[skjaeran]

I might want to make a 1NT reply to 1♠ on occasion with this hand, playing a NF 1NT (which I do play), but not with a forcing 1NT. But normally I'd raise with support.

I'm used to having two raises available, 1M-2M as a CR (good 8 to 11/bad 12) and 2 under as a 2-way bid (week 3-card raise or natural), which is used by many 2/1 players in Norway (some have changed and play 2♦ as the 2-way bid also over 1♠ - I do with one partner)).

[glen]

skaeran, on Nov 9 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

...some have changed and play 2♦ as the 2-way bid also over 1♠ - I do with one partner)).

I've been tempted to modified it so it is ACBL legal - that is 1M-2♦ is
a.) GF with ♦s
b.) weak raise in M with 3+♦s

[Cascade]

Lobowolf, on Nov 9 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Hopefully, this won't be taken to imply that CASCADE'S responses aren't thought out!

My initial response was that either bid was ok but that I would probably respond 2♠ in the given 5-card major system.

However my experience in playing a 4-card major (but nearly 5-card major system) is that we often respond 1NT with this sort of hand - very balanced and honours in all side suits. These seem to work out well or rather the direct raise sometimes (often enough to matter) seems to work out poorly. I thought that in a five-card major context 2♠ may well work out better. I gave the hand as a problem to my bridge partner and she thought even playing a five-card major system she would respond 1NT.

In this context I was surprised by the responses and lack of flexibility of some others that the 1NT was 100% wrong. I was further surprised by the response to Roland Wald by the American experts that 2♠ was unanimous. Although I note that some at least suggested some flexibility.

This one-sided response of most others in a situation where I thought more flexibility was reasonable prompted me to look at a way of testing these responses.

I was mildly surprised by the first 100 hand single dummy simulation that actually came out as a tie 169-169*. After some criticism and having a desire to get a better result I did a larger simulation which came out as a small but statistically insignificant win for a 1NT response.

I appreciate that the GIB system may not correspond precisely with the system that real players actually play. However it does play a 2/1 system with a forcing 1NT. My gut feeling from experience with other simulations is that while the simulation results should be treated with some caution they are unlikely to be wildly wrong.

Nevertheless I am not convinced that 1NT is better but neither am I convinced that 2♠ is far superior as others seem to be.

[skjaeran]

glen, on Nov 9 2008, 09:00 PM, said:

skaeran, on Nov 9 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

...some have changed and play 2♦ as the 2-way bid also over 1♠ - I do with one partner)).

I've been tempted to modified it so it is ACBL legal - that is 1M-2♦ is
a.) GF with ♦s
b.) weak raise in M with 3+♦s

I play it as INV+ with ♦ or weak raise of the major.
I've got no idea if that's ACBL legal, but that's no big deal where I play.

[keylime]

For me, regardless of system -> 1NT. This hand is a very slow playing hand.

With Larry and I, with our four card major system with canape, caters to all rebids including pass.

In standard around here on the club circuit -> caters to either playing 1NT, or hearing an opps' bid and revaluing one's hand according.

In 2/1 -> allows pard to find a jump bid. Additionally, it prevents the train wreck of being 5332 opposite 3334 and no values that are working in a game contract (Imagine AJTxx Axx AJx QJx, not playing 1NT as including a five card major, and you hear this auction - or change the hand to add a card to make it 5422 16 count).

[jdonn]

Raising does not preclude a 3NT contract!

Oh forget it, I can't take any more of this thread. Please everyone, no more, my poor heart...

[awm]

Several different things going on here.

(1-A ) Bidding 1NT might let the opponents get a two-level overcall in, when they would've passed throughout if we had raised to 2♠. Generally this will help opponents decide whether to compete the hand and also to find a better lead if they are defending.

(1-B ) Bidding 2♠ might cause the opponents to balance when they wouldn't balance over the slower auction to 2♠.

I think Cascade's simulation implies, at least for GIB, that the 1-A effect is more significant than the 1-B effect.

(2) Bidding 1NT followed by a 2♠ preference might cause you to miss a game that would be bid after a direct raise.

It is not clear whether, on this particular hand, missing these games is a good thing or a bad thing. From Cascade's smaller simulation, it seemed like pretty much a wash.

(3) Bidding 1NT vs. 2♠ might cause you to land in a different game.

I think for GIB this is a factor, but for a strong pair it really should not be. Most of the time opener with game interest will bid 2NT or 3NT or 3m if fairly flat and responder can offer 3NT and opener accept. I don't think these hands where you play 3NT after a 1NT bid but you play 4♠ after a 2♠ bid are really all that frequent assuming you're not in the habit of blasting 4♠ on any hand where game is remotely feasible after 1♠-2♠. For example, on Keylime's hand for opener of AJTxx Ax AJx QJx (okay I took away a heart so only 13 cards) it seems clear to bid 2NT over a 2♠ raise after which partner will bid 3NT. Moving a diamond to clubs I would still bid 2NT, and even if I bid 3♣ partner would offer 3NT and I could pass.

