[jillybean]

This is not an especially exciting or challenging hand but I did have an interesting decision to make.
Do you have an agreement ?

---

[DavidKok]

Helene and I recently made an agreement auction the auction (1M)-X-(P)-?, with or without a prior pass: forcing 1NT! It allows us to get more ways to bid at the 2-level to distinguish strength and flexibility. Plus, 1NT isn't too hot with 8-10 facing a TOX anyway - that's the one strain partner was not looking to support.
As a consequence the direct 2♥ shows 6-9 HCP with 4(+)♥ for me here. Maybe I should downgrade into 0-5, but I think it's close enough. The minor suit honours rate to be working, and I do have two 10s and three 9s.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2024-October-04, 12:52, said:

Maybe I should downgrade into 0-5, but I think it's close enough. The minor suit honours rate to be working, and I do have two 10s and three 9s.

and 13 cards

[apollo1201]

The hand has nice intermediaries but the SQ looks wasted and the H suit, our likely trump suit, is a bit weak.

I tend to shake the bidding with 8+ and I see no reason to upgrade this 7-count, and after (unsuccessfully) looking for the 2 and a half H card in the bidding box, I am now bidding a mundane 2H (as I have no agreement).

It is not forbidden, after all, for once, to be maximum😁😁

[jillybean]

My dilemma was to bid a non encouraging 1nt, or wider ranging 2♥

[DavidKok]

I think more standard is for 1NT to be 8-11 here. The upper limit is really determined by the fact that we are a passed hand, without that I'd include some 12's as well. If partner has the traditional 1=4=4=4 12-count our 1NT will play poorly when we are weaker - normally our stops aren't good enough to set up side suits in time. This is why by default with 0-7 or 0-8 hands you should pick a suit, not NT. Helene and I extended this argument to the 8-12 range as well. In this case you should therefore pick 2♥. Your hand is too weak to bid 1NT.

[jillybean]

I like your forcing 1nt, but staying with more standard methods.
P 1S X P
3H is showing 4H 8-11 or do you include that in the 1nt?

[DavidKok]

Our full F1NT structure on (1♠)-X-(P)-? is as follows:

• Pass: lots of spades (5+), wishing to defend.
  
• 1NT: 5-way:
  • 0-9 HCP two-suiter, offering choice of strain at the 2-level (partner picks a minor, pass or correct).
    
  • 0-5 HCP 4(+)♥ (correct partner's choice to 2♥).
    
  • 9-11 5m, semibalanced or balanced (rebid 3m).
    
  • 9-11 at most 3♥ no other good bid (pass partner's 2m or rebid 2NT).
    
  • GF at most 3♥ (rebid 2♠).
  This is an intimiating list - what unites the hand types is that they are flexible, i.e. not single-suited (other than the very weak hearts option). We would like to solicit partner's opinion when we bid 1NT, even if the level is still unclear. Partner will bid their better minor over 1NT, or make a higher rebid with a very strong hand.
  
• 2♣: 0-9 HCP, (3)4(+)♣, not a flexible hand.
  
• 2♦: 0-9 HCP, 4(+)♦, not a flexible hand.
  
• 2♥: 6-9 HCP, 4(+)♥, prefers hearts to any other strain.
  
• 2♠: GF 4(+)♥. Partner's first priority is confirming the heart fit, any other bid shows a takeout double with at most 3 hearts.
  
• 2NT: 9-11, 4♥.
  
• 3♣: 9-11, (5)6(+)♣. Semibal or flexible hands go through 1NT.
  
• 3♦: 9-11, (5)6(+)♦. Semibal or flexible hands go through 1NT.
  
• 3♥: 9-11, 5(+)♥.
  
• 3♠: -
  
• 3NT: To play.

In standard structures I think 2♠ is either used as a generic GF or as a generic punt, not necessarily showing hearts and also not denying them. One of our goals was clarifying the degree of oM length along with strength easily, these nebulous cue bids really give me a headache. The bid that's difficult to remember is the direct 2NT, it is a '4 card raise' of partner's T/O double. The structure over 1♥ is similar but we have extra room there to bid 1♠ or 2♠.


In standard I never know what to do with an invitational hand with four hearts. Partner's takeout double is often 4(+)♥, but I have gotten chewed out a few times for driving to game only to find it's a Moysian. I could not find anything clearer than "just put it all in the cue bid and now it is partner's problem", which I am not a fan of. Before this F1NT I preferred "assume the takeout double is 4oM, and pay up when it turns out it is not (this should factor into the decision whether or not to double without 4oM)". But I've seen some people react poorly to the suggestion that their offshape takeout doubles can result in poor contracts, insisting that partner should take it slow and somehow get the decisions right without agreements.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

1NT.

