[jillybean]

All red, (1♦) P (P) to you

QT4, QJ, K842, KQJ3

[awm]

1NT is very much the normal call, showing something like 11-16 points with balanced shape and a diamond control.

The other option is PASS -- with them vulnerable you can certainly get a good score by racking up undoubled undertricks. Generally passing will do well when opener has not-very-many diamonds (like say four) and we have less than game values, whereas 1NT is better when opener has a good diamond suit (like five-card diamonds with some spots) or when we have a game that we missed by passing. Exact odds here are hard to calculate and probably depend on form of scoring; I think at IMPs I would bid 1NT for sure while at MP I tend to pass (hoping for +200, which is much better than +120 in 1NT our way).

[the hog]

1NT for me.

[jillybean]

That's good, I did bid 1nt and was very pleased with my bid.

This isn't important but it went (pass) and partner bids 2♥ (pickup partner).
What should this be, playing 'standard', no agreements.

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2011-January-19, 23:42, said:

That's good, I did bid 1nt and was very pleased with my bid.

This isn't important but it went (pass) and partner bids 2♥ (pickup partner).
What should this be, playing 'standard', no agreements.

I've given up worrying about this question. In SAYC transfers are not played after a 1NT overcall so this should be natural in that system, however very few people seem to know this and play system on. In the UK I would expect almost everyone plays it as transfer with a pickup partner. I play something like system on with my regular partner.

In 'standard' my guess is that the vast majority play system on, but your mileage will vary.

[the hog]

We used to play it as a transfer. heaven's knows as to what a pu pd plays it.

[gwnn]

1NT.

I would take 2♥ as a transfer with a pickup partner.

I would also go out of my way not to bid 2♥ in a pickup partnership

[mtvesuvius]

I would take 2♥ as a transfer just because 2♠ is not a unilateral action, whereas pass is always really bad when wrong.

I'd have bid 1N before as well.

[jillybean]

I thought it would be a transfer too, so dutifully bid 2♠
(1♦) P (P) 1N
(P) 2♥ (P) 2♠
(P) 3♥ (P) ohoh , pass

Yeah, he had hearts. When I said I think transfers should be on he replied,
"sorry thought if i bid 2d u would think i was bidding opps suit xx"

[wyman]

1N balancing, 2C is my (distant) second choice.

In most of my partnerships, I play systems off over a balancing NT and systems on over a strong NT overcall.

[Phil]

I have had many good results selling out to a red 1m at MPs. Some of the nice things that happen are:

- They are in a hopeless 4-1 fit and we get lots of 100's;
- They don't run out to a higher scoring 1N contract even if 1m is playable.
- They don't run to a major suit contract (hearts in this case) that is far superior to diamonds.
- We don't turn a plus into a minus by bidding.

All of the above points should be valid at IMPs too, however 3N just seems like it has too much potential. I am willing to stay open minded in this and would love to see a sim (recognizing constraints for partner are tricky to configure).

[hotShot]

jillybean, on 2011-January-19, 17:34, said:

All red, (1♦) P (P) to you

QT4, QJ, K842, KQJ3

With this hand I would seriously consider to pass.
It's not only that I would downgrade ♥QJ to worthless and that the ♦K might be in front of the ace.
If opps have a ♦ fit, partner has a single or void in that suit but
there are 11 ♥ and 10♠ cards that you don't have, opener is unlikely to have 5 in either suit, so partner and RHO share 7+♥ and 6+♠.
If partner had a 5 card major and decent 8+ HCP he would have overcalled.
If RHO had a 4 card major he would usually have bid it with 6+HCP.

This has a smell of "opener is not minimum", "both sides have no fit", "no running suit" ....

[FrancesHinden]

I would always bid 1NT on this hand, it's easily within range.
I understand the point about passing when the opponents are vulnerable, but defending at the 1-level is extremely difficult and declarer usually makes (at least) one trick more than par. If you were getting +200 out of 1D, you probably have a much less sweaty +120 in 1NT.

There are all sorts of unquantifiable questions: how aggressive is partner at overcalling in second seat? I'd pass on lots of hands that others would bid or double on, so it's more likely that we've got game on if you are playing with me than with those who think a 3=4=3=3 pipless 15-count with half its points in their suit is a take-out double. What about responder? Many vary good players would respond on very weak hands if they are short in diamonds, so against some people dummy is likely to have some diamond length, which makes defending a minority fit less tempting. Other players need 6 HCP to respond, full stop.

Finally, you are stuck with a guess about 1D P P 1NT P 2H.... my guess would be: playing with an American, 2H is a transfer to spades. Playing with an English person, it's natural. (Unless the English person knows you are American and is trying to guess what you think it is!). Not so much because transfers are less common (although I play 2H as natural here) but because I think there's a tendency for American players to assume that various conventions are 'obvious' while the English psyche is more along the lines of 'if we haven't discussed it, it's natural'. But much of this is speculation.

[cherdano]

I think passing is wrong with such bad trump spots in front of declarer. Obviously it is likely right when declarer has 3 diamonds, but with 4 diamonds sitting behind me I would expect them to take one more trick declaring diamonds than defending 1NT.

[dcohio]

wyman, on 2011-January-20, 10:15, said:

1N balancing, 2C is my (distant) second choice.

In most of my partnerships, I play systems off over a balancing NT and systems on over a strong NT overcall.

^^^^ This...

[655321]

Agree with those who think our bad diamond pips mean we shouldn't be trying for +200.

wyman, on 2011-January-20, 10:15, said:

In most of my partnerships, I play systems off over a balancing NT

This seems wrong to me. Obviously you lose the benefits of Stayman/transfer sequences. But in addition if the balancing 1NT bidder is dummy in a partscore, you have the lead going through the stronger hand, and have let opener off the hook - you would like to force him to find an opening lead away from his tenaces around to the 1NT bidder. Anyway, I expect there have been threads on this subject already.