[1eyedjack]

RHO opens 1-suit in first seat. Your call.

You have 4432 shape with doubleton guard in the opponent's suit and the right values for 1N overcall.
Let's make it closer, and for the purposes of the poll say you have 4 cards in unbid majors.
But if it makes a difference, or if other factors influence it, such as whether 1C was opened v 1S, or vul, or scoring etc, feel free to pitch in in the comments section.

[EDIT 2014-08-26: stipulated doubleton guard in oppo suit, not simply honour doubleton]

This post has been edited by 1eyedjack: 2014-August-26, 03:27

[Bbradley62]

Assuming that "honor doubleton" is either Ax or Kx, not lower honors... also assuming opps play 5card majors, which may not be the case for some respondents... I'd be more likely to overcall 1N if opp opened 1m than 1M, since it's less likely his suit is a source of tricks.

[Zelandakh]

I was expecting everyone except Timo to be a doubler here. An average hand has something like 5hcp in each major, 4 in diamonds and 2.5 in clubs.

[mikeh]

I frankly couldn't understand the question well enough to answer, at least not in any committal way.

Wouldn't everyone want to know the actual holding we have before answering the question? I mean, if they open 1♣ I might, according to the poll, hold AQxx AQxx KJx 10x, and who in their right mind would bid 1N?

Or they might open 1♦ and I hold xxxx AQxx AKJ Qx, and now 1N looks pretty reasonable. I don't see how a poll answer can address these issues in a meaningful way.

I can answer about their opening a major...I would strain to bid 1N with 4=4=3=2 or 4=4=2=3 and suitable strength, honours.....a double based on having 4 cards in only one side suit, and a doubleton in another, strikes me as very poor.

[1eyedjack]

mikeh, on 2014-August-25, 10:58, said:

I frankly couldn't understand the question well enough to answer, at least not in any committal way.

Wouldn't everyone want to know the actual holding we have before answering the question? I mean, if they open 1♣ I might, according to the poll, hold AQxx AQxx KJx 10x, and who in their right mind would bid 1N?

Or they might open 1♦ and I hold xxxx AQxx AKJ Qx, and now 1N looks pretty reasonable. I don't see how a poll answer can address these issues in a meaningful way.

I can answer about their opening a major...I would strain to bid 1N with 4=4=3=2 or 4=4=2=3 and suitable strength, honours.....a double based on having 4 cards in only one side suit, and a doubleton in another, strikes me as very poor.

Well, in your first example hand, you do not hold Hx in the opened suit, so I agree that overcalling on that hand would be ridiculous. Hence it was excluded from the conditions of the poll
In the second of your examples, your doubleton is not in the opponent's suit, and again I would expect that everyone and his dog would overcall 1N. Again, hence it was excluded from the conditions of the poll, which was that your doubleton was in the opponent's suit but that it was guarded.

If those conditions are not sufficient for you to commit either to 1N on X on hands that fulfil the poll criteria, ie your choice would depend on further unstated conditions, then you are asked to vote for neither extreme option but the one which will most frequently be satisfied.

Or not vote at all, of course. It is not compulsory.

I could have phrased the poll in a more complex way that catered for other conditions but I thought it sensible to stick to simple. If you think that roughly half the time (within the conditions stated, ie that your doubleton was in the opponent's suit, but guarded) you would open 1N, and the other half X, then either you can post in the thread the types of criteria which would decide the issue or you can leave me guessing. And I am pretty good at guessing.

What I am getting at is that with a 4432 shape you have a balanced hand.
If you also have a guard in the opponent's suit, AND the values for a 1N overcall, there are some attractions to bidding 1N. "Get it off your chest" etc. If partner is interested in major suit fits there is room to investigate.
But if the hand also has properties similar to a 3-suited takeout (fewer than 3 cards in the oppo suit and at least 3 in all the others) there is a conflicting desire to get that description across.
All that I am trying to ascertain is which desire takes priority - the 3-suited takeout or the balanced hand in range with a guard.

I have come across a lot of good players fairly entrenched in their views but without a clear agreement between them on the matter.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2014-August-25, 10:58, said:

I frankly couldn't understand the question well enough to answer, at least not in any committal way.

Wouldn't everyone want to know the actual holding we have before answering the question? I mean, if they open 1♣ I might, according to the poll, hold AQxx AQxx KJx 10x, and who in their right mind would bid 1N?

Or they might open 1♦ and I hold xxxx AQxx AKJ Qx, and now 1N looks pretty reasonable. I don't see how a poll answer can address these issues in a meaningful way.

I can answer about their opening a major...I would strain to bid 1N with 4=4=3=2 or 4=4=2=3 and suitable strength, honours.....a double based on having 4 cards in only one side suit, and a doubleton in another, strikes me as very poor.

I voted always NT assuming that my doubleton is Ax Kx or Qx over a minor and at least A or K over a major.

