[bid_em_up]

Scoring: IMP

(p) 1♦ (1♠) X
(p) ?

---

You are South and your RHO passes in 1st seat.

Do you open this hand?

Now that you have (if you wouldn't open it, pretend you are filling in for someone who did), which "lie" do you pick?

[mtvesuvius]

I have always found, despite it's weirdness, rebidding the ♣ suit usually works best here. However I can "pretend" Jxx is a stopper. 1NT for me.

[rogerclee]

1NT

[helene_t]

1NT, we want to protect the jack against the lead.

Quote

Do you open this hand?

LOL

[mtvesuvius]

helene_t, on Feb 25 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

Quote

Do you open this hand?

LOL

Not if we are playing Roth-Stone

[MFA]

1NT, doesn't show a stopper.

[Codo]

We had similar hands before, simply bid 1 NT, this show shape and strength.

No need to stop anything in 1 NT. They are allow to take 5 spade tricks and one from another suit.

When partner has higher goals and needs a stopper, he may ask with 2 Spade. You can deny and later show half of a stopper after his 3 Spade bid.

[Apollo81]

1NT.

There's no other good action, and besides -- putting overcaller on lead will be great if partner has anything in the suit.

[jdonn]

Absolutely unanimous 1NT. I've already been wordy, this problem was built for 3 letter answers.

[Echognome]

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.

[P_Marlowe]

Dont know, but I think, I would go with Pass.

And of course I open.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[bid_em_up]

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

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.

Oh, I had no problem rebidding 1N....for which I was promptly criticized.

[Hanoi5]

I don't know about the expert opinion but I accept bidding 1NT with this hand but no 2NT (as in a recent problem).

[TimG]

Hanoi5, on Feb 25 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

I don't know about the expert opinion but I accept bidding 1NT with this hand but no 2NT (as in a recent problem).

Yeah, I think as presented 1NT is going to be a landslide winner. I expect you would get some difference of opinion if the overcall had been 2♣.

[kenrexford]

Yep.

[awm]

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♣.

[Echognome]

awm, on Feb 25 2009, 11:46 AM, 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♣.

First off, I guess I need you to define "voluntarily"! I mean we are responding to partner's double. By your definition, any bid we we make in NT is "voluntarily" so I don't understand why the adjective is being used.

Secondly, I guess if your partner has never made a stopper ask on this auction, then I feel bad for you. I'm not saying this auction crops up often, just that I would think it would be completely natural to ask for one if the hand was suitable. If the hand is balanced itself, then perhaps there is no better contract and you may get a half stopper out of partner.

My main point is that you can take one of two tacks. You can rebid 1NT on these hands and either misdescribe your hand in terms of having a stopper or discuss with your partner that on these types of auctions you may not have a stopper (and obviously opponents as well if they ask, as I do not believe this to be alertable). OR, you can choose to only ever bid NT with a stopper and be forced to have your other bids be less descriptive. I certainly know where I stand on the matter.

[jdonn]

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

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.

I have seen it several times. Why wouldn't you do it? Even if you think people don't then that is the problem, the 1NT bid isn't the problem.

[bid_em_up]

The funny part to this story (at least to me) is that the auction then proceeded:

1♦-(1♠)-X-(p)
1N-(p)-2♠*-(p)
3♥**-(p)-3N***-(p)
p-(X)****-

*Stop ask
** Denies real stop, better hearts than clubs
***Insane, imo
****Sheer Idiocy

At this point, the opponent holding AKQxx(x) of spades and the Ace of diamonds as an entry, doubles. I'm not sure if he had 5 spades or 6. The auction now continues:

5♦-(p)
p-(X)*****

*****Why did I double 3N?

Partners hand:

---

Making 5.

[mtvesuvius]

bid_em_up, on Feb 25 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

Making 5.

So obviously 1NT worked fine?