[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-26, 11:49, said:

Whatever your partnership style is for the rebid in this situation --- and is is purely a style issue --- wrong-siding is not in the mix.

It could be important if Responder were playing NT and Opener were the one with a stopper to be led through. But, the overcaller is on lead. That is the person we want on lead. Actually we could use right-siding as an argument for the 1NT without a stop.

Not really, you hold xxx, partner has Q10x, do you want the overcaller on lead with AJxxx or is it AKxxx, no you want his partner to resolve this for you on the opening lead.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-October-26, 12:39, said:

Not really, you hold xxx, partner has Q10x, do you want the overcaller on lead with AJxxx or is it AKxxx, no you want his partner to resolve this for you on the opening lead.

who would you want on opening lead if partner has q doubleton? But like I said, pick a style. Wrong-siding is not really why we would select one over the other.

[gszes]

There are times the "best" description is sorely lacking in some important
aspect. We have all had to bid 1M with a 3 card major (ick) well the same type of
scenario exists with this hand. To go beyond 1n is "unsafe". The 1N bid will not
keep us from making game/slam level contracts and it quite possibly is the last
"safe" place to play.

Jumping around in nt assuming opener has a stopper makes little sense since
there is an easy cue bid to verify a stop. A more interesting question might be
just that what would the south hand bid after responder cues at the 2 level:))))

[whereagles]

It need not be "unsafe", but yes, passing 1NT can lead to a few ridiculous contracts if say, you bid 2♦ and find doubler with 3415. Or if you bid 2♣ and doubler has 3433

[ggwhiz]

I'm late to this party but 1nt on 3 small is truly BIZARRE!!!!

[MrAce]

ggwhiz, on 2014-October-31, 17:02, said:

I'm late to this party but 1nt on 3 small is truly BIZARRE!!!!

LOL

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2014-October-31, 17:02, said:

I'm late to this party but 1nt on 3 small is truly BIZARRE!!!!

Well, that clears it up. If you had come in earlier, we wouldn't have had to waste our time discussing style and the pros/cons of 1NT vs. 2D.

[ggwhiz]

aguahombre, on 2014-November-01, 12:51, said:

Well, that clears it up. If you had come in earlier, we wouldn't have had to waste our time discussing style and the pros/cons of 1NT vs. 2D.

OK, I don't have any pros.

Partner will play me for a min opener with some spade wastage, misbid, sell out and/or misdefend vs. any more bidding or 1nt ends the auction AND is the right spot.

A 2♦ bid is off by 1 crummy spot that pard can read as a possibility of "none of the above" and not being adverse to playing a moyse, a 2♣ bid either gets a preference back to diamonds or has some play.

I make 1nt at least a 3 to 1 parlay.

[Fluffy]

ggwhiz, on 2014-November-01, 13:58, said:

Partner will play me for a min opener with some spade wastage, misbid, sell out and/or misdefend vs. any more bidding or 1nt ends the auction AND is the right spot.

This has an easy solution: change your partner to someone who has studied bridge during this century.

[Trinidad]

Fluffy, on 2014-November-01, 17:48, said:

This has an easy solution: change your partner to someone who has studied bridge during this century.

Sorry, Gonzalo, but this is not the way.

Simply put: 1NT is a bad bid. It may be that all other actions are even worse and that 1NT is the least of evils. But you cannot tell me that you are going to be proud when you bid 1NT, LHO bids 3♠, and partner bids 3NT when they cash the first 5 tricks. You cannot act as if this hand is an example hand in a 21st century bridge book of a perfect 1NT rebid when it isn't.

I agree with you that a 1NT rebid does not promise a spade stop. Nevertheless, partner is allowed to expect one, since without a spade stop you should be considering alternative rebids. Sometimes you hold a 3343 and there is no alternative. In this case, there are two possible alternatives for 1NT (2♣ and 2♦). Neither of these is flawless, but acting as if 1NT is flawless with the argument that "it is the 21st century bid" is not very helpful.

Rik

[the hog]

Fluffy, on 2014-November-01, 17:48, said:

This has an easy solution: change your partner to someone who has studied bridge during this century.

Or reinvent yourself.

[the hog]

ggwhiz, on 2014-November-01, 13:58, said:

OK, I don't have any pros.

Partner will play me for a min opener with some spade wastage, misbid, sell out and/or misdefend vs. any more bidding or 1nt ends the auction AND is the right spot.

A 2♦ bid is off by 1 crummy spot that pard can read as a possibility of "none of the above" and not being adverse to playing a moyse, a 2♣ bid either gets a preference back to diamonds or has some play.

I make 1nt at least a 3 to 1 parlay.

Could you please post this in English. I have no idea what you are saying except that you don't like 1NT, a bid that shows your balanced nature and defines your strength.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-01, 18:16, said:

Simply put: 1NT is a bad bid. It may be that all other actions are even worse and that 1NT is the least of evils.

If our partnership agreement is that 1NT shows any balanced hand in the 12-14 range, how can 1NT be a bad bid? You may consider it to be a bad agreement, but that's rather different from being an bad bid.

Quote

But you cannot tell me that you are going to be proud when you bid 1NT, LHO bids 3♠, and partner bids 3NT when they cash the first 5 tricks.

That doesn't seem a terribly likely scenario, because he didn't bid 3♠ on the first round. If it does go like that partner should double to ask for a spade stop. Doesn't everyone play that?

[karlson]

gnasher, on 2014-November-01, 19:13, said:

[That doesn't seem a terribly likely scenario, because he didn't bid 3♠ on the first round. If it does go like that partner should double to ask for a spade stop. Doesn't everyone play that?

Aside from the unlikeliness of the 3♠ bid, what kind of hand would partner bid 3n on? Seems like balanced GF hands should just double in that position almost regardless of what double means. I guess he might have some x46x shape, but this whole scenario is getting more and more unlikely.

[ggwhiz]

So cuebids spades to ask for a stopper and may have to do it at the 3 level and you????

I can't think of any further auction that isn't groping in the dark except float.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2014-November-01, 19:13, said:

That doesn't seem a terribly likely scenario, because he didn't bid 3♠ on the first round. If it does go like that partner should double to ask for a spade stop.

You are right. This is the second time in this discussion that I have the auction wrong in my mind (though it is not the most complicated auction ever). I think I will go and eat a deck of cards...

Rik