[apollo1201]

IMPs, all green
Partner deals and opens 1C (playing 5CM strong NT), RHO passes and for some good or bad reason you decide to bid 1NT with the uninspiring following collection:

KJx
xx
Qxxxx
QJx

On that, LHO bids 2H, passed back to you...

Not being too sure of what X should mean, I decided to go for a less potentially damaging bid (stay seated and read below). But generally, what is recommended here to play / what would you do?

I actually bid 2S(!) thinking having denied 4, partner would not sit with 3 but would go for a minor (and guess I don’t have a clear fit for his C if I embark in a dubious search of a 43 fit, so probably some diamonds as well). Needless to say she was not on the same length but opponents gave me a friendly help and the 33 fit produced +110 eventually😃

[Cyberyeti]

X is T/O given that you don't have a 4 card major. That much is easy, 2♠ is not terrible but I'm not sure what the difference between the two bids is.

Was the club minimum 2 or minimum 3 ?

[apollo1201]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-April-22, 04:14, said:

.

Was the club minimum 2 or minimum 3 ?

3+C (with 4432 we open 1D, only case when D are 3)

If partner Xes 2H, should it be for penalties? With presumably 4-cd?

[Cyberyeti]

 apollo1201, on 2018-April-22, 04:32, said:

3+C (with 4432 we open 1D, only case when D are 3)

If partner Xes 2H, should it be for penalties? With presumably 4-cd?

For agreement, if X from you is T/O, he may not need to.

What hands would you bid 1♦ rather than 1N on ? What do you open 4-4 in the minors ?

[Phil]

A bigger question is what would your partner's double mean? Assuming its takeout, I have no problem with doubling back in.

[apollo1201]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-April-22, 04:56, said:

What hands would you bid 1♦ rather than 1N on ? What do you open 4-4 in the minors ?

Thanks Cyberyeti for your interest!

44 is generally opened 1D (to be able to rebid C if the bidding gets contestated and partner « obliges » us to bid something).

We would bid 1NT rather than 1D with scattered values / positional major stoppers. We would show the D only with GF hands, or concentrated values in the minors (eg xx(x) xxx KQxx(x) Kxx), or only 6-7 HCP (1NT on 1C is 8-10 for us as it bypasses 1M that could play better even in 43 if weak responder).

[apollo1201]

 Phil, on 2018-April-22, 06:41, said:

A bigger question is what would your partner's double mean? Assuming its takeout, I have no problem with doubling back in.

With a former partner we played that Xes after NTs have been mentioned are strongly penalty oriented. But I found it less flexible...
With her we didn’t discuss it...we just had time to agree on no more dropping partner in a 33 fit🤣

[MrAce]

 apollo1201, on 2018-April-22, 02:56, said:

I actually bid 2S(!) thinking having denied 4, partner would not sit with 3 but would go for a minor.....

If I started 1 NT and having not agreed what X is, I would have bid exactly the same way you did.
2♠ it is.
Simply because this bid does not require any agreement. It just requires logic.

[apollo1201]

 MrAce, on 2018-April-22, 08:07, said:

If I started 1 NT and having not agreed what X is, I would have bid exactly the same way you did.
2♠ it is.
Simply because this bid does not require any agreement. It just requires logic.

From you, I take it as a huge compliment. Thx!

[msjennifer]

If nothing has been discussed earlier,then a TOD is the safest bid. Any partner ,after hearing your NT bid which denies holding a 4Card major,and a 5 card diamond suit or a good length in clubs with all the other requirements, would certainly take it as a TOD.Not having bid one diamond on the previous round this is the only way to describe your intentions now.In my opinion a 2 S bid would very likely be taken as “choose a minor “bid.