[mattias]

1eyedjack, on 2014-August-25, 11:14, said:

Well, in your first example hand, you do not hold Hx in the opened suit, so I agree that overcalling on that hand would be ridiculous. Hence it was excluded from the conditions of the poll.

The ten is, according to law, an honor.

[1eyedjack]

mattias, on 2014-August-26, 03:08, said:

The ten is, according to law, an honor.

Point.

In context I had intended to mean an honour sufficient to be relevant as a guard. My bad. I think that this is the way that it has generally been interpreted by others. I have edited the original poll notes for the benefit of newcomers to the thread.

[kenrexford]

Strangely, and apologies for the troll, RUNT solves the problem as an unintended benefit. RUNT, therefore, seems to eliminate a redundancy, and that may be a good theory thing.

[cherdano]

Are we discussing whether we would bid 1NT or double with Ax or Kx or Qx in their suit and 4432 shape?
I can understand bidding 1NT over a possible short minor opening, but never over a 5-card major.

[1eyedjack]

cherdano, on 2014-August-26, 04:37, said:

Are we discussing whether we would bid 1NT or double with Ax or Kx or Qx in their suit and 4432 shape?

Yes.

If Qx would be sufficient guard to persuade you to bid 1N, then by all means assume that Qx is sufficient for the purposes of the poll.
Perhaps it would have been better if I had stipulated precisely Kx.

cherdano, on 2014-August-26, 04:37, said:

I can understand bidding 1NT over a possible short minor opening, but never over a 5-card major.

If you can understand bidding 1N over a possible short minor, but would still prefer double, then your vote stands (always double)
It is probably fair to assume that 1C could always be possibly short. There are some to whom that would not apply, but a sufficient minority as to be disregarded here.
A larger proportion (but not universal) would promise a 4 card Diamond suit for 1D (there will be some precision club players who may have extreme shortage for 1D, as well as the bog standard "better minor" players).
If you would always overcall 1N over a possible short minor, then your vote should hover between broadly even and mostly double. I suppose the latter would be most appropriate.

[cherdano]

1eyedjack, on 2014-August-26, 06:23, said:

If you can understand bidding 1N over a possible short minor, but would still prefer double, then your vote stands (always double)
It is probably fair to assume that 1C could always be possibly short. There are some to whom that would not apply, but a sufficient minority as to be disregarded here.
A larger proportion (but not universal) would promise a 4 card Diamond suit for 1D (there will be some precision club players who may have extreme shortage for 1D, as well as the bog standard "better minor" players).
If you would always overcall 1N over a possible short minor, then your vote should hover between broadly even and mostly double. I suppose the latter would be most appropriate.

I would still much prefer to double over a possibly short minor, and I definitely double with 44 in the majors as stipulated in the original post. If RHO opens a precision 1♦ and I have, say, 3424, then I like 1NT (they may lead a club anyway).

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-26, 04:30, said:

Strangely, and apologies for the troll, RUNT solves the problem as an unintended benefit. RUNT, therefore, seems to eliminate a redundancy, and that may be a good theory thing.

There is only redundancy if you don't understand the difference between a takeout double hand, and a NT overcall hand. 4432 with a doubleton in RHO's suit wants to play in a suit, or if in NT, then from partner's side.

[benlessard]

Its rare that I dont X but I could see some cases where ill prefer 1NT.

3244 with AQ of H. But its less than 5% for sure.

I also think its poor to overcall 1NT with many 15 counts.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on 2014-August-26, 10:37, said:

There is only redundancy if you don't understand the difference between a takeout double hand, and a NT overcall hand. 4432 with a doubleton in RHO's suit wants to play in a suit, or if in NT, then from partner's side.

A 1NT overcall resembles a 1NT opening for obvious reasons. Balanced, 15-17, for example. However, most (granted this is debatable) will open 1NT with 4432/4423. Thus, a 1NT opening covers more turf than a 1NT overcall.

Similarly, a takeout double generally shows both majors. 4432 with three cards in the unbid minor resembles the takeout double, as well. But, the range of the takeout double as including 15-17 HCP means that the end result is less utility for the 1NT overcall but more coverage necessary for the takeout double.

Look at it this way. RUNT enables handling of both the stronger takeout and the balanced 15-17 hand effectively. Two bids become one, sort of. You spin off some of the weaker 3-suit hands from the double by bidding 1NT with those hands. By so doing, you (1) avoid the problem of an expanding range for the takeout option and (2) avoid the problem posed in deciding which call to select.

This is not a matter of understanding the difference between the two. This is a matter of utilizing space efficiently and averting unwieldy ranges if possible. One could just as easily claim that opening 1NT with a 5-card major is a stupid solution to a non-problem because there is an obvious difference between a 1M opening and a 1NT opening. OK, but that is sort of equally non-responsive to the problem of a 1M opening range on simple rebid moving from about 11-13 to more like 11-16.

