[nigel_k]

2♠.

A stopperless 1NT is possible and I would do it if my spades were worse. But with blocked spades and no tricks elsewhere I don't want to play 1NT if there is a choice. And I don't understand why 2♣ would be expected to be better than 2♠.

[ggwhiz]

I'm stuck with 2♣. Not that I like it but partner will understand more so than when they blast into 3nt as they run ♦ or 4♠ if I raise when it's wrong.

The pass by rho might suggest a bust or a ♠ stack and further bidding by lho OR pard can steer us in the right direction.

[mikeh]

jmcw, on 2011-October-05, 08:31, said:

Interesting solution. Now we have a cuebid to show no real support and no stopper. Would that be an "inverted cue".

As with many ad hoc 'solutions' the notion of using 2♦ as a cue on this hand type is half-baked.

1. Consider that 1N or 2♣ will often be the best spot when, as here, we rate to have lots of diamond losers and no major suit fit. How do we get to either spot after 2♦?Now, the alternatives seem to be to rebid a dubious 5 cards suit or, my choice, to rebid 1N, and either might turn out poorly, but we have a far better chance of landing on our feet, when partner is weak, by guessing one or the other than by assuring we get overboard via 2♦. And when partner would move over 1N or 2♣, we have taken away his ability to cue 2♦ himself, and on other hand-types, it's tough to see how our constructive auctions are improved by this use of 2♦.

2. Even if one could be persuaded that 2♦ will actually enable us to bid more accurately, in the long run, what do we do with the hands on which we would previously have bid 2♦? And for every 'solution' offered for those hands, what do we do with the hands that such solutions would otherwise have shown? It is a common error to adopt a new treatment that seems to solve a problem and then find that the solution has created all kinds of problems for hands that were previously easy to bid.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on 2011-October-05, 14:12, said:

As with many ad hoc 'solutions' the notion of using 2♦ as a cue on this hand type is half-baked.

1. Consider that 1N or 2♣ will often be the best spot when, as here, we rate to have lots of diamond losers and no major suit fit. How do we get to either spot after 2♦?Now, the alternatives seem to be to rebid a dubious 5 cards suit or, my choice, to rebid 1N, and either might turn out poorly, but we have a far better chance of landing on our feet, when partner is weak, by guessing one or the other than by assuring we get overboard via 2♦. And when partner would move over 1N or 2♣, we have taken away his ability to cue 2♦ himself, and on other hand-types, it's tough to see how our constructive auctions are improved by this use of 2♦.

2. Even if one could be persuaded that 2♦ will actually enable us to bid more accurately, in the long run, what do we do with the hands on which we would previously have bid 2♦? And for every 'solution' offered for those hands, what do we do with the hands that such solutions would otherwise have shown? It is a common error to adopt a new treatment that seems to solve a problem and then find that the solution has created all kinds of problems for hands that were previously easy to bid.

Actually, my idea is neither ad hoc nor half-baked. It comes to some degree from my years of experience with Montreal Relay, an approach where the 1M response is always showing 5+.

In thinking through these sequences, and the parallel to the actual post offered, it has long occurred to me that there would be a lot of merit to showing immediate support cheaply and doubleton support expensively. I mean, IF you assume that conversion from 1NT to two of the major with five is frequent enough to force always doing this, in a sense, you start to develop some interesting concepts.

Consider, for example, this uncontested auction:

1♣-P-1♥(5+)-P-?

If Opener rebids 1NT to show typically a light balanced hand without support, this means a doubleton heart. If you would also bid spades on route to 1NT (debated elsewhere), the pattern ends up precisely 3235 most of the time. Opposite that, Responder might want to place the contract in 2♣ occasionally, and may want to pass, but 2♥ if often the call.

What if, however, 2♥ showed this exact hand and 1NT showed a 3-card or greater heart fit. Using that approach, you gain the ability to invite games without bypassing 2♥, which is a good thing.

