[Walddk]

You play a 15-17 NT, and you have agreed on support doubles. The bidding goes ...

1♦ pass 1♥ 1♠
1N

What do you expect for 1NT now?

- 1. 12-14 balanced, not 3 hearts.
- 2. 13 good-14 balanced, not 3 hearts.
- 3. 18-19 balanced, not 3 hearts.
- 4. 14-17 semi-balanced, 4144, 4252 or 4153
- 5. Something else.

Do you have a clear agreement? Apologies if this topic has been up before.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Yes, I have a clear agreement (in those partnerships that I have clear agreements).

Mainly (2) but a small bit of (4)

a full description would be

"Maximum weak NT values, usually not three hearts, but may be slightly off-shape i.e. 4=2=5=2 or possibly 4=1=4=4, and may conceal three card heart support if particularly suitable for NT and unsuitable for hearts e.g.

KJ10x
xxx
AQxx
Kx
"

[ArtK78]

Spades stopped.

More than dead minimum values, but not out of the range of a minimum opening. Roughly a good 12 to a bad 16. The lower end of the range is permissible only with significant values in spades (for example, AJTx xx KJTx Kxx).

Balanced or semi-balanced without 3 card heart support. It is possible, but not likely, that you would conceal 3 card heart support, but only if you would not raise hearts knowing that partner had 5 (for example, AQJx xxx KJTx Kx).

[jdonn]

Essentially option 2. Some hands on the weaker side of 4 might sneak in but not often imo.

[Walddk]

To Frances and Josh:

♠ KJ83
♥ 9
♦ AQ103
♣ AQ54

1♦ pass 1♥ 1♠
??

So you can't bid 1NT or 2NT, and you can't double. Do you temporise with 2♣? I assume that pass is not an option.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

I've just noticed that you have two option twos.

I assume that Josh would have opened your sample 4144 hand 1NT already. I wouldn't have done... to be honest, yes, I might pass 1S particularly if not playing matchpoints.

[mikeh]

Roland, you had two option 2's... one was 13-14, and the other was 18-19. I am morally sure that both Frances and Josh were opting for the weaker one (Frances was explicit). I agree with Josh (and, thus, closely with Frances as well).

As for your nightmare hand, two options present themselves: my preference would be for the very quick pass (everyone knows that the traditional penalty method is the slow pass.. but few people catch on to the lightning pass as penalty oriented), but playing with an ethical partner, I think I pass in tempo

I could be talked into 2♣ at mps, but if partner can't reopen after I pass, I have not missed game (usually), and my alternative is to bid 2♣, which doesn't show this strength and does show more minor suit cards, so that isn't exactly descriptive anyway... what am I bidding over a preference to 2♦? I think I have to bid 2N, and this is all becoming very uncomfortable.

If partner reopens with a double, I have another problem, of course.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 25 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

I've just noticed that you have two option twos.

I had indeed, sorry. Edited now.

Josh would open 1NT? I doubt it. How can he foresee this auction?

Roland

[kgr]

mikeh, on Nov 25 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

As for your nightmare hand, two options present themselves... I think I pass in tempo

I could be talked into 2♣ at mps, but if partner can't reopen after I pass, I have not missed game (usually), and my alternative is to bid 2♣, which doesn't show this strength and does show more minor suit cards, so that isn't exactly descriptive anyway... what am I bidding over a preference to 2♦? I think I have to bid 2N, and this is all becoming very uncomfortable.

If partner reopens with a double, I have another problem, of course.

I suppose this is the hand

Quote

  To Frances and Josh:

♠ KJ83
♥ 9
♦ AQ103
♣ AQ54

1♦ pass 1♥ 1♠
??

I really don't understand the difference between MP's (2C) and IMP's (Pass).
I also don't understand:

Quote

If partner reopens with a double, I have another problem, of course.

If you pass then you hope that parnter DBLs and you can pass that? So I don't see how it can be a problem.

[cherdano]

Without discussion, 2.
Han and me actually play the free 1N rebid as 17-19 balanced after a 1♣ opening (with a 14-16 1NT opening range) - since that could be any balanced shape without 5 spades or 4 hearts, it helps to be able to show it at a low level. I don't think we have missed a weak 1NT rebid yet.

[han]

Arend beat me to it, I would also expect 2 otherwise.

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Nov 25 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

To Frances and Josh:

♠ KJ83
♥ 9
♦ AQ103
♣ AQ54

1♦ pass 1♥ 1♠
??

So you can't bid 1NT or 2NT, and you can't double. Do you temporise with 2♣? I assume that pass is not an option.

I don't know why - I would indeed pass. Partner is still there.

FrancesHinden, on Nov 25 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

I assume that Josh would have opened your sample 4144 hand 1NT already.

Why would you assume that? I most certainly would not open 1NT on this hand. Nor would I if the high cards were rearranged to make the singleton an honor.

[mikeh]

kgr, on Nov 25 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 25 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

As for your nightmare hand, two options present themselves... I think I pass in tempo

I could be talked into 2♣ at mps, but if partner can't reopen after I pass, I have not missed game (usually), and my alternative is to bid 2♣, which doesn't show this strength and does show more minor suit cards, so that isn't exactly descriptive anyway... what am I bidding over a preference to 2♦? I think I have to bid 2N, and this is all becoming very uncomfortable.

If partner reopens with a double, I have another problem, of course.

I suppose this is the hand

Quote

   To Frances and Josh:

♠ KJ83
♥ 9
♦ AQ103
♣ AQ54

1♦ pass 1♥ 1♠
??

I really don't understand the difference between MP's (2C) and IMP's (Pass).
I also don't understand:

Quote

If partner reopens with a double, I have another problem, of course.

If you pass then you hope that parnter DBLs and you can pass that? So I don't see how it can be a problem.

The problem at mps is that +50 while we have +90 available, is a disaster, while at imps it is virtually a non-issue. There are, of course, other unenviable score comparisons: -80 against -50, +100 v +110 and so on. Game hands or hands where we collect a number will take care of themselves, usually, because partner won't be passing, but with, say xx KQxxx xx Jxxx, partner passes 1♠, and our mp score may well be less than we hoped, or less than we'd get in 2♣.

The problem we face if partner reopens with double is partly conditional on the vulnerability and partly on the form of scoring. Red v white, for instance: 500 may be a poor score.. the problem did not specify these conditions, and so I was merely pointing out that there may be a decision to make.

[benlessard]

In standard its 2 and a bit of 4.

But it might make sense that all weak NT pass and that 1Nt is non minimum, non-balanced with a S stopper.

Hands with 6D or 5D+4C that contain a S stopper bid 1Nt and you will manage to fall back on your feet most of the time. Note that 1Nt is a deterrent to further competition by the opps.

The upside is that rebidding 2C/2D show a minimum hand or a hand without a stopper.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on Nov 25 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 25 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

I assume that Josh would have opened your sample 4144 hand 1NT already.

Why would you assume that? I most certainly would not open 1NT on this hand. Nor would I if the high cards were rearranged to make the singleton an honor.

My apologies for impugning your NT purity.

There are some posters on these forums who think that 4441 and 5314 are perfectly good 1NT openings. I am happy to see that you aren't one of them.

[kfay]

To me this bid shows a FULL OPENER.

So option 2. I've learned the hard way.