[heart76]

IMHO bypassing a 5-card ♦ is not ideal. You can miss a fit or get in trouble reopening, as a X would ideally show either 4-4 minors or be penalty oriented.
Agree with MrAce that 2♠ here is the most logic, unless you would like to open for penalties when partner has 4 ♥. That would be for me the only difference between 2♠ and X.
I would first bid 1♦ and then X after their 1H and pass from partner, both with 3-2-5-3 and 3-1-5-4.
Also, letting the opponent bid 1♥ gives partner the possibility to X with ♠.
And, in case you first bid 1NT and then X, partner would never bid ♦ even with 3, because the chance you have 5 is reduced. So he would either bid 2♠ with 4 or 3♣ or pass with 4 ♥.

[msjennifer]

 heart76, on 2018-April-23, 04:15, said:

IMHO bypassing a 5-card ♦ is not ideal. You can miss a fit or get in trouble reopening, as a X would ideally show either 4-4 minors or be penalty oriented.
Agree with MrAce that 2♠ here is the most logic, unless you would like to open for penalties when partner has 4 ♥. That would be for me the only difference between 2♠ and X.
I would first bid 1♦ and then X after their 1H and pass from partner, both with 3-2-5-3 and 3-1-5-4.
Also, letting the opponent bid 1♥ gives partner the possibility to X with ♠.
And, in case you first bid 1NT and then X, partner would never bid ♦ even with 3, because the chance you have 5 is reduced. So he would either bid 2♠ with 4 or 3♣ or pass with 4 ♥.

Double of a 1H bid is support double showing three cards in diamonds and does not show spades. With a 4 card spade suit he will just bid 1S.

[gszes]

This situation is not all that infrequent and it may help to consider the following. X is tox but a more penalty oriented (aces) type hand and 2s is tox but far less defensive values. The range of the 1n replay is HUGE and being able to
tell the difference btn a decent balancing hand vs a merely competitive one is important.
2s is the bid I would make with the given hand
while I would x with Axx xx Axxx J9x.

[IGoHomeNow]

I don't know what is "standard" for that auction. I suspect it depends on how old you are, where you live, etc.

I don't like bypassing 5 card suits to play NT, especially when I have xx in a suit and it will be really easy for this NT to be wrong-sided. On the other hand, I have a real problem if partner now bids 1S. I probably pass since partner did not find a 2NT or 2S bid, but I won't like it. But if partner bids most anything besides 1S, I think the auction will go very well.

In the actual auction, 2S is a nice call. It really does mean I have 3 spades, want to compete and do not have the kind of hearts that want to hear you pass a double, ergo I have support for all 3 unbid suits. When partner is 3433, will he bid diamonds? I think your hand must be 3244 or 3253. If your partner passes with 3S, that is entirely his or her fault. This is simple logic. You simply cannot have 4 spades.

I even think he could bid 2NT to tell you to choose a minor, but frankly, that is a stretch. Even so, I think you should pull 2NT to diamonds anyhow. It's really not very likely he actually LIKES NT in this auction. If he likes NT, he should have doubled 2H. Instead, he probably has 3433 with weak hearts and no stomach for bidding 3D on only 3. At most he has 1 heart stopper and in that case NT is going to play like crap unless the 2H bidder has no entry.

[Joe_Old]

Given that you're playing IMPs, I really don't like your agreement to bypass the ♦ suit. The goal is to reach your safest plus, and, as this auction demonstrates, you created uncertainty about your ♦ length and made it harder for partner to bid a 4 card major (partner can't safely pass your 2♠ bid with a 4 card ♠ suit because you don't have to have 3; wouldn't you make the same 2♠ bid with 2353 shape?). I have a lot more sympathy for the 1 NT bid in a matchpoint game where the minor suits are devalued. Here, you're forcing the auction to the 3 level to identify a minor suit fit, which might be too high, and lost the chance to play a 4-3 ♠ fit at the 2 level, which might be your last plus.

[miamijd]

Like other posters, I can't see why you would bypass the diamond suit here. With xx in hearts, bypassing D is going to leave you very badly positioned if the opponents compete (as actually happened). Against that, I don't see much potential gain from bidding 1NT instead of 1D.

