[inquiry]

2♣, and if partner is 5-2-3-3, I expect a correction...now if we were playing "equality", with this had I would ALSO bid 2♣..hehehe. since 1♠ shows clubs or balanced hand unsuited for 1NT or 3NT. In equality, with spades. partner's bid over 1♥ is DBL.. so there I WOULD bid 1♠(promising 3+ but weak)... easier.

Ben

[Chamaco]

Assuming pard's 1 spades shows 5, I'd bid 2 spades.
If I have to lie, I'd rather raise pard's 5 bagger with Ax if he would expect me to raise with xxx, rather than lying on a stopper or risking a misfit in clubs.
No choice is perfect, I go for this one

On the other hand, if 1S shows 4+, I join the 2C crowd

[Antoine Fourrière]

1N, which would be mandatory if I had opened 1♣ with clubs and diamonds reversed (or playing PC). What difference does it make that they run their hearts now against zero guard or later against one guard? We probably haven't seven running tricks if partner passes.
However, since 1♠ promises five spades, partner should bid 2♦ with three (two?) diamonds, allowing me to bid 2♠ with two cards. (And he should also bid 2♦ over 2♣ for the same reason.)

[Chamaco]

Antoine Fourrière, on Oct 25 2004, 10:23 AM, said:

However, since 1♠ promises five spades, partner should bid 2♦ with three (two?) diamonds, allowing me to bid 2♠ with two cards. (And he should also bid 2♦ over 2♣ for the same reason.)

This sounds weird to me.

In my opinon bidding 2 diamonds should show 4 diamonds, suggesting to play in a 4-4 fit rather than the already known 5-2 fit in spades (1NT MUST guarantee doubleton in spades).
It makes no sense to plan to rebid 2D to suggest a likely 4-3 diamond fit hoping that pard a corrects in a 5-2 fit seems a bit weird.

If this is the doubt, then I believe the choice for a weak responder is between passing 1NT or rebidding 2 spades.

[Free]

The_Hog, on Oct 25 2004, 03:15 AM, said:

"Ron, aren't you one of these guys who ALWAYS open 1♦ with any 5-4 m distribution? "

Sure Free when I play Polish Club, but that is systemic with Polish C, as you well know. Playing PC responder can guess to pass, or guess to correct to 2D. That is one of the weaknesses of the system. This discussion does not involve PC though, so why bring it up?

Playing Standard I would do the same thing with 5 weak to weakish C and 4D; you do not bid this way with 5 rebiddable Cs, as you have no problems on the hand. (You MIGHT open 1D for theoretical reasons if you play Walsh style responses, but that is another story again.)

You see this is where forums like this are a bit of a problem. You need to read the posts people make and see in what context that post is made, not just half read them and focus on a phrase that is taken out of context with a totally different hand type in a totally different system. If you play Standard and have a rebiddable C suit, then it is pretty clear to open 1C and rebid 2C. But when opener opens 1D followed by 2C, responder always has to assume it is 5D and 4C and so it is automatic to give preference to D. The chances of 5D and 4C are greater than 5C and 4D. If you think this does not make sense, work through the logic. The reverse holding is an abberation in Standard bidding, though certainly possible .

Ron

Well, there's a thread about SAYC where lots of people open 1♦ with 4 ♦s and 5 ♣s, so it seems people also open this way in NATURAL systems, like the one we're talking about.

So you see the problem is not always about people 'not reading all posts', sometimes it's just about people 'think' other people don't read all posts.

[Fluffy]

1NT of course, as did before.

first: 1NT doesn´t promise stopper, but a 12-14 balanced.
second: partner wont stayin 1NT with 5♠, ,he autobids 2♠ knowing we have 7 card fit and that the only way to make ♠ a source of tricks is to play in that suit.

[joker_gib]

Fluffy, on Oct 25 2004, 08:00 AM, said:

1NT of course, as did before.

first: 1NT doesn´t promise stopper, but a 12-14 balanced.
second: partner wont stayin 1NT with 5♠, ,he autobids 2♠ knowing we have 7 card fit and that the only way to make ♠ a source of tricks is to play in that suit.

Totally agree ! Same for me, 1 NT !

[dogsbreath]

Hi .. the problem is surely caused by playing 1S as forcing. Playing either two-way neg X's (or Misho's Eq style ) y have no problem. If y dony have to rebid there is no problem.. otherwise i bid 2S reluctantly
Rgds Dog

[the hog]

"Well, there's a thread about SAYC where lots of people open 1♦ with 4 ♦s and 5 ♣s, so it seems people also open this way in NATURAL systems, like the one we're talking about.

So you see the problem is not always about people 'not reading all posts', sometimes it's just about people 'think' other people don't read all posts. "

Frederick, you have just exactly proved my point. People open 1D IF and WHEN the C suit is not rebiddable. They do NOT bid this way if you have a natural 2C rebid.
Anyway dead discussion!

[paulhar]

Bidding 1NT is just begging to play 3NT losing the first five heart tricks. Put me in the 2 Club camp.

[Flame]

1NT, not as a lie
good example to my thory that 1nt behind the suit doesnt show a stopper.

[Flame]

About the partscore argument, i strongly disagree with Ron, 1NT is a great partscore and will make more times then 2d/2c, and also get more points for an overtrick. also 2c is very likely to get us higher in clubs or diamonds, partner will fight for the contract, and will enaluate his hand wrong.

