[bluecalm]

Quote

He can?

Isn't 2NT invitational and natural without special conventional agreement ?

[mikeh]

I would bid 1♥. I don't like 4333 hands, but we belong in game opposite many 5332 13 counts and we won't get there is I bid 1N. Even if we adopted the idea that 1N shows 5-11, all that does is ensure that we miss a lot of 24 and 25 point 3N contracts....since we could hold 5-6, partner has zero safety inviting. 1N with that wide a range seems to me to be unplayable.

And I like 2N to be forcing...bidding it with balanced 11 counts makes life too tough on many hands...is 3♣ by opener forcing or weak, is merely one of many problems (another is if 2N is 11-12, how do we show balanced 14 counts? Destroy our bidding space with 3N?)

Meanwhile, 1♥ on 3 is not foolproof but seems to work well in practice.

[kenrexford]

If partner has a 5332 13-count and Responder bids 1NT, Opener is allowed to bid 2♦, after which 2NT can be bid.

On the other hand, you are allowed to play a partscore with an occasional 25-count if that means that you avoid playing a lot of 22-count 2NT contracts for one-trick sets.

[Jlall]

kenrexford, on Apr 10 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

If partner has a 5332 13-count and Responder bids 1NT, Opener is allowed to bid 2♦, after which 2NT can be bid.

On the other hand, you are allowed to play a partscore with an occasional 25-count if that means that you avoid playing a lot of 22-count 2NT contracts for one-trick sets.

Hate the idea of partner pulling 1N at MP to a2 of a minor with 5332, not gonna lie.

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Apr 10 2010, 11:49 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 10 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

If partner has a 5332 13-count and Responder bids 1NT, Opener is allowed to bid 2♦, after which 2NT can be bid.

On the other hand, you are allowed to play a partscore with an occasional 25-count if that means that you avoid playing a lot of 22-count 2NT contracts for one-trick sets.

Hate the idea of partner pulling 1N at MP to a2 of a minor with 5332, not gonna lie.

So do I. So much so that I play 1m - 1NT - 2m as natural and forcing in one partnership.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Apr 10 2010, 12:48 PM, said:

3. The problem with 3♥ is that 1NT often has four hearts. But, playing 3♥ as hearts or strong frag makes sense.

Pardon? The 3H bidders are all in the more normal camp where a 1NT respose to 1m virtually denies a 4-card major. Only strict 4-card-majorites conceal a major as responder on this auction.

[Phil]

1N I understand, 1♥ I do not.

I think its kind of ironic that there are players that bid 1♥ on hands like this, but skip a four card heart suit to bid 1N on other hand types.

[pooltuna]

Phil, on Apr 11 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

1N I understand, 1♥ I do not.

I think its kind of ironic that there are players that bid 1♥ on hands like this, but skip a four card heart suit to bid 1N on other hand types.

I suspect the intersection of the groups you are talking about is an empty set or has relatively few elements

[helene_t]

I would show a non-fitting invite, whether that is 2NT or goes through 2♣ in your system.

Of course it depends on our notrump range. If we almost never downgrade 15 but frequently upgrade 14 then I bid 1NT.

[Jlall]

Phil, on Apr 11 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

1N I understand, 1♥ I do not.

I think its kind of ironic that there are players that bid 1♥ on hands like this, but skip a four card heart suit to bid 1N on other hand types.

Alanis Morisette might agree that this is ironic, but...

[mikeh]

Phil, on Apr 11 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

1N I understand, 1♥ I do not.

I think its kind of ironic that there are players that bid 1♥ on hands like this, but skip a four card heart suit to bid 1N on other hand types.

I certainly am not one of those...do you actually know anyone who is?

[Jlall]

mikeh, on Apr 11 2010, 03:11 PM, said:

Phil, on Apr 11 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

1N I understand, 1♥ I do not.

I think its kind of ironic that there are players that bid 1♥ on hands like this, but skip a four card heart suit to bid 1N on other hand types.

I certainly am not one of those...do you actually know anyone who is?

Really? QJT xxxx QJT QJT I bet you'd bid 1N

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Apr 11 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 11 2010, 03:11 PM, said:

Phil, on Apr 11 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

1N I understand, 1♥ I do not.

I think its kind of ironic that there are players that bid 1♥ on hands like this, but skip a four card heart suit to bid 1N on other hand types.

I certainly am not one of those...do you actually know anyone who is?

Really? QJT xxxx QJT QJT I bet you'd bid 1N

ok...but I've never held that of course I never held xxx xxxxx xx xxx with no card higher than a 6 until a week ago, so maybe you got me

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Apr 10 2010, 06:49 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 10 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

If partner has a 5332 13-count and Responder bids 1NT, Opener is allowed to bid 2♦, after which 2NT can be bid.

