[jillybean]

For me, 1 nt does not show a constructive hand, I have fixed my original post.

[whereagles]

Phil, on 2015-January-06, 09:10, said:

1♥. I do not claim that I will land on my feet.

Actually.. either pard passes 1♥ (which should have a play for) or he bids on, in which we have a dead-easy rebid: THREE NO TRUMPS

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2015-January-05, 23:11, said:

1N is usually played, for some very good reasons, as constructive.

Please explain why, and what is constructive here, 8-10?

[mike777]

Per Lawrence in his book on takeout doubles the range depends on what LHO opened. It can be roughly 4-10 to respond 1nt. The higher the suit the more cramped.
After 1d, it looks like the range is roughly 6-10. 874...Q74...QJ5...J873 would be a "disgusting" minimum.

[mycroft]

When partner makes a takeout double, she is counting as part of her hand strength, "dummy points for shortness". The taught requirements are "support (Qxx or xxxx) for all unbid suits, and an opening hand *counted as dummy*" (yeah, and then we teach "well, sometimes you have to lie a bit" and then we teach what the ex-juniors/experts are saying on BBF "well, if I end up in a 4-2 club fit I'll eat it; I have to get both majors in here", and then...)

She is asking you to bid a suit, "knowing" there's a fit and suitable strength (even if it's zero). She does *not* want to hear you bid NT - it likely downvalues her hand a fair amount - especially as a fair quantity of your limited high cards are "wasted" providing the stopper. Therefore, it's very reasonable to require enough strength that the downvalue of her hand won't be an issue (I don't mind 6; I'd expect good 6-9; the 6 in the OP aren't 6 to me, though, even if the "wastage" is Jxxx and not Kx or the like).

Now, because it's sensible to need "constructive values" to bid NT (to be safe opposite the 4414 9-count that is a happy double), people start expecting it (and so, when the doubler has the "too strong to NT" double, or the "double-and-bid" double, or even the 4414 or (34)(15) 15- or 16-count, they'll blast or at least investigate game) and that can lead to very poor results if you don't actually have that hand. If you bid 1♥ on these kinds of "you forced me to bid" hands, partner won't hang you quite so badly, quite so often, because your low end is still "2352 yarborough".

A really ugly result, which I have seen, is -470 into nothing after the air gets competitive, and partner takes your "I have trump tricks" seriously.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2015-January-07, 08:53, said:

Please explain why, and what is constructive here, 8-10?

Mycroft did a pretty fair job of answering this, altho I don't agree with everything in the post. I don't agree with the 'shortness' idea for partner, altho I may well just be quibbling on that. I will add a little, while repeating much.

To me, the main concern isn't so much the fact that 1N will often be a bad contract when we hold crap like the OP hand, and partner has a typical 4=4=1=4 12 count.

Yes, we rate to do poorly on a diamond to RHO's queen, a diamond back, and now we need to take 4 pitches from dummy, which is a typical scenario in these auctions. However, while this is ugly, it isn't that my suggestion of 1♥ would always work out so much better. It might, and I'd expect it to on average do a trick or two better, but on occasion we play the dreaded micro-moysian when partner doubled with 4=3=4 or the like, and 1N would have been better.

So on balance, when partner has a minimum, I think 1N on a 4-bad 6 count is a net loser but not by a huge margin. Being vulnerable makes the problem worse, of course, since now -300 when we could scramble -100 in 1♥ is terrible at mps and a nasty hit at imps.

A bigger concern, by far, is that partner will often hold some extras, especially when rho has passed. I don't want to overstate this: rho may have a hand like ours, shorter in diamonds perhaps, and have a pass, and it may be LHO who has the best hand at the table.

However, partner can easily hold a decent 15+. Partner could even be something like 3=4=2=4 18 with no diamond card.

When one plays constructive advances of 1N, which I do and which for me over 1m would be a good 7 - 10 hcp, then doubler can safely invite with 15 since on a bad day we have a decent 22 with opener marked for most of the missing hcp, and thus declarer is usually able to play the hand with a high degree of inferred or actual knowledge of the layout. And on a good day, we have 25 hcp with opener marked with all or almost all of the missing values and, again, declarer has a significant advantage in the play, assuming a skilled declarer.