[HeartA]

Flame, on Oct 25 2004, 09:29 PM, said:

About the partscore argument, i strongly disagree with Ron, 1NT is a great partscore and will make more times then 2d/2c, and also get more points for an overtrick. also 2c is very likely to get us higher in clubs or diamonds, partner will fight for the contract, and will enaluate his hand wrong.

If 1NT becomes the final contract, it is OK with me. My problem is, what if pd has a hand (almost) strong enough to force to game? I know, you would say "pd then should check back if I really have I stopper". To me, it is absurd to check back while my NT already says stopper. And I hate too much gadgets which takes away the natural meanings of some bids. When I bid (1)NT, I guarantee stopper (at least Kx or Qxx). And if pd wants to check on slam, he will know I have some honor(s) on opp's suit. For the hand given on the thread, I will bid 2C and apologize to pd if it leads to a bad contract.

[EricK]

HeartA, on Oct 26 2004, 04:03 AM, said:

Flame, on Oct 25 2004, 09:29 PM, said:

About the partscore argument, i strongly disagree with Ron, 1NT is a great partscore and will make more times then 2d/2c, and also get more points for an overtrick. also 2c is very likely to get us higher in clubs or diamonds, partner will fight for the contract, and will enaluate his hand wrong.

If 1NT becomes the final contract, it is OK with me. My problem is, what if pd has a hand (almost) strong enough to force to game? I know, you would say "pd then should check back if I really have I stopper". To me, it is absurd to check back while my NT already says stopper. And I hate too much gadgets which takes away the natural meanings of some bids. When I bid (1)NT, I guarantee stopper (at least Kx or Qxx). And if pd wants to check on slam, he will know I have some honor(s) on opp's suit. For the hand given on the thread, I will bid 2C and apologize to pd if it leads to a bad contract.

That's the point though! None of the bids accurately describe the hand. You want 1NT to promise a stopper and are prepared to lie about your suit lengths, others want to tell the truth about their shape and point count and lie about the honour location.

Why is one more natural than the other? Why is one more likely to lead to disaster than the other? Why is bidding 2♣ and then apologising to partner better than bidding 1NT then apologising to partner?!

Eric

[the hog]

HeartA, best solution is to just lead fifth highest against their 3N contract - the Ten

[HeartA]

EricK, on Oct 25 2004, 11:28 PM, said:

That's the point though! None of the bids accurately describe the hand. You want 1NT to promise a stopper and are prepared to lie about your suit lengths, others want to tell the truth about their shape and point count and lie about the honour location.

Why is one more natural than the other? Why is one more likely to lead to disaster than the other? Why is bidding 2♣ and then apologising to partner better than bidding 1NT then apologising to partner?!

Eric

Why? Because there are LOTS of occasion I need to bid (1)NT, which guarantees stopper on opp's suit. There is little chance I will encounter this kind situation (as I said, I don't remember I ever did). And I don't want to lie about this. Besides, I only exagerate the length of C by one card.

As I said earlier, this discussion will go to nowhere. I will NEVER bid NT without stopper of opp's suit.

[Chamaco]

HeartA, on Oct 26 2004, 04:03 AM, said:

Flame, on Oct 25 2004, 09:29 PM, said:

About the partscore argument, i strongly disagree with Ron, 1NT is a great partscore and will make more times then 2d/2c, and also get more points for an overtrick. also 2c is very likely to get us higher in clubs or diamonds, partner will fight for the contract, and will enaluate his hand wrong.

If 1NT becomes the final contract, it is OK with me. My problem is, what if pd has a hand (almost) strong enough to force to game? I know, you would say "pd then should check back if I really have I stopper". To me, it is absurd to check back while my NT already says stopper. And I hate too much gadgets which takes away the natural meanings of some bids. When I bid (1)NT, I guarantee stopper (at least Kx or Qxx). And if pd wants to check on slam, he will know I have some honor(s) on opp's suit. For the hand given on the thread, I will bid 2C and apologize to pd if it leads to a bad contract.

I also hate "checking back" for stoppers after a NT bid which should have promised a stopper.

I love to bid NT without stopper in front of a limited partner, who won't raise me to game so we'll just play 1NT.
But when game may be on I want to describe to pard where my VALUES are, being more flexible on length than on honors location.

[whereagles]

I think bidding 2C here is masterminding. There's no reason to embark on a misdescription of the hand when neither opener or responder have made a limiting bid. As far as I am concerned, a 2C bid is just bad bidding strategy. If 1NT really gives you the creeps, bid 2D. At least you'll be lying by 1 card, not two.

[Fluffy]

paulhar, on Oct 26 2004, 01:14 AM, said:

Bidding 1NT is just begging to play 3NT losing the first five heart tricks. Put me in the 2 Club camp.

You are plenty of space to find about real stopper between 1 and 3 NT.

[Free]

It's all back to style and preference... There are 2 main roads:

1 ) you don't need a stopper to bid 1NT, since you're in front of their long suit: you have NO problems, and you don't need to lie about anything, just bid 1NT.

2 ) you need a stopper to bid 1NT: then you have to lie about something, and it seems most people rather lie about shape than about their stopper.