[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

(1♦) 1N (2♥) ?

---

Your bid, and do you play Leb in these auctions?

[cherdanno]

I bid 4♠, or 4♥ if you play texas transfers in this situation.

[MFA]

I play 4♣ for ♥ and 4♦ for ♠ always as long as it's a jump.

[Cascade]

4♠

Transfers would be good with this hand provided you have agreed to play them.

I would expect to play Lebensohl on this auction if you play Lebensohl after opening 1NT.

[Fluffy]

lebenshol is on here.

its MPs so worse you can get is a bottom, I'd risk 4♥ even without agreements, we desperatelly want partner to declare.

[jdonn]

Yes texas is on for me here and this hand is a perfect example of one of the reasons to use it (or 2-under transfers), it's crucial for partner to declare on this hand.

[jillybean]

---

Here's the full hand, we didn't get to 4♠ but we will next time.

[the hog]

Cascade, on May 29 2010, 06:12 AM, said:

4♠

Transfers would be good with this hand provided you have agreed to play them.

I would expect to play Lebensohl on this auction if you play Lebensohl after opening 1NT.

Agree with Wayne.

[hanp]

Agree with transfer to 4S.

[OleBerg]

Leb definitely on.

I would probably transfer to 4♠, if I had the option.

I do find, however, that the importance of partner declaring is highly overrated:

Yes, they might lead through the strength at trick 1, but often there will be nothing behind partners tenaces (If she has any). And whenever a diamond ruff is looming, it will be much more obvious to find, with RHO on lead.

Change a small diamond to the ♦J, and I "hog" the hand, thereby also protecting our most vulnerable suit from being punched through. Change it to the ♦Q, and I would consider it an obvious mistake to transfer.

Had RHO passed over 1NT, these arguments would apply even stronger, and in addition LHO might have a serious quandry on the lead.

[gwnn]

That's an awful 1NT bid whichever way you look at it. But I can't argue with success

I don't even bid 1NT on all 15 counts let alone perfectly mediocre 14's. Of course it's not like passing will lead us to Nirvana but it will keep us safe.

[aguahombre]

nonsense deleted

Even a bean counter like me would overcall 1NT with the north hand.

[pooltuna]

aguahombre, on May 29 2010, 08:39 AM, said:

nonsense deleted

Even a bean counter like me would overcall 1NT with the north hand.

yeah if you think not bidding is going to keep you out of ♠s personally I agree with gwnn ( just lets you know you are in big trouble Csaba)

[gwnn]

S will always bid spades with that hand. If you are a bean counter Aguahombre why do you bid 1NT vulnerable at matchpoints on a random 14 count?

[aguahombre]

deterministic, not random. I learned that a while back. Then I saw the diamond bid on my right and figured it was better than a deterministic takeout double.

[OleBerg]

aguahombre, on May 29 2010, 05:04 PM, said:

deterministic, not random. I learned that a while back. Then I saw the diamond bid on my right and figured it was better than a deterministic takeout double.

Indeed. Apart from adding a few stray pips, it is difficult to imagine a better hand for a 1nt-on-14hcp overcall.

[gwnn]

xx
KJx
AQxxxx
Ax

[gnasher]

We don't have to change the shape or add any pips - just put the high cards where they'll be more useful. Q8 KT7 AQ84 QJT7 is already better than the original hand (which isn't even close to an upgrade IMO).

Make it 8x KQ10 AQ84 QJ107 and an upgrade starts looking possible (though I still wouldn't).

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on May 29 2010, 05:54 PM, said:

We don't have to change the shape or add any pips - just put the high cards where they'll be more useful. Q8 KT7 AQ84 QJT7 is already better than the original hand (which isn't even close to an upgrade IMO).

Make it 8x KQ10 AQ84 QJ107 and an upgrade starts looking possible (though I still wouldn't).

Maybe I am not as imaginative as I thought.

Anyway, if my policy was to overcall on good 14-counts, the hand would quailfy without second thought.

[kenrexford]

4♥