Now, I am not saying that this is the ideal approach. My point is in response to your assumption that my analysis came out of thin air in response to a problem posed without aforethought. I have actually been brainstorming along these lines already. And, when assessing whether Montreal Relay, for instance, has or lacks merit against Walsh (which I also like very much and play with many partners), thinking through implications of auctions and possible tweaks is part of sound theory. Bart, for example, improves forcing 1NT but would not likely occur to someone who never played forcing 1NT. So also, treatments unique to 5-card major responses to a club opening might not occur to people who do not use them but might be well-considered by those who do or have for years.

Your objections seem to be incredibly vague comments and questions, so I have little ability to really respond to them with particulars. But, one of the objections is worth responding to. You asked what Responder does with the hand where he would normally bid 2♦ after Opener bids 1NT. I'm not sure what this means. If it usually would ask about diamond stoppers, that message has already been given, so the problem is gone. If it would normally ask something about spades, that message has also already been given. So, I don't understand that vague objection.

[han]

Generally with this shape I would bid 1NT, with or without a stopper. 2C is possible on a strong 5-card suit.

Now that partner has shown 5 spades (a seemingly impossible agreement!) and we have AK and no diamonds stopper, 2S seems better though.

I very much like 2D to show a strong hand. Useful agreement.

[Antrax]

Is the agreement really that terrible? It's how both of us were taught, and while we're familiar with having 1M show four after this auction and doubling on 4-4 or better in the majors, neither of us feels any reason to prefer that style to the "double is 4 cards, bidding is 5+" school. If I had to guess I'd say the problem arises when RHO raises the minor after the negative double, but our field isn't very vicious at the moment.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 If 1S promises 5 cards, 2S looks reasonable.
#2 If 1S could be a 5 carder, ... pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

Edited out sorry

[MrAce]

P_Marlowe, on 2011-October-10, 09:15, said:

#1 If 1S promises 5 cards, 2S looks reasonable.
#2 If 1S could be a 5 carder, ... pass.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I think u meant something else but wrote "pass" ?

[Antrax]

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Isn't 1♠ forcing here?

[Fluffy]

opening 1NT is ridicoulous, you ahve 13, you show 12-14 balanced.

1♠ is forcing.

Your rebid after this bidding is the same than after 1♣-(1♠)-X and after 1♣-(pass)-1x-(pass). You have 12-14 balanced and you show 12-14 balanced by rebidding 1NT.

Having a stopper at the 1 level its a minor issue. You are opener and your task is to describe your hand. 5 tricks don't beat 1NT, and 1NT is a very good contract to declare (specially at MPs). Also you are plenty of space to find out if there is a stopper or not before you commit to game.

[Antrax]

Could you elaborate on identifying whether or not I have a stopper? I'm guessing if we have the agreement that 1NT here may not show a stopper then responder is obligated not to blast 3NT without a stopper. Is 2♦ by responder here asking for stopper, or NMF, or something else? How does responder show a stopper or asks for one?

[helene_t]

2♠ for me. Some big gun(wasn't it Marshal Miles?) said that AK tight should opt for 4M over 3N when partner shows a 5-card suit. OK, this situation is slightly different. Anyway, a blocked blocked suit be a pain in notrumps.

[pooltuna]

helene_t, on 2011-October-11, 03:10, said:

2♠ for me. Some big gun(wasn't it Marshal Miles?) said that AK tight should opt for 4M over 3N when partner shows a 5-card suit. OK, this situation is slightly different. Anyway, a blocked blocked suit be a pain in notrumps.

I thought it was Soloway and it wasn't specifically the AK it was any doubleton that was 2 honor cards.

[P_Marlowe]

MrAce, on 2011-October-10, 19:51, said:

I think u meant something else but wrote "pass" ?

#2 ... if 1S showed only a 4 carder, than pass.

Added later: Overlooked the fact, that it is not certain,
that p will get another chance to bid, so pass is out.

Ok - 2C than.

With kind regards
Marlowe