If doubler has 17-18, then he has an easy 3N bid.

However, if you widen the range of the response to 0-10, or 4-10 or even 6-10, you make it more dangerous for doubler to invite or to bid game.

The most common game after 1N is 3N. Even if doubler holds something like AKQxxx AJx xx Kx, intending to double then bid spades, imo his correct call after 1N is 3N. Note that I am not creating a hand for the OP example, just speaking generally.

I am primarily an imps player, so bidding games is extremely important. A narrow range for 1N makes game bidding, and game avoidance, very easy. A wide range makes game bidding chancier. Even on invitational sequences, the wide range creates problems. When I show 7-10, I can happily accept with 9-10 and reject with 7-8. When I show 4-10, I accept with 7-10 and reject with 4 to 7 (the overlap being because there are good and bad 7 counts). When we see this, then it is obvious that either doubler passes, and we miss some games, when he is worried about our 4-5 count hands, or he invites, hoping we hold a max, and we are too high at 2N, because we hold crap, or we are too high at game, because we accepted with a good 7 and he was hoping for 9-10.

1M, otoh, is always suspect as to hcp. It always shows 0+, for me 0- bad 8. 1♥, in particular, is always known to be suspect, since what else does one bid with xxx xxx xxxx xxx?

This makes advancing the 1♥ problematic, but we don't solve that by making 1N potentially very weak. Instead, by making 1N very weak, we create further problems.

There are other issues, such as partner inappropriately doubling the opps, but in a good partnership that won't happen often. Give you, on the OP, Qxxx in diamonds and another hcp somewhere, and that still won't be a far better hand defensively. My view is that when a competent opp keeps bidding in the face of a constructive 1N, the takeout doubler should be careful when wielding the axe. In particular, no good player doubles for a 1 trick penalty, so if they do play doubled, they rate to go down....just not as far as partner was expecting If I am a trick light for my 1N, then if they make, partner probably didn't have his double.

[PhilKing]

FWIW, I think anything resembling a decent 10 count NT hand should jump to 2NT, playing for the "Haggis Sandwich". You don't need 25 points for game when RHO is close to broke.

If I can dig out the 1♦-x-(pass)-1♥ thread from a few months ago, we can see what happens when you bid a three-card suit. My view was that in that particular auction, there was a cased for playing 1♠ as an extra values scramble (suggested by Rainer). Failing that, I just think it leads to heaps of trouble. However, I can't find the thread.

[mike777]

Lawrence gives three examples on pages 100-101 after 1d=x=p=?

874..Q74...QJ5...J873= disgusting minimum nt

Q7..93...KQT4,,,Q9864= happy to bid nt

A84...Q4...Q764,,,QJ86= maximum nt

You can compare tht to the OP hand:
Qxx
Jxx
Jxxx
Qxx

[mike777]

Roy Hughes in his book Contested Auction recommends over 1minor=x=p=? that 1nt is roughly 8-11. p.80

"Make the lower response with a very weak hand."

[wank]

mike777, on 2015-January-07, 14:54, said:

Lawrence gives three examples on pages 100-101 after 1d=x=p=?
A84...Q4...Q764,,,QJ86= maximum nt

the bloke might have written more books than me, but this is bollocks. 1nt with an 11 count is gamebonusphobia.

[mike777]

wank, on 2015-January-07, 15:18, said:

the bloke might have written more books than me, but this is bollocks. 1nt with an 11 count is gamebonusphobia.

see Hughes book also.

[PhilKing]

mike777, on 2015-January-07, 14:54, said:

Lawrence gives three examples on pages 100-101 after 1d=x=p=?

874..Q74...QJ5...J873= disgusting minimum nt

Q7..93...KQT4,,,Q9864= happy to bid nt

A84...Q4...Q764,,,QJ86= maximum nt

You can compare tht to the OP hand:
Qxx
Jxx
Jxxx
Qxx

5-11 1NT. Sounds playable.

