[Hanoi5]

So you were criticized by the AKQxx(x) A holder, am I right?

[bid_em_up]

Hanoi5, on Feb 25 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

So you were criticized by the AKQxx(x) A holder, am I right?

Umm, no. By partner, who stated that 1N should show a full stop.

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Feb 25 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

Hanoi5, on Feb 25 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

So you were criticized by the AKQxx(x) A holder, am I right?

Umm, no. By partner, who stated that 1N should show a full stop.

The same one that forgot he had a singleton spade and 5 card diamond support? That partner?

[Lobowolf]

awm, on Feb 25 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

Echognome, on Feb 25 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

It's interesting how this type of problem crops up over and over again, sometimes at the 1-level and sometimes at the 2-level.  It seems that once you can get past the "I need a stopper to bid NT" issue, you will find these problems much easier to tackle.  Also think about how much more descriptive your other bids become if you, guess what, rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand.

While this certainly solves the problem in terms of not having to think about it any more, it is not all that clear to me that it solves the problem of reaching the best contract...

Don't you occasionally play 3nt with the suit opponents bid wide open, and lose the first five or six tricks? Or is that an acceptable outcome for the joy of being able to "rebid NT with a minimum balanced hand"?

Of course, it seems reasonable for partner to check back somehow for a stopper if you routinely bid notrump without one. But in practice I don't think I have ever seen anyone make a stopper ask in an auction like this one, where the opponents have bid only one suit and partner has rebid notrump voluntarily.

Anyway, on this hand the ♠Jxx seems good enough to me and I'll go with the crowd and bid notrump. Someone has to bid notrump first if partner has singleton king or Qx or something like that. But I expect a frequent bad result here if partner's spade holding is weak. If my spades were three small I think I'd try 2♣.

I don't think 1NT is a be-all, end-all brilliant solution; I just think it's the best practical, least of evils bid...particularly as compared to making the first 2 bids in different suits (minors, no less) with a 4-3-3-3 hand. It's also mitigated (to the extent that it's problem) by:

1) The fact that you're only at the 1-level
2) The fact that if you're at a higher level (e.g. 3NT), it will be because partner has more points, and thus a better chance of spade stopper(s)
3) The possibility of later stopper-asks for those who chose to use them
4) The fact that NT scores better, if we're playing pairs (i.e. even when one of the minors is safer, it may not be better on those hands where, say 2NT makes).

I'm not totally dogmatic about it, but I think that on balance (particularly as 1-level overcalls get lighter and lighter), letting the 1♠ bid push you away from a 1NT rebid on a balanced minimum causes more problems than it solves.

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Feb 25 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 25 2009, 06:31 PM, said:

Hanoi5, on Feb 25 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

So you were criticized by the AKQxx(x) A holder, am I right?

Umm, no. By partner, who stated that 1N should show a full stop.

The same one that forgot he had a singleton spade and 5 card diamond support? That partner?

Yup. One and the same.

[Fluffy]

1NT shows balanced 12-14 (with or without stopper), this would be unanimous on an expert poll.

[mikestar]

1NT of course. This hand is a walking advertisement for playing the weak NT.

[gnasher]

mikestar, on Feb 26 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

1NT of course. This hand is a walking advertisement for playing the weak NT.

Is it? If I'm about to play a shaky 3NT, I'd quite like to know that my LHO has a 1♠ overcall.