[inquiry]

1NT - (pass) - ?

---

I found the wide variety of treatments on this hand surprizing (large tournament) after a 1NT opening bid. I think there is one right way to bid this hand, and two close to right ways. Of the list above, at least 12 auctions actually occured. How would you bid you, and more importantly, if you can discuss why you picked your choice over some of the more obvious possibilities.

[CSGibson]

Probably the best way to start is 2♥-2♠,3♦, especially if you have an agreement that it is a sequence asking for a cue with a well-fitting hand. Partner will know at least that his pointed queens are much more valuable than rounded queens, and be able to cooperate or not accordingly.

Even after 3N, I'll give it a go with 4♣. Anything else and you might as well right-side the contract and bid 6♠ right after the NT.

[rogerclee]

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

[CSGibson]

rogerclee, on Dec 24 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

Out of curiousity, what tool do you have to do that? Texas and then 5♣? I just don't have something like that in my bidding system, but it sounds like it might be useful...

[rogerclee]

CSGibson, on Dec 24 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Dec 24 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

Out of curiousity, what tool do you have to do that? Texas and then 5♣? I just don't have something like that in my bidding system, but it sounds like it might be useful...

2♥, 4♣ is standard. A growing trend is to play that 2♥, 3♥ in this auction shows a spade single suiter and unspecified shortness, and I happen to play this in most of my partnerships.

[CSGibson]

rogerclee, on Dec 24 2008, 11:44 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Dec 24 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Dec 24 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

Out of curiousity, what tool do you have to do that? Texas and then 5♣? I just don't have something like that in my bidding system, but it sounds like it might be useful...

2♥, 4♣ is standard. A growing trend is to play that 2♥, 3♥ in this auction shows a spade single suiter and unspecified shortness, and I happen to play this in most of my partnerships.

Does this mean that 2♥-4♦ and 2♥-4♥ are also self splinters when using this treatment? (this treatment being, of course, the 2♥,4♣ sequence)

[cherdano]

CSGibson, on Dec 25 2008, 01:24 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Dec 24 2008, 11:44 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Dec 24 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Dec 24 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

Out of curiousity, what tool do you have to do that? Texas and then 5♣? I just don't have something like that in my bidding system, but it sounds like it might be useful...

2♥, 4♣ is standard. A growing trend is to play that 2♥, 3♥ in this auction shows a spade single suiter and unspecified shortness, and I happen to play this in most of my partnerships.

Does this mean that 2♥-4♦ and 2♥-4♥ are also self splinters when using this treatment? (this treatment being, of course, the 2♥,4♣ sequence)

Yes.

[cherdano]

rogerclee, on Dec 25 2008, 12:27 AM, said:

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

That's the obvious start, the question remains what to do after partner signs off. I would try again with 5♣.

[Codo]

I lack the imgination to bid anything but 2♥ 4 ♣ (Leaving aside some fancy treatments). And there is no way that I will pass partners 4 Spade bid.

Maybe I should, because I have no 5 Level safety opposite xx,QJx,KQx,AKQJx, but it is christmas, I don't belive in such a non fitting hand.

[Fluffy]

I might start with 3♠ on my system, but 2♥ followed by 4♣ looks like the best aproach.

[TimG]

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

[mtvesuvius]

I like 2♥ followed by 4♣... My second choice is 4♥ then 5♣, but why go a level higher?

[jdonn]

TimG, on Dec 25 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

Luckily we have improved on the systems used in the old days, and now we can show a shortness along the way without taking up much more room.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Dec 25 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 25 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

Luckily we have improved on the systems used in the old days, and now we can show a shortness along the way without taking up much more room.

Usually lucky, no doubt. But maybe not if opener holds:

AQx
Txx
KQx
AJxx

[kaitlink]

TimG, on Dec 25 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 25 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 25 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

Luckily we have improved on the systems used in the old days, and now we can show a shortness along the way without taking up much more room.

Usually lucky, no doubt. But maybe not if opener holds:

AQx
Txx
KQx
AJxx

I don't understand your point, though I am an intermediate player. Can you please explain, Tim?

[mtvesuvius]

I think he's talking about protecting the K♥...

[mtvesuvius]

kaitlink, on Dec 25 2008, 03:05 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 25 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 25 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

TimG, on Dec 25 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

In the old days, we could start with 3♠, natural and forcing.

Luckily we have improved on the systems used in the old days, and now we can show a shortness along the way without taking up much more room.

Usually lucky, no doubt. But maybe not if opener holds:

AQx
Txx
KQx
AJxx

I don't understand your point, though I am an intermediate player. Can you please explain, Tim?

btw... Welcome to the forums

[kaitlink]

Yes I see that, but isn't this an argument for why transferring is better? It's just on this one hand that we need to protect our K, but usually, it is more likely that the strong NT opener needs to protect some holding.

[TimG]

kaitlink, on Dec 25 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

Yes I see that, but isn't this an argument for why transferring is better? It's just on this one hand that we need to protect our K, but usually, it is more likely that the strong NT opener needs to protect some holding.

Yes, usually it is more important to protect opener's holdings.

But, I think the advantages of transfers lie more in the ability to bundle more hands into a single call -- in this case you can use 2H to show either a weak hand with spades or a variety of stronger hands. In the old days, 2S just showed the weak hand with spades and another bid (3S) was needed to show stronger hands. The modern methods are undoubtedly more efficient.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Dec 25 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

kaitlink, on Dec 25 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

Yes I see that, but isn't this an argument for why transferring is better? It's just on this one hand that we need to protect our K, but usually, it is more likely that the strong NT opener needs to protect some holding.

Yes, usually it is more important to protect opener's holdings.

But, I think the advantages of transfers lie more in the ability to bundle more hands into a single call -- in this case you can use 2H to show either a weak hand with spades or a variety of stronger hands. In the old days, 2S just showed the weak hand with spades and another bid (3S) was needed to show stronger hands. The modern methods are undoubtedly more efficient.

So transfers are more efficient, and it's more likely opener should declare. So what was your point to begin with, other than to show your advancing age.