[rduran1216]

1NT is obvious.

Incidentally its hands like these that I like to bid 1NT naturally, then partner can pass or compete with an unbid 5 card side suit, sandwich NT can be dealt with by double versus 2 of the lower ranking suit.

[the hog]

 MrAce, on 2011-July-15, 19:43, said:

At the table, i decided to pass.

First of all i have to mention that with this first time expert pd, i did not know how he was playing 1 NT (but in OP i gave it to you guys as if u have one), he would probably take it natural had i bid it and he confirmed this after the hand. I normally almost always bid 1 NT, but this particular hand and the vulnerability and lack of agreement led me to pass.

-I could pass and miss a game or a nice partscore

-I could get dbled and bail out some numbers when they can only make partscore at most.

Of course pd had

xx
QJx
AQxxxx
xx

So you still would get to 3NT. What is the problem?

[paulg]

 aguahombre, on 2011-July-15, 20:12, said:

I think as a general rule with a new (expert) partner, undiscussed bids which sound natural should be assumed natural.

You forgot to add BOCTAOE.

[Free]

First pair to bid 1NT gets to play it. 1NT.

The argument of opps being unlimited is pretty flawed imo. If you play 1NT natural in this situation, you accept that fact and deal with it when it comes up. What do you need for a natural 1NT then? 18-20HCP?

[aguahombre]

 aguahombre, on 2011-July-15, 20:12, said:

I think as a general rule with a new (expert) partner, undiscussed bids which sound natural should be assumed natural.

 paulg, on 2011-July-16, 01:19, said:

You forgot to add BOCTAOE.

Yes, general rules have exceptions. Hence called general rules.

[Phil]

 rduran1216, on 2011-July-15, 22:00, said:

1NT is obvious.

Incidentally its hands like these that I like to bid 1NT naturally, then partner can pass or compete with an unbid 5 card side suit, sandwich NT can be dealt with by double versus 2 of the lower ranking suit.

Aaron you tripped the alarms. The A/E section goes into full lockdown when someone mentions, "San*wich N&".

[barryallen]

 Free, on 2011-July-16, 04:20, said:

First pair to bid 1NT gets to play it. 1NT.

The argument of opps being unlimited is pretty flawed imo. If you play 1NT natural in this situation, you accept that fact and deal with it when it comes up. What do you need for a natural 1NT then? 18-20HCP?

I think that is the key here. Most of the time you are going to be faced with a dummy with a minimal holding and having to lead out everything from hand with no real sequence. Leaving the opposition with a much simpler task of the best contract to play this board in.

My decision at first glance would have been to pass, but there are considerations that I see now to bid 1NT. Partner could well have something in ♥ to avoid the suit being run and that 10 could be very handy. Alternatively you may still have an out in one of the minors that could be useful or force the opposition to bid on.

[JLOGIC]

The reason to pass is that you hope to double them in 1N after 1H-1S-1N-p. That is provided that you play this as a good hand with spades rather than some kind of takeout double. I don't think beating them to 1N is a reason to bid 1N, if they are going to play 1N I'd much rather defend that doubled than play in 1N.

The reason to bid 1N is because you might have a game, and it will be impossible to find it if you don't bid now. RHO might be screwing around with a heart fit and is going to bid 2H. Or LHO might simply be about to bid 2H or 2m and they are both somewhat light. Whatever. If you don't feel like you can ever have a game when they NV bid 1H p 1S, don't play a natural 1N I guess...and good luck to you. Kiddie game is down the street!

1N is just a really obvious bid, it is right on shape, stoppers, playing strength, HCP, you name it.

[whereagles]

Fine justin, but hear this. Sometime ago I ran a sim on hcp odds and, if I recall correctly, the average split for 17 hcp was like 19-21 (opps 21). So, to be statistically safe, 1NT here should be like 18-20 hcp.