On the other hand, you are allowed to play a partscore with an occasional 25-count if that means that you avoid playing a lot of 22-count 2NT contracts for one-trick sets.

Hate the idea of partner pulling 1N at MP to a2 of a minor with 5332, not gonna lie.

At MP, of course not. I was thinking IMPs somewhat, I suppose.

[lmilne]

It's like raiinnnn, on your wedding day...


Oh, and 1NT.

edit: not kicking over 3nt, obv

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Apr 11 2010, 02:01 PM, said:

Phil, on Apr 11 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

1N I understand, 1♥ I do not.

I think its kind of ironic that there are players that bid 1♥ on hands like this, but skip a four card heart suit to bid 1N on other hand types.

Alanis Morisette might agree that this is ironic, but...

Lol I was going to make some comment like "I think it's ironic that that's what you think ironic means" but the levels of humor were too deep and brilliant.

I really don't get 1♥, what is the gain? If partner bids 1NT over that and you intend to pass you might as well bid 1NT now, or if you intend to raise you might as well bid 2NT now. Is it just a rightsiding issue to bid a 3 card major on a totally balanced hand that isn't even bad for notrump?

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 11 2010, 06:54 AM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 10 2010, 11:49 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 10 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

If partner has a 5332 13-count and Responder bids 1NT, Opener is allowed to bid 2♦, after which 2NT can be bid.

On the other hand, you are allowed to play a partscore with an occasional 25-count if that means that you avoid playing a lot of 22-count 2NT contracts for one-trick sets.

Hate the idea of partner pulling 1N at MP to a2 of a minor with 5332, not gonna lie.

So do I. So much so that I play 1m - 1NT - 2m as natural and forcing in one partnership.

Don't you mean "so much so that I play 1m - 1NT - 2m as promising a 6 card suit."?

(I know that's not what you really meant, but what you play doesn't follow from not liking to rebid a minor on 5332 hands.)

[kfay]

For the record partner was xx KJxx AKQxx Kx

For all of you who auto-piloted yourselves into 3NT (MP zomg!!) you got lucky because spades are 4-4.

Everyone who managed to get to 4H should get a top... but sadly ♥ were 5-1.

Anyway, clearly 4♥ or 5♦ is best, wd to those people. Unless you like to gamble on the lead or whatever.

[Jlall]

Almost a herooo.

3N is also not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be on an unrevealing auction. For example I would easily rather be in 3N on 1N-3N than in 5D when playing MP, and it's not even close.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Apr 12 2010, 02:43 AM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 11 2010, 02:01 PM, said:

Phil, on Apr 11 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

1N I understand, 1♥ I do not.

I think its kind of ironic that there are players that bid 1♥ on hands like this, but skip a four card heart suit to bid 1N on other hand types.

Alanis Morisette might agree that this is ironic, but...

Lol I was going to make some comment like "I think it's ironic that that's what you think ironic means" but the levels of humor were too deep and brilliant.

I really don't get 1♥, what is the gain? If partner bids 1NT over that and you intend to pass you might as well bid 1NT now, or if you intend to raise you might as well bid 2NT now. Is it just a rightsiding issue to bid a 3 card major on a totally balanced hand that isn't even bad for notrump?

No: the hand in question is an 11 count with Aces....I don't understand why we would make a non-forcing bid 1N that denies game interest opposite a decent 13-14 balanced hand, when in fact game will often be 50% or better, especially if he holds a 5 card diamond suit.

So 1♥ will fetch 1N a lot (especially if you agree to bypass spades on balanced hand 4 card spade suits) and now I have a raise to 2N.

If partner raises hearts, then I bid notrump at the appropriate level. If you systemically play that 1♥ is a permissible response, then partner will allow you to play in notrump most of the time. We use 2♠ over 2♥ as an artificial asking bid, so we can play 2N as invitational.

And there are a LOT of systemic problems with 2N invitational directly over 1minor...I don't need to spell them out to a player as good as josh....and there are a LOT of systemic gains from playing 2N as natural and forcing.

It comes down, ultimately, as it does in all system design issues: we all have to weigh what we see as the benefits and costs of a certain approach within the whole of the method. To me, in the context of what I see as a valuable use of 2N as forcing, and a range of 1N such that it does NOT include hands favoured to make 3N opposite a normal pass of 1N, the distortion arising from bidding 1♥ on the infrequent 11 hcp balanced hand is relatively insignificant, and I stress the word 'relatively'.

I also concede that I usually play a weak 1N opening method, and this approach works best in that style.

Nothing is perfect, and I don't pretend that 1♥ avoids all problems, but to claim that 1N has no problems while 1♥ is inexplicable seems weird to me.