[apollo1201]

IMPS all red

LHO deals and opens 1D, partner Xes and RHO passes.

You have a semi inspiring collection

Qxx
Jxx
xxx
AKxx

You d ideally want a 5th C to bid 3C, a more robust stopper for 1N, and while you feel heavy for 2C, you feel definitely too light in terms of HCPs or major suit holdings to bid 2D.

Not sure if there is an expert consensus on what is the best lie? Would it be different at green or at MPs?

Needless to say I was the one to X and partner wasnt pleaded with dummy after her choice.

[Douglas43]

I would settle for 2C. Bidding NT wrong-sides it. A 4-3 Major fit has the same problem and any diamond ruffs are in the longer hand. So 2C and reopen with a double if they bid 2D.

[pescetom]

I think most pairs will have some detail agreements (or past history) that influence this awkward choice.
But with no discussion, the least bad lie is 1NT for me.

[helene_t]

2♣ for me. Yes, it's an underbid but I think that if p can't bid again, it is more likely that 3♣ would be too high than that 2♣ is too low.

1NT is a reasonable alternative, if partner has a 4-4-2-3 with some 16-18 points it will take us to 3NT where 2♣ would have ended the auction. Whether that is good or bad on balance I find hard to say.

[Tramticket]

pescetom, on 2024-January-20, 10:53, said:

the least bad lie is 1NT for me.

When I reply to a take-out double I assume that partner holds a 4441 hand with a singleton in the opponents' suit. This places the opponents with nine diamonds and opener might easily hold a six-card diamond suit, given that their partner couldn't even give a token raise. I rate our chances of making 1NT after opps have taken six diamond tricks as slim.

2C is an underbid. But I much prefer it to 1NT and it looks the best choice on this hand.

[apollo1201]

Thanks all. Partner chose 3C which I think would be ranked low as per the regretter Nigel scale.

For me it was an easy peasy 1NT wtf but I understand concerns about right siding the contract. And I could leave with a heavy 2C.

I actually had a 12 count 4432 (with Axx D, yeah, I know, it is bad but I felt with 44 majors trying to find a fit was worth the shot, IDK if statistically it s winning strategy in the long run, btw).

-200 in the 42 fit was not a great success.

[apollo1201]

apollo1201, on 2024-January-22, 10:36, said:

Thanks all. Partner chose 3C which I think would be ranked low as per the regretter Nigel scale.

For me it was an easy peasy 1NT wtf but I understand concerns about right siding the contract. And I could leave live with a heavy 2C. Especially at MPs.

I actually had a 12 count 4432 (with Axx D, yeah, I know, it is bad but I felt with 44 majors trying to find a fit was worth the shot, IDK if statistically it s winning strategy in the long run, btw).

-200 in the 42 fit was not a great success.

[bluenikki]

apollo1201, on 2024-January-20, 09:13, said:

IMPS all red

LHO deals and opens 1D, partner Xes and RHO passes.

You have a semi inspiring collection

Qxx
Jxx
xxx
AKxx

You d ideally want a 5th C to bid 3C, a more robust stopper for 1N, and while you feel heavy for 2C, you feel definitely too light in terms of HCPs or major suit holdings to bid 2D.

Not sure if there is an expert consensus on what is the best lie? Would it be different at green or at MPs?

Needless to say I was the one to X and partner wasnt pleaded with dummy after her choice.

Years ago, Jeff Rubens argued that the 1NT advance should not suggest stoppers but instead say "the values for a jump advance, but no suit worthy of the jump."

You can bid 2♣ here if you never will play with this person again. Otherwise, your TOX auctions are poisoned forever.

[bluenikki]

apollo1201, on 2024-January-22, 10:36, said:

Thanks all. Partner chose 3C which I think would be ranked low as per the regretter Nigel scale.

For me it was an easy peasy 1NT wtf but I understand concerns about right siding the contract. And I could leave with a heavy 2C.

I actually had a 12 count 4432 (with Axx D, yeah, I know, it is bad but I felt with 44 majors trying to find a fit was worth the shot, IDK if statistically it s winning strategy in the long run, btw).

-200 in the 42 fit was not a great success.

I have a saved comment for playing on BBO. "Off-shape doubles are very dangerous when I am your partner."

[helene_t]

I think that the double is very reasonable and the 3♣ bid is reasonable too, although probably not my first choice.

