[shnk]

---

1♠ or 1NT?

[Lord Molyb]

1♠ since I have a 4-card suit

[nige1]

shnk, on 2013-September-01, 17:23, said:

1♠ or 1NT?

---

IMO 1N = 10, 1♠ = 9. It's a matter of style. Here, my 2/1 partners insist that 1♠ shows 5+ ♣ or 4144. But other partnerships wouldn't bypass a 4-card major.

[GreenMan]

There are valid reasons to bid 1NT here, but only if you and your partner have agreed to do so, as nige1 indicates. Without an explicit agreement of that nature, bid 1♠.

[EricK]

Lord Molyb, on 2013-September-01, 19:08, said:

1♠ since I have a 4-card suit

1NT since I have a balanced hand

As others have said, it is a matter of agreement, and perhaps the best agreement is to be able to bid whichever one seems to best describe the hand. But for those who bid 1[S], what do you plan to do over 2[D]? Show the 3 card [H] support, or finally admit to having a completely flat hand?

[GreenMan]

EricK, on 2013-September-01, 21:54, said:

1NT since I have a balanced hand

As others have said, it is a matter of agreement, and perhaps the best agreement is to be able to bid whichever one seems to best describe the hand. But for those who bid 1[S], what do you plan to do over 2[D]? Show the 3 card [H] support, or finally admit to having a completely flat hand?

Let's see, 3♥ implies 4315 or 4324, 2NT implies 4234. The first is a 1.5-card lie on average, the second is a one-card lie. So 2NT is probably better. Also, we have no ruffing value, so notrump is more likely to score well.

[Vampyr]

GreenMan, on 2013-September-01, 21:24, said:

There are valid reasons to bid 1NT here, but only if you and your partner have agreed to do so, as nige1 indicates. Without an explicit agreement of that nature, bid 1♠.

I would assume with no agreement that 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand. If you have no way to check back, you probably shouldn't be playing 5-card majors.

[mike777]

EricK, on 2013-September-01, 21:54, said:

1NT since I have a balanced hand

As others have said, it is a matter of agreement, and perhaps the best agreement is to be able to bid whichever one seems to best describe the hand. But for those who bid 1[S], what do you plan to do over 2[D]? Show the 3 card [H] support, or finally admit to having a completely flat hand?

if you prefer to rebid 1nt in your style...ok...


2h no problem yet.

and yes pard will assume I have 11-13 and often a wk balanced hand.


The problem is when I have much more and an unbalanced hand which is seldom but possible. The good news is we are in a gf and only at 2h. Most of the time I expect responder to have the bigger hand, not opener on this auction.

As usual the problem hand will often be 2 suited unbalanced hands in the range of roughly 14-16 that could not open 1nt as pard will play me for less.

[Fluffy]

This depends solely on your system, has nothing to do with judgement.

[ahydra]

Fluffy, on 2013-September-02, 04:44, said:

This depends solely on your system, has nothing to do with judgement.

Correct. For example, I play that all balanced hands bid NT on either the first or second round; a suit bid on the second round therefore implies an unbalanced hand. I think this is probably better than allowing 1S on a 4333 here, as it helps to narrow down opener's hand - but no doubt there are reasons for playing it the other way as well, so it is entirely a matter of system.

ahydra

[lowerline]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-01, 23:34, said:

I would assume with no agreement that 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand. If you have no way to check back, you probably shouldn't be playing 5-card majors.

Responder needs an invitational or better hand to check back. Rebidding 1nt will bury the spade fit if responder is weak. I'm not convinced that 1nt is as good as 2♠ when that happens.

Steven

[Vampyr]

lowerline, on 2013-September-02, 04:51, said:

Responder needs an invitational or better hand to check back. Rebidding 1nt will bury the spade fit if responder is weak. I'm not convinced that 1nt is as good as 2♠ when that happens.

It seems to me that the loss of accuracy on all other hand types is a high price to pay. But I don't know. It would never occur to me to bid 1♠, so I have never really thought about the consequences.

[Vampyr]

Duplicate post.

[ggwhiz]

lowerline, on 2013-September-02, 04:51, said:

Responder needs an invitational or better hand to check back. Rebidding 1nt will bury the spade fit if responder is weak. I'm not convinced that 1nt is as good as 2♠ when that happens.

Steven

So bidding 1nt may bury a spade fit if partner is weak(ish) but the opponents will balance on many of those hands. Partner is able to compete (or not) much more accurately after 1nt than 1♠ with a downside of approximately belonging in spades and they leave us there.

I much prefer 1nt telling partner the nature and range of your hand in case they compete when pard is weak, never a problem getting to the right spot when they are inv+ and even getting pard to put the brakes on with marginal slam values on occasion.

[neilkaz]

1NT for me as I have a balanced 4333 hand and 12-14 HCP. I play XYZ and that or various check backs can get us to a major game if a 44♠ fit or 53♥ fit can play better than 3NT.

There may be a few hands when pd has 4♠ and 2♠ could play better than 1NT but there are also hands where 1NT plays better. I want the advantages of keeping the opps in the dark and limiting my hand ASAP and am not afraid of anything the opps may lead.

I'd prefer to be at least slightly unbalanced for 1♠, both the aid PD in competing and defense.

[GreenMan]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-01, 23:34, said:

I would assume with no agreement that 1♠ shows an unbalanced hand.

That may be the default style where you live, but not other places. Hence the question.

[aguahombre]

Debated before, and neither camp will convince the other; it only remains for one partner to agree with the other. The trade-offs are obvious, and the decision to rebid 1S or 1 (or 2) NT will requires collateral system adjustments.

The NT camp is willing to forego playing in 2S instead of 1NT, and the consequences of that are unclear...undoubtedly skewed by people's selective recollection of their results to coincide with their position.

The NT camp also must bring four Spades into their continuations when they employ a checkback method. IMO, 2-way checkback is necessary for this group because they can't squeeze both range and shape into regular NMF responses when Spades are still a possibility.

The 1S camp is giving up the immediate inference that the 1S bid shows an unbalanced hand, and the consequence of that are also unclear and probably skewed by people's selective recollection about whether that information was necessary at that particular moment.

Those who have really thought about it realize the choice of opening bid with a balanced 4-4m is also involved.

[ggwhiz]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-02, 10:10, said:

IMO, 2-way checkback is necessary for this group because they can't squeeze both range and shape into regular NMF responses

Very true but playing Kantar where 2♣ is always the checkback instead of NMF gives 1 small extra bid that makes a big difference, allowing for super accepts when the opener is accepting any game invite.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-02, 10:10, said:

IMO, 2-way checkback is necessary for this group because they can't squeeze both range and shape into regular NMF responses when Spades are still a possibility.

I realise that 2-way check back is superior in some ways, but I usually play simple checkback. I have never found range information to be vital, since the 1NT rebid has already defined the range.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-02, 14:45, said:

I realise that 2-way check back is superior in some ways, but I usually play simple checkback. I have never found range information to be vital, since the 1NT rebid has already defined the range.

Some of us feel that within the range we might need to clarify 11 or 12, vs. 13 or 14. But, true, we see a lot of blasting to game by responders who have 11's and 12's with varying degrees of success.