal to bid hands "like this one" that way (because the responder's sequence will then have a wider range than it would if you bid 2S on such hands so one would expect that subsequent bidding will be less accurate).

Same goes for the direct raise to 2S of course - if you take hands like this one out of the mix and partner knows that, 2S will have a narrower range and one would expect subsequent bidding to be more accurate.

My sense is that it would be very difficult (impossible?) to really solve this problem by way of simulation.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

fred, on Nov 8 2008, 08:33 PM, said:

... Suppose for example that the auction starts 1S-1N-2x-2S and opener has to decide whether or not to take another call. Whether or not the partnership bids 2S on hands "like this one" will have an impact on that decision. ...

There is another way of looking at your example. Suppose we assume that opener will always bid the same way after 1S-1NT;-2x-2S regardless of whether or not one would bid 2S directly, or 1NT, with a flat 9 count, 3 card support and soft values - that is opener treats the 2S rebid solely as 6 to 10 with a doubleton spade. Then simulations are very useful in determining if this approach results in better or worse results for the 9count/3support/soft hand - if the results are better without opener having to change anything, then the simulations can help solve this problem.

[Cascade]

fred, on Nov 9 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

Cascade, on Nov 7 2008, 04:01 AM, said:

Again the only conclusion that can be drawn from this simulation is that the results from GIB playing its version of 2/1 do not support the hypothesis that there is an IMP advantage to responding 2♠ rather than 1NT to 1♠.

Hi Wayne,
...
I believe that in order to draw this conclusion you would also have to simulate auctions in which the bidding starts 1S-1NT and 1S-2S and the responder has a wide variety of other hands that would be bid the same way as this one.

Maybe I left something out.

What I meant is that there was no measureable advantage in the simulation to responding 2♠ rather than 1NT with the given 3=3=4=3 9 hcp hand.

Quote

Suppose for example that the auction starts 1S-1N-2x-2S and opener has to decide whether or not to take another call. Whether or not the partnership bids 2S on hands "like this one" will have an impact on that decision.

Absolutely. Well at least for a partner that knows that you might respond 1NT with this sort of hand.

With hands like this as far as I can tell GIB responds 2♠. I have checked this out by observing GIBs actions with this hand opposite a 1♠ opening. Although I have to confess I have not done very many trials. However I have not seen GIB respond 1NT (or anything other than 2♠) with this hand. I assume that GIB is simply making the book bid with this hand and not doing a simulation to make the choice at this point in the auction.

Nevertheless when I forced GIB to respond 1NT with this hand it did marginally better than when I forced it to respond 2♠ with the same hand. This means that even though GIB did not "know" that a 1NT bid could be made on a hand like this it did about the same as if it made the book bid of 2♠.

GIB is not going to do worse on more standard 1NT response hands because I force it to bid 1NT with this hand because GIB does not know that it would respond 1NT with this hand. Presumably it does its simulations for later judgement calls based on a more normal 1NT response and any additional information it has acquired in the bidding.

If we reprogrammed GIB to know about these 1NT responses then it would likely make a difference to GIB when considering partner's 1NT responses. But this is a secondary affect and I think it would be an order of magnitude smaller than the direct affect from responding 1NT with this hand rather than 2♠.

Basically the GIB single dummy simulation suggests that we are no worse off bidding 1NT with this particular hand even when partner does not know that we might respond 1NT with this hand. This suggests to me that given the GIB 2/1 system this hand is equally well described by a 1NT response as by a 2♠ response.

Quote

My sense is that it would be very difficult (impossible?) to really solve this problem by way of simulation.

I think that simulation is invaluable in helping to decide decisions of this kind. None of us has the experience of responding to a 1♠ opening with this hand anything like 1000 times. A simulation gives us many examples where we can see the consequences of different actions.

Simulations aren't perfect. This sort of simulation is single dummy so does not have the problems associated with double dummy simulations (although I think even double dummy simulations have value). It is limited by the bidding system and judgement (in both bidding and play) of GIB. Nevertheless I think looking at the results of this sort of simulation often will give a better feel for a situation because it is looking at 100s of similar hands than just engaging in a thought experiment.

[Lobowolf]

I'm in with the "clear-cut 2♠" group, and the reasons have been stated, but I think that this thread can be beneficial beyond the given hand, which is why I've chosen to chime in when everything's been said in triplicate.

The original post stated:

"I choose 1N due to the balanced hand with Queen and 8,9,"

In other words, he apparently chose to bid NT in the first place because the hand looked kind of notrumpy.

If you look at most of replies, though, you see a recurring theme -- that before making the first bid, the possible continuations and auction as a whole have to be considered, e.g. "If I bid 1NT now, over a 2-level response, I'll have to bid either 3♠, showing a limit raise, or 2♠, showing either a doubleton or a super-minimum (or sub-minimum) response, and neither of those bids is appropriate." Or, I suppose, 2NT, which is a big overbid and continues to hide the fit. To the extent that the responses that show the "thinking ahead in the auction" thought process, I think the discussion can be much more useful to the B/I player reading the thread than the pedestrian "What do you do with a 4333 9-count?" question.

Hopefully, this won't be taken to imply that CASCADE'S responses aren't thought out! I really do get the impression from the original post, though, that when the hand came up, the first bid was considered in isolation, whereas the expert responses virtually all indicate the importance of being aware of what the later bids will suggest.