However, that being said, I agree that in practice bidding 1NT here is considerably less risky than one may think in abstract. On this particular hand I don't like it because of our 5 spades. If RHO is not kidding (players don't psyche on a regular basis, as you know) we might be going into a hornett's nest.

Anyway, I prefer 1NT as a weak take out here, but it's because of frequency. I never seem to be dealt with 15-17 bal hands in 4th seat

[MrAce]

I still think it is close call with this hand. After all, being non vulnerable reduces the benefits of making game and risks of missing a game, while you may end up playing doubled a nasty contract where our suit of pottential tricks is bid by opponents.

Funny as it is, we catch pd with xx QJx AQxxxx xx , 9 hcps + 6 card suit ! (Not everyone's taste i know but i know quite some people who would overcall with this) Yet the outcome of 3NT depends on how the ♣ suit break. (Assume ♣ was led to your K or ♠ was led and RHO took with A and tabled ♣T or J !) In fact after ♣ lead our chances to make this 3 NT is reduced to 4-4 ♣ Ace being onside.(they could probably defeat it by leading ♠ and ♣ shift if offside) If ♣ was led from Axx ( opps must be seing hands) or QJx or JTx or Axxxx we literally have no play.

Indeed LHO had AJTxx ♣ and would have led it, but fortunate for 1NT bidders, ♥K was on (if u choose to play for it rather than 4-4 ♣)

EDIT: By the way i dont play this 1 NT showing 18-20, i just wasnt sure about what Ira would take it as and i just didn't think it is an obvious 1 NT call with what i had. I play it (15)16-18

[jdeegan]

Nice problem and excellent comments. I hate to disagree with Justin, but the sim that validates an 18-20 range for a 1NT strength showing overcall makes sense to me. Was there any vibe to suggest the opps were operating? If my pard were a veteran very expert rubber bridge player like Ira C, then why not pass and try to win the board on the card play? Granted, defending 1NT is hard, but at least, if I decide to double, I'm getting a ♠ lead. With a lesser Ira, I would still pass, but not double 1NT.

[jcrosa]

Pass. (And feel no qualms about passing again in most follow-up situations).

You will very seldom be missing a game, and even then it might be difficult to reach the right one.

I think you have a lot more to lose than to win when you decide to step into this auction.

[billw55]

Hm interesting. Expert ops were willing to open the bidding and respond with 15 HCP between them, but expert partner was not willing to overcall 2♦ with AQxxxx and a 9 count. I would be interested to see ops hands as well.

[MrAce]

 billw55, on 2011-July-27, 07:11, said:

Hm interesting. Expert ops were willing to open the bidding and respond with 15 HCP between them, but expert partner was not willing to overcall 2♦ with AQxxxx and a 9 count. I would be interested to see ops hands as well.

You can probably find it in hand records of mine or Ira Chorush, i am kinda lazy to find now but if my memory serves they were both very light.

[ggwhiz]

The decision is easy but the result may be brutal.

If these are our methods and if I don't bid 1nt with these cards, I need new methods.

[mikeh]

 billw55, on 2011-July-27, 07:11, said:

Hm interesting. Expert ops were willing to open the bidding and respond with 15 HCP between them, but expert partner was not willing to overcall 2♦ with AQxxxx and a 9 count. I would be interested to see ops hands as well.

Many years ago, a then-regular partner and I had a hand on which he opened, I responded, he rebid and I took a preference, following which the opps balanced and played a part score. I still remember RHO, as dummy came down, saying: 'They each bid twice, and we have 27 high between us'.

Neither of us would have then been viewed as real experts, but the reality of bridge is that if you think the opps are never going to jerk you around.....well...Justin told you where the kiddie game is

Unless the auction really sends bright red warning signals, you should generally bid your hand. Here, we have a non-minimum and an easy call, especially since you are really stuck if the auction comes back to you at 2 of any suit other than spades....the only real upside to passing, other than disaster avoidance, is a fantasy that you can double 1N and they play there.

