[kayin801]

---

IMPs. 1NT is strong balanced and bidding at the 2 level in their suits is natural.

Elaborate if you care to, would like to hear how outrageous some people think certain calls are.

[petterb]

2♥ - 10
double - 5
anything else - 0

[ggwhiz]

petterb, on 2012-January-29, 14:42, said:

2♥ - 10
double - 5
anything else - 0

Yup but double is closer to 4.

[phil_20686]

Is it not normal to play 2d = micheals here? your hand seems fine for that. I realise your hearts are much better, but this hand is not strong, and is basically looking for a good fit. If you hit partner with 5c, no reason 11 tricks not available. 2N forces us to the 3 level. I am not sure that I want to do that.

[aguahombre]

We are given the OP agreements. I would try 2H ---having two choices...accept OP's conditions and bid 2H, or not post.

[ArtK78]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-29, 15:26, said:

Is it not normal to play 2d = micheals here? your hand seems fine for that. I realise your hearts are much better, but this hand is not strong, and is basically looking for a good fit. If you hit partner with 5c, no reason 11 tricks not available. 2N forces us to the 3 level. I am not sure that I want to do that.

To me, it is normal to play 2♦ here as diamonds.

[fromageGB]

I would not like X here (or any ♥♣ 2 suiter were such a bid available) because when partner leads to a ♦ contract I don't want him (under)leading a club honour - it has to be a heart lead.

[nige1]

kayin801 asks "IMPs. 1NT is strong balanced and bidding at the 2 level in their suits is natural. Elaborate if you care to, would like to hear how outrageous some people think certain calls are."

IMO _X = 10, 2♥ = 9, Pass = 8, 2N = 7
An advantage of 2♥ is that it may direct a good lead. But you are quite likely to be on lead, yourself. Advantages of double are that it seems safer and it may unearth a club-fit. Some Scottish players play simple overcalls in opponents' suits as natural but I haven't seen a good result from that treatment.. I prefer...
- 2♦ = this kind of hand.
- 2♠ = similar hand but with ♣ longer or better than ♥

If opponents play a system like 2/1 or Precision, where both 1♦ and 1♠ may be canapé then different considerations apply

---

[Statto]

kayin801, on 2012-January-29, 14:31, said:

1NT is strong balanced and bidding at the 2 level in their suits is natural.

I'd rather have 1NT to show a 5-5, and cue bids of opps suits to show 4-6 and 6-4 respectively, because the chances of any of those bids being useful naturally is slim.

Within the system given, I think the choice is between 2♥ and 2NT. We are vul and the ♥ suit is so much better, so I'll just bid it.

[Codo]

I have these natural bids comming up a lot, the frequnecy is far from slim, esp. for a natural 1 NT bid.
If I have the great pleasure to hold a 6-4 hand, I would bid my longest suit. Simple soul, hmm?

[fromageGB]

Codo, on 2012-January-30, 04:24, said:

I have these natural bids comming up a lot, the frequnecy is far from slim, esp. for a natural 1 NT bid.
If I have the great pleasure to hold a 6-4 hand, I would bid my longest suit. Simple soul, hmm?

There's a lot to be said for a natural 1NT, as there is not much point in having 2 calls (X and 1NT) to show the same hand.

Using a bid of 2♠ to force to the 3 level on a misfit when the points may be equally balanced seems too drastic for me, so I am happy for it to be natural.

A 1♦ open is commonly a 3 card suit, but it may be long diamonds sitting on top of me, so there is a bigger argument for having it mean something else. If you have this as your only artificial cue, maybe it should mean 2 suited with better/longer clubs than hearts.

[ArtK78]

One of the reasons why many players (myself included) do not play 1NT natural in sandwich position is that even though the hand for it may come up with reasonable frequency, it is usually lunacy to bid it. You are inviting a penalty double and you may not have a place to play.

Bidding into a live auction to show a balanced 16 count has many drawbacks. In addition to inviting a penalty double, it also warns the opps that you have a significant portion of the strength, so they can get out at a lower level than their auction might otherwise propel them; and, if they declare, you have put down a roadmap for the play of the hand.

So I use a sandwich NT in these situations - not because the sandwich NT is such a great call on its own merits, but because the strong NT has so many drawbacks.

By the way, x and 1NT do not show the same hand. Both show the unbid suits, but 1NT tends to show more distribution and less values.

[Codo]

Each bid has his drawbacks.
But given the tendancy, that opening and responding bids becoming lighter and lighter, you better have a way to show a strong balanced hand, else you have a problem every time it comes up.
And the disasters are less frequent then you think. Even if opps can double for penalty (and who can nowadays?), you have shown your hand and partner will often find a resting place in 2 of a suit.
Of course, playing in a game, where opener has usually 12+ and responder 6+ HCPS, the frequency and the upsides of a natural 1 NT bid in 4. position vanish.

[ggwhiz]

ArtK78, on 2012-January-30, 07:59, said:

So I use a sandwich NT in these situations - not because the sandwich NT is such a great call on its own merits, but because the strong NT has so many drawbacks.

I use it too and it works very well in my partnership for bumping them up in competitive auctions, low risk lead suggesting in 2 suits and showing very limited defence. Double instead of 1nt is better defined as well to let pard compete on some cheesy hands.

We have rarely had a problem with passing a strong notrump and doubling next time around if they put the brakes on. Partner can often look at their hand and know it's this as one of the possibilities.

Once in a blue moon we miss a game but win more of the partscore battles including sitting in the weeds when they get too high on their own power as Art mentions.

BTW, I would still bid 2♥ with this hand with no ♣honour. Never had much success pushing them around with that suit.

[kayin801]

I like having 1NT as strong balanced here. I used to play it as a very light, destructive takeout but that only really worked at MP against weak players and I missed being able to bid my hand. I also like 2♦ as diamonds and am usually comfortable having X or 2NT for my two suited takeouts.

If you bid 2♥ (seems to be the majority choice, and it's what was bid at the table), it goes: (P)-2NT-(P)-? now what?

---

On a spade lead N was down 1. 3♣ an overbid? Turns out if we let it go one round we probably get a chance to hit 2♠ for 500.

[aguahombre]

You attempted to place the contract in 3C, and North thought you hadn't seen his 2NT bid?

[kayin801]

Is 3♣ forcing?

[gwnn]

kayin801, on 2012-January-30, 22:12, said:

Is 3♣ forcing?

Most likely not natural signoff will come up much more often than some COG and a strong 55 can decide between (3C and) 3N and 4C.

[Statto]

kayin801, on 2012-January-30, 22:12, said:

Is 3♣ forcing?

I don't think it can be here, tho I'm inclined to pass 2NT (an awful contract as it often is) because 3♣ may not be any better, and I don't want to risk partner removing it (except to 3♥), as I'm near minimum for the sandwich overcall.

It is rare that we'll find a 3NT game after LHO has opened 1st seat and RHO has found a responding bid. It sometimes happens, but it doesn't look like being this time

Edit: changed 'absolute' to 'near'; more than happy with 2♥, but after 2NT with opps now silent, it feels like a misfit in which case we really are minimum. Sure, 3♣ is probably to play, but it gives too much opportunity for partner to upgrade their hand and decide upon 3NT, which they'll be doing on the basis of our ♣ holding being rather better than it is.

This post has been edited by Statto: 2012-January-31, 01:48

[Codo]

I had bid 3 NT after 3 ♣ too. With a weak hand and both suits, partner had passed 2 NT or bid different on the first round (double/2NT whatever you use for two suiters). So I like my maximum and my clubs. IF we can make 3 ♣ we may make 3 NT too.