The K-S solution of a weak 1NT at least has an internally noted benefit of 1M openings either showing extra HCP strength or extra shape, but only so long as you handle the 5332 12-13 counts as 1NT openings.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-26, 12:37, said:

A 1NT overcall resembles a 1NT opening for obvious reasons. Balanced, 15-17, for example. However, most (granted this is debatable) will open 1NT with 4432/4423. Thus, a 1NT opening covers more turf than a 1NT overcall.

Similarly, a takeout double generally shows both majors. 4432 with three cards in the unbid minor resembles the takeout double, as well. But, the range of the takeout double as including 15-17 HCP means that the end result is less utility for the 1NT overcall but more coverage necessary for the takeout double.

Look at it this way. RUNT enables handling of both the stronger takeout and the balanced 15-17 hand effectively. Two bids become one, sort of. You spin off some of the weaker 3-suit hands from the double by bidding 1NT with those hands. By so doing, you (1) avoid the problem of an expanding range for the takeout option and (2) avoid the problem posed in deciding which call to select.

This is not a matter of understanding the difference between the two. This is a matter of utilizing space efficiently and averting unwieldy ranges if possible.

But there is a huge difference between a 4432 hand in 1st seat, and a 4432 hand after RHO announced opening strength and length in my doubleton. The first type of hand very often will want to declarer some level of NT. The latter hand, almost never.

That's why its not necessary to distinguish between balanced hands with or without a heart doubleton in first seat, but it is very necessary to make this distinction after RHO has opened 1H.

For hands that want to intervene after RHO opens 1H (and are neither one- or two-suited), the most important distinction is whether we have a hand that wants to play suits, or a hand that likes to declare NT. Range is of lesser concern than finding the right strain. I don't know RUNT (and won't read up on it), but my take is that standard gets it right in terms of grouping these hands into bids.

[kenrexford]

First off, in what world does a minor opening show a long suit? I understand that the overcall of 1NT after a major opening is different, but we weren't talking about that situation.

Secondly, though, the fact that you happen to have a hand with 4 4 in the majors does not mean that partner will agreeably also have a 4-card major. While the odds might favor a suit contract, this is far from clear.

Third, most people have methods to find suit contracts after 1NT calls.

Fourth, range is important for many purposes and seems to be discounted unsoundly. I just disagree with the premise that somehow the minor opening seems to make range specificity irrelevant.

More importantly, though, none of this negates what I said, IMO. This is probably because I am talking about the posted problem of a minor opening, while you're arguing against my point with discussion of a different sequence, one that's wildly different.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-26, 15:49, said:

First off, in what world does a minor opening show a long suit? I understand that the overcall of 1NT after a major opening is different, but we weren't talking about that situation.

Secondly, though, the fact that you happen to have a hand with 4 4 in the majors does not mean that partner will agreeably also have a 4-card major. While the odds might favor a suit contract, this is far from clear.

Third, most people have methods to find suit contracts after 1NT calls.

Fourth, range is important for many purposes and seems to be discounted unsoundly. I just disagree with the premise that somehow the minor opening seems to make range specificity irrelevant.

More importantly, though, none of this negates what I said, IMO. This is probably because I am talking about the posted problem of a minor opening, while you're arguing against my point with discussion of a different sequence, one that's wildly different.

First, you were talking about minor openings only - the OP didn't specify whether the opening is in a major or in a minor.

Second and third, the point is that 1. a suit contract is much more likely the right strain, and often can't be reached after a 1NT overcall if partner doesn't have enough values, and 2. that if we want to play in NT, it should be played from partner's side. I presume even you haven't developed a system that lets us find 3NT from partner's side after I overcalled 1NT.

Fourth, we still can have range-showing auctions after a takeout double - the ranges are just a bit wider than after a 1NT overcall. But finding the right strain is more important than finding your exact values in any competitive auction.

And finally, you said that there is a redundancy in standard; I understood this to mean that there is an overlap in hand types between a takeout double and a 1NT overcall. I explained why (I think) these are very different hand types.

My last post in this thread.

[kenrexford]

When you have He in RHO s suit, declaring from your hand is fine, if not ideal.

The strain issue in a competitive auction is obviously ideal. My first point is that the auction might well be more than that. But even in a competitive auction, range is important for doubling.

On the hand types, obviously there are different types. The issue is that the tool is too limited. If 1NT promises exactly 16 hcp, it is too limiting. So also 15 to 17 Balanced without 4 in the unbid majors is a limited meaning and thus reduces frequency. RUNT is more frequent and covers more hand types with more precision as to range, with minimal and manageable delay or even hiding of pattern precision. The parallel to the major vs 1NT opening is accurate as explaining by analogy.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2014-August-26, 16:56, said:

First, you were talking about minor openings only - the OP didn't specify whether the opening is in a major or in a minor.

To be fair I read the OP as specifying a 1♣ opening with a 4=4=3=2 hand for the poll but opening up the discussion to other cases.