Aiming to avoid disaster at the one level on this type of hand is scared bridge. Hoping to be able to double 1N, and have them sit, is, at best, optimistic. Bidding your hand is surely the best in the long term.

[MrAce]

 mikeh, on 2011-July-27, 16:39, said:

Many years ago, a then-regular partner and I had a hand on which he opened, I responded, he rebid and I took a preference, following which the opps balanced and played a part score. I still remember RHO, as dummy came down, saying: 'They each bid twice, and we have 27 high between us'.

Neither of us would have then been viewed as real experts, but the reality of bridge is that if you think the opps are never going to jerk you around.....well...Justin told you where the kiddie game is

Unless the auction really sends bright red warning signals, you should generally bid your hand. Here, we have a non-minimum and an easy call, especially since you are really stuck if the auction comes back to you at 2 of any suit other than spades....the only real upside to passing, other than disaster avoidance, is a fantasy that you can double 1N and they play there.

Aiming to avoid disaster at the one level on this type of hand is scared bridge. Hoping to be able to double 1N, and have them sit, is, at best, optimistic. Bidding your hand is surely the best in the long term.

Mike, can you please do me a favour ? I always trusted your simulation results, since u seem to enter the correct parameters and being objective regardless of the side you advocate. (I tried to upgrade my very old version of DM, which doesnt work with new windows systems, but for some reason eventhough the manifacturer tried to help me on phone, it doesn't work, i will just buy a new one i guess)

The favour i am asking is, to make a simulation for this hand, please. You can give opener and responder light options and i think you should, thats fair enoug i guess. If u dont have the time for it, no hard feelings.

Thanks in advance

EDIT: If anyone else also willing to do it, i will appreciate, it is fun to compare it via simulation and also fun to compare the different simulations and the reasons, helps to those of us who are rookie in using it (like myself)

[mikeh]

 MrAce, on 2011-July-27, 17:09, said:

Mike, can you please do me a favour ? I always trusted your simulation results, since u seem to enter the correct parameters and being objective regardless of the side you advocate. (I tried to upgrade my very old version of DM, which doesnt work with new windows systems, but for some reason eventhough the manifacturer tried to help me on phone, it doesn't work, i will just buy a new one i guess)

The favour i am asking is, to make a simulation for this hand, please. You can give opener and responder light options and i think you should, thats fair enoug i guess. If u dont have the time for it, no hard feelings.

Thanks in advance

EDIT: If anyone else also willing to do it, i will appreciate, it is fun to compare it via simulation and also fun to compare the different simulations and the reasons, helps to those of us who are rookie in using it (like myself)

Sorry, I don't really have the time for this, and even thinking about the constraints caused me to have concerns.

Thus, while one can easily enough specify the constraints for LHO, specifying them for RHO is problematic. Yes, he has 4+ spades. But how light will he respond? To me, there are hands on which I would respond when holding, say, 5 or 6 spades and short hearts where I would pass with only 4 spades. And how do we specify constraints that differentiate weak hands with 3 hearts, which shouldn't bid 1♠ but should raise ♥s (and do we cater to constructive or semi-constructive hands when we do that)?

Then we get into decisions by LHO and RHO after whatever action we take, not to mention decisions by partner.

We can calculate the double dummy results of these subjective decisions, but I despise dd solutions if intended to truly reflect at the table experiences. I know of no-one who plays or defends dd, so why should I trust analyses that assume such an approach?

So when I do simulations, I try to pick sequences in which the constraints are relatively easy to specify, and that way others who think I have chosen poorly can do their own, and then I try to review the hands by eye and weed out ones where, tho the constraints were met, I didn't think many would bid as posited, and then I try to determine, without spending too much time, what the result would be, while noting the hands on which I felt two or more different results might obtain.

All of this is time consuming, and the more I skip attention to detail, the less comfortable I am with my own results...and if I don't think my results are valid, why should anyone else?

Thanks for the compliment, but, as I say, I can't accommodate this time.

[MrAce]

Fair enough, ty Mike