This is just unlucky. Don't take the lesson from this that you should pass, if partner bids 3♣ they will usually have 5 and often 6.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2024-January-21, 16:28, said:

When I reply to a take-out double I assume that partner holds a 4441 hand with a singleton in the opponents' suit. This places the opponents with nine diamonds and opener might easily hold a six-card diamond suit, given that their partner couldn't even give a token raise. I rate our chances of making 1NT after opps have taken six diamond tricks as slim.

apollo1201, on 2024-January-22, 10:36, said:

I actually had a 12 count 4432 (with Axx D, yeah, I know, it is bad but I felt with 44 majors trying to find a fit was worth the shot, IDK if statistically it s winning strategy in the long run, btw).

helene_t, on 2024-January-23, 06:53, said:

I think that the double is very reasonable

I find it difficult to see how you can upvote the 4441 argument and still consider double very reasonable

Around here the double is essentially about majors 4-4 (with a minimum at this vulnerability) and ♦Hxx is not an obstacle.
That dovetails neatly with the Jeff Rubens philosophy about 1NT.
I don't go quite that far and would describe 1NT as "nominally promising a stop".

Even in the worst case of 9 diamonds missing, I wouldn't be too pessimistic about 1NT at MP.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2024-January-23, 13:31, said:

I find it difficult to see how you can upvote the 4441 argument and still consider double very reasonable

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You assume partner has a classic takeout double when responding, rather than trying to adjust your responses in case they're offshape. But it can still be a percentage action to double with majors - if they respond in the short minor, so be it.

[Tramticket]

I certainly wouldn't have doubled with that hand. If I have a minimum take-out double, I will have a suitable shape - that means at least three cards in ALL unbid suits. Of course, with a stronger hand it might be expedient to make off-shape doubles, but my working assumption when responding to a double is that partner has the "ideal" 4441 shape.

If you freely bid 1NT without a stopper, what do you expect the doubler to do when they do have the 4441 hand and a 16-count? Does a raise need to promise a stopper? Or accept that you might get to 3NT without a stopper? Or do you make a fuzzy cue bid?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

1NT

lack of alternatives, 3C is a distant option.

And the TOX is ok, maybe not my action of the table, but you have 44.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Tramticket, on 2024-January-23, 15:41, said:

<snip>
If you freely bid 1NT without a stopper, what do you expect the doubler to do when they do have the 4441 hand and a 16-count? Does a raise need to promise a stopper? Or accept that you might get to 3NT without a stopper? Or do you make a fuzzy cue bid?

I dont do it lightly and yes I accept going down due to lack of stopper.

[fuzzyquack]

If you played with a casual partner, hshe took a reasonable risk, you scored a bottom and the life goes on. I certainly prefer to have in my established partnerships an option to disregard the minor holdings when X-ing the other minor. Then 1N stands a mile while partner may still check for stopper with 4414/3415 and a good hand.

[bluenikki]

Tramticket, on 2024-January-23, 15:41, said:

If you freely bid 1NT without a stopper, what do you expect the doubler to do when they do have the 4441 hand and a 16-count? Does a raise need to promise a stopper? Or accept that you might get to 3NT without a stopper? Or do you make a fuzzy cue bid?

If the 1NT promises 9-11, as it should, that 16 pointer will certainly not pass. It will bid suits, forcing.

[Tramticket]

bluenikki, on 2024-January-30, 07:16, said:

If the 1NT promises 9-11, as it should, that 16 pointer will certainly not pass. It will bid suits, forcing.

I agree that suit bids will be forcing, but when I double and then bid a suit, I am showing a hand which was too strong to make an initial overcall, not showing stoppers for no trumps. With a 4414 16-count I would expect to raise to 3NT and rely on partner for the stopper that I believe they have shown.

[fuzzyquack]

Tramticket, on 2024-January-30, 07:42, said:

I agree that suit bids will be forcing, but when I double and then bid a suit, I am showing a hand which was too strong to make an initial overcall, not showing stoppers for no trumps. With a 4414 16-count I would expect to raise to 3NT and rely on partner for the stopper that I believe they have shown.

How about 2♦ over 1N with 4414 and 16+? Was your objective of posting to defend 3♣ ad nauseam?

[AL78]

I must admit I don't like making a TOX on a weak opening hand holding only two of the three unbid suits because there is a good chance partner will bid my doubleton, but I can see the argument for doing so at MPs when holding both majors. If someone can show me the odds of finding a major fit and getting a good score is greater than the odds of playing in a hideous non-fit at the two or three level for a bad score then I will change my mind.