[plaur]

pass - pass - 1m - 1NT
2M ?

Assume SAYC or like with weak 2's, X of 1NT is penalty/strength.

What hand can bid 2 major over 1NT that did not open with a preempt? Is this a matter of style of preempts?

[han]

Could be a hand with a flaw, could be a great 5-card suit that didn't seem right to open with a weak 2. It should be less than a 10-count and a good suit.

[helene_t]

I just did that an hour ago on a meager 5-card with no support for partner's suit. But that's an undisciplined bid that I would only make at love all at matchpoints, and even then maybe I shouldn't.

I think it must be a 5-card M with 4-card support for partner's suit. It's quite possible that partner will read it as a worthless hand with a 6-card, too weak for a preemptive opening.

Btw, you need a way to show both majors, especially with a passed hand since weak hands with both majors are the most interesting ones of those that cannot preempt in SAYC. I think I prefer using 2♣ for both majors but you could also use 2♥.

[the hog]

Fit showing - a decent 5 card suit and 3+ card support.

[kenrexford]

Depends upon agreement, usually. However, after the specific 1NT overcall (a suit overcall might change things), this must be fit-showing to make any sense.

That is not to say that the only "fit showing" meaning possible must be a natural fit-showing call. It seems equally plausible for the partnership to agree to use this call in this sequence as a lead-director instead. In other words, whereas 5♠/5m makes sense (not sure I agree with a mere 5-4 here), so also would, say, six-card minor support but a preference for a spade lead rather than a lead of our minor. It might also make sense to have 2♠ agreed as a COV bid, to help partner decide whether to sacrifice in the minor or even whether to make a stab at a semi-Gambling 3NT.

Without discussion, I would assume 5♠/5-card support, though.

[cherdano]

Definitely not fit-showing, just a suit.

[jdonn]

Yes it's a matter of style of preempts. He might have a long very bad suit, or a very good 5 card suit, or a 5-5 hand, it's not worth worrying about why he didn't preempt partner simply has the suit he bid.

I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it a thousand more. If a partnership wants to agree this is fit showing then I understand why. But making that assumption without an agreement is random and ridiculous.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on May 25 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

Yes it's a matter of style of preempts. He might have a long very bad suit, or a very good 5 card suit, or a 5-5 hand, it's not worth worrying about why he didn't preempt partner simply has the suit he bid.

I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it a thousand more. If a partnership wants to agree this is fit showing then I understand why. But making that assumption without an agreement is random and ridiculous.

I would not be so critical ("random and ridiculous"). Sometimes logic is logic. This may not be that clear, as I indicated in my analysis, but for some of us discussion is not necessary on every plausible auction as general principles are agreed.

More obvious examples would exist. For instance, consider P-P-2♠(weak)-3NT-4♥. I don't really care if you have discussed this or not. 4♥ shows spade support, period. This example if different, admittedly.

But, what about this P-P-1minor-1NT-2♠ problem? I cannot conceive of a hand strong enough to bid at the two-level in a new suit after a strong 1NT overcall and after partner's tghird-seat opening, a hand that I could not open, a hand that is not more suitable for a penalty double, where I'm bidding spades without a fit for the minor. Many other have this same problem, and I think they are right.

What form of fit-showing this may be is, to me, the only debate.

Natural, without any indication of minor-suit support, seems strange and unplayable.

[bid_em_up]

Well, the first question should be:

What does 2H deny? It denies the ability to double 1N. In most cases, hands holding 10+ points will double 1N and they would likely double holding 8-9 and a minor suit fit as well or 8/9 and a good 5-6 card suit of their own. So I rule these hands out. Of course, this can change if your partnership is prone to opening 9/10 counts in 3rd seat (or any other seat for that matter).

2H normally shows a weak hand (less than 8), and a suit that was not capable of opening 2M directly (i.e a bad suit).

xx J10xxxx Kx Qxx would be a good example, imo.

It could, of course, have a partial minor suit fit included as well, but unless agreed otherwise, it does not specifically imply one.

jmoo.

[bid_em_up]

kenrexford, on May 25 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

But, what about this P-P-1minor-1NT-2♠ problem?  I cannot conceive of a hand strong enough to bid at the two-level in a new suit after a strong 1NT overcall and after partner's tghird-seat opening, a hand that I could not open, a hand that is not more suitable for a penalty double, where I'm bidding spades without a fit for the minor.  Many other have this same problem, and I think they are right.

If you cannot conceive a hand like:

J9xxxxx x xx KJx

then you need to rush to the store and buy yourself some imagination.

Not everybody would preempt this either 2S or 3S (even though many may).

But you would certainly bid 2S over the 1N overcall.

[SoTired]

kenrexford, on May 25 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 25 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

Yes it's a matter of style of preempts. He might have a long very bad suit, or a very good 5 card suit, or a 5-5 hand, it's not worth worrying about why he didn't preempt partner simply has the suit he bid.

I've said it a thousand times and I'll say it a thousand more. If a partnership wants to agree this is fit showing then I understand why. But making that assumption without an agreement is random and ridiculous.

I would not be so critical ("random and ridiculous"). Sometimes logic is logic. This may not be that clear, as I indicated in my analysis, but for some of us discussion is not necessary on every plausible auction as general principles are agreed.

More obvious examples would exist. For instance, consider P-P-2♠(weak)-3NT-4♥. I don't really care if you have discussed this or not. 4♥ shows spade support, period. This example if different, admittedly.