(4) Raising spades might somehow cause opener to lead or defend differently than bidding 1NT.

I think for human players this is a very small factor. But it seemed to make a huge difference in Cascade's small simulation, in a way that substantially favored bidding 1NT. I'm not sure how big a factor it was in the bigger simulation. But perhaps the upshot is just "if you open a suit and partner raises, and opponents end up declaring the hand, you should not automatically lead the suit that your side bid and raised."

(5) Bidding 1NT might let you play the hand in 1NT.

This has been mentioned by a couple of people (including Cascade and Keylime) and it would be a valid point playing a non-forcing 1NT response. But a lot of people don't play a NF 1NT response, and even if they did opener will bid over 1NT more often than not.

[fred]

Cascade, on Nov 9 2008, 09:47 PM, said:

In this context I was surprised by the responses and lack of flexibility of some others that the 1NT was 100% wrong. I was further surprised by the response to Roland Wald by the American experts that 2♠ was unanimous.

I suspect that if you asked the same group of people this question:

Would it surprise you if bidding 1NT instead of 2S worked out about as well in the long run?

that many would answer "no".

Tactical considerations aside, your decision is not likely to matter that much unless your partner is going to bid over 1S-2S but will Pass over 1S-1NT-2x-2S. That won't happen very often and it is easy to see how either call might work out best when it does. I suspect that most of the experts on Roland's panel who would be open-minded enough to take the above question seriously would realize this (and thus answer "no").

But I suspect that none of these people, even if they could be convinced that 1NT will work just as well as 2S, would seriously consider bidding 1NT. That is because, for most USA experts at least (including me), bidding anything other than 2S would amount to "masterminding", "trying too hard to be a genius", "not playing down the middle", "trying to hit a home run", or "putting yourself in an unnecessary top or bottom position". Such actions are frowned upon these days in USA expert circles (rightly so in my opinion).

Of course all experts worthy of that ranking are familiar with the concepts of "upgrading" and "downgrading" and it is far from unusual for USA experts to upgrade and/or downgrade in various situations (including how high to raise).

But if your range for a single raise is roughly 7-9 HCP, failing to raise right away with this 9 HCP hand would amount to a massive 3 HCP downgrade. That smacks of "masterminding" in my view.

For me 2S is such a COMPLETELY normal bid that I would not seriously considering bidding anything else, even if I could be convinced that something else rated to work out approximately as well.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

awm, on Nov 11 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

(5) Bidding 1NT might let you play the hand in 1NT.

This has been mentioned by a couple of people (including Cascade and Keylime) and it would be a valid point playing a non-forcing 1NT response. But a lot of people don't play a NF 1NT response, and even if they did opener will bid over 1NT more often than not.

As far as I recall I have never said anything like this.

I have skimmed through the entire thread looking at my posts and I cannot find what you are referring to.

The closest I have come is same that in my normal system I would bid 1NT with this sort of hand. I happen to play a NF 1NT but I don't think I explicitly said that. Nevertheless this far from carries an implication that we might play 1NT after a forcing 1NT in the 2/1 system.

[mikeh]

fred, on Nov 10 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

Cascade, on Nov 9 2008, 09:47 PM, said:

In this context I was surprised by the responses and lack of flexibility of some others that the 1NT was 100% wrong. I was further surprised by the response to Roland Wald by the American experts that 2♠ was unanimous.

I suspect that if you asked the same group of people this question:

Would it surprise you if bidding 1NT instead of 2S worked out about as well in the long run?

that many would answer "no".

Tactical considerations aside, your decision is not likely to matter that much unless your partner is going to bid over 1S-2S but will Pass over 1S-1NT-2x-2S. That won't happen very often and it is easy to see how either call might work out best when it does. I suspect that most of the experts on Roland's panel who would be open-minded enough to take the above question seriously would realize this (and thus answer "no").

But I suspect that none of these people, even if they could be convinced that 1NT will work just as well as 2S, would seriously consider bidding 1NT. That is because, for most USA experts at least (including me), bidding anything other than 2S would amount to "masterminding", "trying too hard to be a genius", "not playing down the middle", "trying to hit a home run", or "putting yourself in an unnecessary top or bottom position". Such actions are frowned upon these days in USA expert circles (rightly so in my opinion).

Of course all experts worthy of that ranking are familiar with the concepts of "upgrading" and "downgrading" and it is far from unusual for USA experts to upgrade and/or downgrade in various situations (including how high to raise).

But if your range for a single raise is roughly 7-9 HCP, failing to raise right away with this 9 HCP hand would amount to a massive 3 HCP downgrade. That smacks of "masterminding" in my view.

For me 2S is such a COMPLETELY normal bid that I would not seriously considering bidding anything else, even if I could be convinced that something else rated to work out approximately as well.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

perfectly said