Having bid 1D, it seems like either X or 2S ought to work here. It sort of depends on what your agreement for X is. There are two ways to play it: purely takeout (probably with a doubleton heart) or card-showing optional (something like 3334 with a 9-10 count). I prefer the latter treatment, chiefly because when you bid 1NT over 1C, you generally will have a good 7 to a decent 10 (with 5-7, you can bid a 3-card diamond suit) with 33 in the majors (with a doubleton, why are you bidding 1NT when there are other bids available that will let partner declare the NT?). If partner has 3 good trump or 4 pieces that he didn't want to X on, X by you can let him pass for a big number.

If you play X is pure takeout, then that works fine here and would be my bid. Partner will take you for 3343, which is not quite what you have, but it should work out OK.

If you play X is card-showing optional, however, you need 3 hearts, which you don't have. You can accomplish the "takeout" effect by bidding 2S as you did. That would be my bid, too, in this case. Partner knows you don't have 4S, so this basically means you should have 3244 or thereabouts and are telling partner to "do something intelligent."

Cheers,
mike

[aawk]

If a bidding goes wrong only look where the first mistake was made, speculating what the best recovering bid should be is wasted energy. After 1♣ a bid of 1nt sells your hand (balanced with 6-9 hcp not interested in the suits you can bid) and let your partner decide what action to take. So if you bid 1nt it is not possible anymore to show your ♦ suit without specific agreements. With a new partnership play KISS creative bidding will get you into trouble and partner won't trust your bidding after a few of these creative actions if you have a obvious alternative.

[croquetfan]

You would not want to be in the room for the post-mortem if partner holds AJTx hearts.
Partner is well placed to make a decision over your balancing double.

[msjennifer]

 Joe_Old, on 2018-April-23, 16:35, said:

Given that you're playing IMPs, I really don't like your agreement to bypass the ♦ suit. The goal is to reach your safest plus, and, as this auction demonstrates, you created uncertainty about your ♦ length and made it harder for partner to bid a 4 card major (partner can't safely pass your 2♠ bid with a 4 card ♠ suit because you don't have to have 3; wouldn't you make the same 2♠ bid with 2353 shape?). I have a lot more sympathy for the 1 NT bid in a matchpoint game where the minor suits are devalued. Here, you're forcing the auction to the 3 level to identify a minor suit fit, which might be too high, and lost the chance to play a 4-3 ♠ fit at the 2 level, which might be your last plus.

The more the comments the more I am coming to the conclusion that the 1NT bid was made not by mistake or oversight but was made purposely as a semi preempt to deprive the opponents a 1H/S bid.This tendency is growing and growing.Sadly it has boomeranged by the 2H bid.(or perhaps 1NT bid was made in order to protect the valuable Queens as one may argue at the PM).

[apollo1201]

 msjennifer, on 2018-April-24, 04:15, said:

The more the comments the more I am coming to the conclusion that the 1NT bid was made not by mistake or oversight but was made purposely as a semi preempt to deprive the opponents a 1H/S bid.This tendency is growing and growing.Sadly it has boomeranged by the 2H bid.(or perhaps 1NT bid was made in order to protect the valuable Queens as one may argue at the PM).

That is also part of the reason we play this style. Opponents will almost always chip in with 1H, not so often with 2. My D suit is so ragged (don’t even have the 10 or the 9) that I don’t want it led by partner. I have a tenace to protect in S. Partner is usually shorter in D than in C. If partners bids 1S over 1D, I can’t drop her there with 9 HCPs, and I can’t voluntarily at least go to 2C (although QJx is not so bad). So I’ve basically telephoned the lead to the opp who would be hesitating which major suit to pick as an opening lead. All that called for NT. Yes my hand would be purer with KJx Qx xxxxx QJx, but we don’t always have textbook hands, do we?