But, what about this P-P-1minor-1NT-2♠ problem? I cannot conceive of a hand strong enough to bid at the two-level in a new suit after a strong 1NT overcall and after partner's tghird-seat opening, a hand that I could not open, a hand that is not more suitable for a penalty double, where I'm bidding spades without a fit for the minor. Many other have this same problem, and I think they are right.

What form of fit-showing this may be is, to me, the only debate.

Natural, without any indication of minor-suit support, seems strange and unplayable.

what weird logic. how can you take a simple bid and attach so much complexity to it?

Maybe responder has 4h also and did not want to weak 2. maybe responder has a weak 6-card spade suit not suitable for a weak 2, but opposite a 3rd hand opener thot a penalty dbl was too risky. Maybe responder has 2 aces and out and thot that unwise for a preempt. Maybe most of responder's 8 HCP is in some other suit and hand does not look like a weak 2. Maybe responder's mind was wandering and forgot to make a weak 2. Maybe responder was worried that a dbl would be taken as negative.

WHATEVER....

2S is a 6-card suit, NF, and wants to play there. PERIOD. Any other meanings for the bid is mental <self-abuse>.

[plaur]

Thanks for answers. I now think that this is very much a matter of style of preempts.
I first postion both me and my partner would open a weak 2♠ with either of these hands (except when vul vs. not):

J109xxxx x xx Jxx
AQJ10x xx xx xxxx
J10xxxx xx Kx Qxx

Undisciplined preempts does not leave a lot of hands that would bid after 1NT

[SoTired]

btw... i have seen 1m (1N) X bid for a negative dbl with 4-4 in majors in a medium time partnership (I guess it never came up before). Opener passed assuming it was penalty.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on May 25 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

But, what about this P-P-1minor-1NT-2♠ problem? I cannot conceive of a hand strong enough to bid at the two-level in a new suit after a strong 1NT overcall and after partner's tghird-seat opening, a hand that I could not open, a hand that is not more suitable for a penalty double, where I'm bidding spades without a fit for the minor. Many other have this same problem, and I think they are right.

Don't blame me for your lack of imagination.

Qxxxxx - xx Axxxx
KQJTx xxxx x xxx
T9xxxxx Ax Kxx x
QJxx Axxxxx x xx

Or did I miss the memo that legally obligates me to preempt in the first place on all these hands?

[han]

helene_t, on May 25 2007, 04:01 AM, said:

I just did that an hour ago on a meager 5-card with no support for partner's suit. But that's an undisciplined bid that I would only make at love all at matchpoints, and even then maybe I shouldn't.

I agree with all of this. It feels dangerous but letting them play 1NT at love all doesn't feel right at MPs either.

[kenrexford]

This is not a matter of a "lack of imagination." I can also very easily imagine hands that someone esle might not open a weak two (or one-bid) or might not double 1NT. What I stated, however, was that I cannot imagine a hand that I would not open a weak two, would not double 1NT, and am strong enough to bid.

The point was not in response to what someone else might do here. The point was in response to the claim that interpretation of the bid as fit-showing would be "ridiculous." For me, not remotely. Obviously, for others as well.

jdonn's examples:

Qxxxxx - xx Axxxx --> I'd open 2♠
KQJTx xxxx x xxx --> I'd open 2♠
T9xxxxx Ax Kxx x --> I'd double 1NT
QJxx Axxxxx x xx --> This one is trickier, but I'd double 1NT. Least of all evils.

One note here. If you open weak two's relatively frequently, if you open 9-counts with primes and shape, and if you open 11-counts balanced frequently, then a "penalty double" of 1NT is perhaps a "lighter" action than others might expect, per force. The primed-out seven-count with a seven-bagger in spades is classic.

Plaur's examples:

J109xxxx x xx Jxx
AQJ10x xx xx xxxx
J10xxxx xx Kx Qxx --> I agree, brother!

Bid_em_up's example:

J9xxxxx x xx KJx --> That's an easy 2♠ for me.

So, I suppose plaur hit the nail on the head. If you open light, open weak two's unbalanced, and double more freely, then 2M is clearly fit-based. If more conservative on all fronts, then 2M is natural without any minor-fit implications.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on May 26 2007, 06:34 AM, said:

So, I suppose plaur hit the nail on the head.  If you open light, open weak two's unbalanced, and double more freely, then 2M is clearly fit-based.  If more conservative on all fronts, then 2M is natural without any minor-fit implications.

That is completely fair as far as deciding one's own partnership agreements, but my point is when you don't have an agreement or aren't yet aware of partner's style then you can't just assume he will open a weak 2 bid on any 2 suited or terrible suit hand that moves. After all, I keep saying that these bids showing fits is not 'standard', and these are certainly not 'standard' weak 2 bids.

Final thought:

kenrexford, on May 26 2007, 06:34 AM, said:

T9xxxxx Ax Kxx x --> I'd double 1NT
QJxx Axxxxx x xx --> This one is trickier, but I'd double 1NT.  Least of all evils.

Uh lol...remind me to overcall 1NT against you more often

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on May 26 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

Final thought:

kenrexford, on May 26 2007, 06:34 AM, said:

T9xxxxx Ax Kxx x --> I'd double 1NT
QJxx Axxxxx x xx --> This one is trickier, but I'd double 1NT.  Least of all evils.

Uh lol...remind me to overcall 1NT against you more often

Step on in! I seem to score up +200 against air quite frequently with lighter and lighter doubles these days.

[the hog]

I will continue to say fit showing in these auctions jut to annoy Josh.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on May 26 2007, 05:54 PM, said:

I will continue to say fit showing in these auctions jut to annoy Josh.

Nah not the least bit annoying coming from you as my first memory of your posts is you not knowing what is standard.

In fact I think it's one of the most polite things you have ever said.