[han]

IMP pairs, non vulnerable.

Ax
Axxx
K10xxx
xx

(1C) - 1S - (p) - ??

What is your first call?

[mgoetze]

Are you suggesting that 1NT is a valid alternative to 2♦?

[kenrexford]

Two Diamonds.

[lowerline]

han, on 2012-June-05, 05:54, said:

IMP pairs, non vulnerable.

Ax
Axxx
K10xxx
xx

(1C) - 1S - (p) - ??

What is your first call?

2♦. What's the alternative?

Steven

[Codo]

The alternatives are all flawed, which would be an argument in favour of playing the cuebid as invitational with no clear direction.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

lowerline, on 2012-June-05, 06:19, said:

2♦. What's the alternative?

Steven

If you play Transfer Advances: 2C! ( ♦ ) .

Then if partner "simply accepts", then bid 2S = usually showing a good 3 card raise but A x will suffice.

[CSGibson]

a non-forcing constructive 2♦ call looks right.

[straube]

I like a transfer advance and then 2S. If I'm not playing them, I'll bid 1N.

[han]

The call chosen at the table was 2C. I thought 2D was clearly best, but when I asked a good player their first reaction was 1NT.

[dake50]

I play 1D (insufficient) for just this hand.
10-ish Qx support.

[ByChechi]

If we define 1♠/N as 9-15 HPC , 5+cards ♠,primary concern of the partners to reduce their stakes - min or max.
I will say 2♣(short ♣ and forsig to 2NT).
If my P have 9-11(12) points , he may repeat his ♠.Then i think 2♠will be a good contract.
So keep all options open....

[gnasher]

han, on 2012-June-05, 08:11, said:

The call chosen at the table was 2C. I thought 2D was clearly best, but when I asked a good player their first reaction was 1NT.

I don't understand 2♣. I know there are some people who play that it doesn't promise a fit, but don't they play it as either a fit or a game-force? It seems unplayable to use it as an undefined hand of invitational or better strength.

When I first saw the hand, I thought 2♦ was obvious, but now that you mention 1NT I think that's better.

If 2♦ is forcing, partner may be forced to rebid 2♠ on a five-card suit, so we'll have to pass 2♠ if he bids it. If 2♦ is non-forcing, we will often play there, possbly in a 5-1 fit, and possibly with a 4-4 heart fit.

After a 1NT advance, partner will usually bid a second suit if he has one, or 2♠ if he has six, so we won't often miss a fit. We can happily raise 2♠ to 3♠. If he passes 1NT, he may have a club stop, or it may not matter that he doesn't.

[mgoetze]

Andy, I don't quite understand why the overcaller should be less happy to have a chance to introduce his 4 card heart suit over 2♦ than over 1NT.

[gnasher]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-05, 08:48, said:

Andy, I don't quite understand why the overcaller should be less happy to have a chance to introduce his 4 card heart suit over 2♦ than over 1NT.

Because a non-forcing 2♦ bid will on average have fewer hearts than a 1NT bid.

[straube]

Change the problem a little to Ax AKxx xxxxx xx. What do you bid now?

I think that 1N suggests a stopper but doesn't promise a stopper. Bidding 1N leaves plenty of room for either partner to inquire about a stopper. It's less directional than a constructive/nf 2D call. I think 2D ought to suggest a better suit.

[kgr]

dake50, on 2012-June-05, 08:11, said:

I play 1D (insufficient) for just this hand.
10-ish Qx support.

I play DBL to show this hand

[ArtK78]

I think that 2♦ is clear, and I am not convinced by the arguments in favor of 1NT.

Aside from the fact that we don't have a stopper in clubs, my values are all controls, which suggests playing in a suit contract. My diamond suit is not the greatest opposite a short holding, but at least 2♦ is a fair description of my hand and my values.

[JLOGIC]

I would always bid 1N. If partner passes either 1N or 2D I would imagine 1N is better, and 1N is more encouraging to partner to bid 2S or 2H (he will always bid 2S with 6 or 2H with 4 over 1N, he might pass with one of those over 2D especially if he has 2 diamonds or his hand is a pretty bad overcall/bad suits).

This is a well known sequence where 1N does not promise a stopper (the other one being 1N over a negative X), so I am not disturbed by having no stopper.

[JLOGIC]

Another way to put it is 2D places emphasis on diamonds. Our hand is clearly about getting to game in 4M or 3N and if we can't then getting to a playable partial. 1N cannot be such a horrible spot opposite a balanced 1S overcall, 2D could easily be poor in a 5-1 fit or even a lousy 5-2 fit. 1N accomplishes all of those goals, even wrongsiding NT is not much of a concern, LHO opened the bidding and if we have enough to play game it's unlikely to matter that it's not from partners side.

[JLOGIC]

ArtK78, on 2012-June-05, 09:11, said:

My diamond suit is not the greatest opposite a short holding, but at least 2♦ is a fair description of my hand and my values.

Wouldn't you also say that a 2D bid is also clear on x Qxx KQJxxx xxx, and a fair description of your hand and values? Yes, if your "description" includes a huge range of values and suit qualities and orientation then 2D will be a "descriptive" bid with many hand types, but then it is useless.

1N seems like a pretty fair description to me, I have ~8-11 without 3 spades and no good suit to bid.