[Hanoi5]

I stand with the 1H crowd. 1N should be more constructive and partner should know that my lowest level bid in any suit could be 3 cards.

[Trinidad]

wank, on 2015-January-07, 15:18, said:

the bloke might have written more books than me, but this is bollocks. 1nt with an 11 count is gamebonusphobia.

That obviously depends on what your takeout doubles look like.

For me ♠Axxx ♥Kxxx ♦- ♣Jxxxx is an obvious takeout double of 1♦: Together with the 5 points for the void, this easily counts as 13 points... when we play in a suit. In a NT contract it is worth its 8HCP. Opposite such a hand you don't want to play 2NT -let alone 3NT- with your non-descript 11 HCP hand.

Rik

[PhilKing]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-07, 16:46, said:

That obviously depends on what your takeout doubles look like.

For me ♠Axxx ♥Kxxx ♦- ♣Jxxxx is an obvious takeout double of 1♦: Together with the 5 points for the void, this easily counts as 13 points... when we play in a suit. In a NT contract it is worth its 8HCP. Opposite such a hand you don't want to play 2NT -let alone 3NT- with your non-descript 11 HCP hand.

Rik

It makes sense to base your response structure around hands where you have made a take-out double on an eight count and the next hand passes.

[mikeh]

Trinidad, on 2015-January-07, 16:46, said:

That obviously depends on what your takeout doubles look like.

For me ♠Axxx ♥Kxxx ♦- ♣Jxxxx is an obvious takeout double of 1♦: Together with the 5 points for the void, this easily counts as 13 points... when we play in a suit. In a NT contract it is worth its 8HCP. Opposite such a hand you don't want to play 2NT -let alone 3NT- with your non-descript 11 HCP hand.

Rik

Suffice it to say that for most of us a takeout double promises a better hand.

I wonder how much disclosure you make to your opps about your takeout double style? I am sure you are very ethical...that is definitely the impression I have formed from your posts so don't take this as a suggestion that you are being unethical. And maybe where you play this is common to the point of being understood. Where I play, were I to find that my LHO was routinely doubling on shapely 8 counts and that his partner was holding back in the auction due to that possibility, I would be extremely annoyed were there no disclosure, since I would misplace values in the auction and the play.

I note that to you your 8 count is an 'obvious double' which suggests that you don't even consider it to be the worst hand you could hold. Axxx Kxxx void xxxxx? How low do you go?

As an aside, the notion of counting 5 points for the void in your initial assessment is simply a very, very bad idea.

I don't count points in that fashion, but back when I did, I may have added points for length, but the notion of points for shortness BEFORE we have any fit strikes me as silly. It is far better practice to not count anything for shortness initially but then be willing to upgrade, sometimes dramatically, if and when a fit is established. That's the sort of thing that good players mean when they talk about a hand 'growing up' in an auction.

Thus I would pass your 4=4=0=5 hand and then, should partner come in (other than in notrump or diamonds) I'd go nuts....which would let him know I have limited values but great shape.

[eagles123]

many thanks all for responses, I bid 1H thinking it obvious I see now maybe that's not the case... certainly seem to have split the jury here lol.

[diana_eva]

What about this one?

---

Real hand from today. I was thinking of this thread when it happened. Looks better than the OP, but is it enough for 1NT?

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2015-January-07, 17:50
Reason for edit: added missing card

[Hanoi5]

diana_eva, on 2015-January-07, 17:43, said:

What about this one?

---

Real hand from today. I was thinking of this thread when it happened. Looks better than the OP, but is it enough for 1NT?

Not for me. Especially since a card is missing. But even with 3=3=4=3 and 6 I prefer 2♦.

[diana_eva]

Hanoi5, on 2015-January-07, 17:48, said:

Not for me. Especially since a card is missing. But even with 3=3=4=3 and 6 I prefer 2♦.

LOL sorry, I cut it out by mistake when I pasted the URL Small club added now.