You show some life and a stopper.
You may be able to show the 4th heart later, if the auction continues,
which is harder, if partner passes 2H.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mycroft]

If I bid 1NT, I am telling partner I have more than I have. But the alternative is Txxx in a 4432.

I have zero interest in anything but minimum bids. If partner has life, then fine, I have a *good* zero-8 (or a very poor 8-bad 11, depending on my choice). I think if my partner passes 2♥, I'm going to be very happy (and hope to make 8 tricks). If partner makes a game try, I'll also be happy (the ♠Q is of dubious value, of course). I'm going to be less happy if partner raises my 1NT to 2.

I'd prefer to take the low route; I find it's always easier to go low and show extras than go high and try to pull back. But there are several 3 counts that are better than this as a 2♥ call, 4 hearts or no; and this does look like an 8-10 BAL with spades stopped, if you look at it funny.

I agree, interesting question. But interesting as "best of bad choices".

[jillybean]

I chose 1nt too, nothing is without risks here.

I do like David's 1nt, I will share that with my partner.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I dont know standard, but req. 8-11 for a 1NT response is a bit much.
The following side makes it 7-10, and I would, just for simplicity reason, go with 6-10,
same as a 1NT response to a 1 level opening.
https://bridgebum.co...eout_double.php

The hand is bal., bidding Txxx instead of showing live and a scattered values, it is your
decision, and partially a matter of agreement.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: DavidKok 1NT looks interesting, although way to complicate for me, and I would only adopt
it, if I play similar methods in other places, or have exp. with standard forcing NT.

[DavidKok]

I think 1NT is an overbid without agreements to the contrary. Playing this as 7-10, or 6-10, seems really poor to me. Takeout doubles aren't what they used to be - many balanced 11's qualify and we're weaving in the 10-counts now. To me this feels like putting your head on the chopping block. What's more, if your 1NT range is this low what are you bidding with 11 or 12 balanced? 2NT isn't safe with a misfit and 21-22 HCP combined, not to mention that your defensive values are sitting under opener.

[mw64ahw]

David's 1N works well and shouldn't be much of a memory strain if you mirror a Lebensohl approach over a weak 2; ranges obviously modified.

I take a similar approach over partners 1-level overcall, where I want to show my own suit or certain support, but that's another story

[DavidKok]

In my opinion it's closer to a Scrambling NT than a Lebensohl NT, though of course there are similarities. Key is that direct bids (i.e. bypassing 1NT) isn't so much stronger as it is less flexible. We want to show our suit immediately if we have a preference, while the slower route consults partner.

[bluenikki]

"The structure over 1♥ is similar but we have extra room there to bid 1♠ or 2♠."

Do you play similar methods after double of a minor?

[DavidKok]

No, over (1m)-X-(P)-? we play something entirely different. With access to both majors at the 1-level there isn't as much need to have flexible ways to bid at the 2-level. What's more, because 1m can be a shorter suit we don't need to be as squeamish about bidding 1NT, whereas over their 1M they can often set up their long suit if our stoppers are inadequate.

On the (1♣)-X-(P)-? start we play:

• Pass: lots of clubs (5+), wishing to defend.
  
• 1♦: (3)4(+)♦, 0-8 ish.
  
• 1♥: 4(+)♥, 0-9 ish.
  
• 1♠: 4(+)♠, 0-9 ish.
  
• 1NT: 8-11(12), offer to play, may have a 4cM.
  
• 2♣: 10+ HCP, one or both 4cM. Forcing to 2♥. This bid comes with a bit of a continuation scheme.
  
• 2♦: 9-11, 5(+)♦.
  
• 2♥: 8-11, 5(+)♥.
  
• 2♠: 8-11, 5(+)♠.
  
• 2NT: 12-13 ish, no 4cM, NF natural.
  
• 3♣: - (could be used for a stopper ask)
  
• 3♦: GF, 5(+)♦.
  
• 3♥: GF, 5(+)♥.
  
• 3♠: GF, 5(+)♠.
  
• 3NT: To play.
  
• 4♣: - (could be used for GF both majors)
  
• 4♦: -
  
• 4♥: To play.
  
• 4♠: To play.

The ranges deliberately overlap a little to allow for hand evaluation and flexibility, such as considering concentration of values. As a little wrinkle, with 4-4 in the majors we will respond spades before hearts. This used to be standard, but in my experience it is no longer taught so has disappeared at most levels. The structure over 1♦ is similar.

The idea is to facilitate partner doubling on 4-3 in the majors, possibly with balanced hands as weak as 11 or 'a nice 10' HCP. To me the lack of a third seat bid is a major warning flag if we have a weak hand, and staying low tends to work well since somebody is likely waiting to get another bid.

[mike777]

2 ❤️ seems pretty normal.What is the concern?