[1eyedjack]

Typical scenario

E.......S....W......N
P.....1D....P......P
1N

E/W are vul, N/S are not (if it makes a difference)

So, what do you think that 1N shows
A) As "standard", whatever that might be, and
B) As you would prefer to play it, if different?

(prompted by a thread in the GIB subforum)

[JonnyQuest]

Well...
Unpassed would be about 11-14 or so.

So, here, maybe 10-11, no 5 card Major?

[1eyedjack]

I should perhaps have added: if it makes a difference whether IMP v MP, then please specify conditions and choices.

If I might start the ball rolling, I feel that the first question that you should be asking is: Does it profit you to make a bid that describes your hand accurately, if the long term consequence of that description is that you would be better off defending 1D undoubled than playing in a contract your way (over which whether or not you are doubled is not within your control)?

It reminds me of my objection to the "Crowhurst" wide range 1NT rebid:
2C = "What have you got partner?"
Some response = "I have a hand that wants to be playing in 1NT, partner"

[Endymion77]

Max passed hand, balanced would be the standard. Some play this as 4M/5+ clubs.

[ArtK78]

I think it shows that East is in need of psychiatric help.

[jallerton]

It's natural with a maximum for the initial pass.

[nige1]

1eyedjack, on 2013-December-16, 11:57, said:

Typical scenario
E.......S....W......N
P.....1D....P......P
1N
E/W are vul, N/S are not (if it makes a difference)
So, what do you think that 1N shows
A) As "standard", whatever that might be, and
B) As you would prefer to play it, if different?
(prompted by a thread in the GIB subforum)

IMO, on most hands, you should lean over backwards to double because your best chance of a good result is that partner was fixed by LHO's opener. But with a ♦ void, defence may be fraught. Hence ...

• With a single suit, you could bid it.
• With both majors, you could try Michaels.
• With ♣ and ♥, you could try an unusual 2N (but 1N seems more reasonable)
• Alternatively, 1N might show long ♣ and shorter/worse major(s).

Anyway, "Natural" may be a common agreement but I don't understand it.

[the hog]

Endymion77, on 2013-December-16, 13:27, said:

Max passed hand, balanced would be the standard. Some play this as 4M/5+ clubs.

Not in the passout seat they don't.
This is fairly normal - about 10-11 no 5M.

[Vampyr]

the hog, on 2013-December-16, 20:04, said:

This is fairly normal - about 10-11 no 5M.

How about if the balanced 11 would have opened?

[1eyedjack]

OK so some respected forum posters have come out in favour of a natural meaning for the 1N.
Or at least confirmed that it is standard, which may not be quite the same thing.
But standard methods, while not necessarily optimal, are seldom unplayable, so I wanted to explore this a bit further.

On what hands can 2nd seat have values but be "fixed" for direct action? Classically he will have length in opener’s suit but shy of values for 1N overcall. With shortage in the oppo suit he will qualify either for double or for a suit overcall. Indeed these days a strong 4 card suit may be overcalled at 1 level.

So from East’s perspective his partner rates either to be weak or to have some help in oppo trumps. As East is contemplating 1N then he also has a holding in oppo trumps so, continuing with the assumption that West has sufficient strength that 1N is not going to be a disaster, then it would appear likely that South is currently languishing in a misfit. In such cases are we better off declaring or defending?
One factor to consider is the prospect of our missing a game bonus. This is I think a strong reason for a non-passed hand being under pressure to balance with 1N with a 13 count lacking the shape to double. But it seems to me that game drops below the horizon when you only have 10.

And what if West passed not because he was fixed but because he genuinely lacked the values to act? Is this feasible? All we know for sure so far about oppo is that they lack interest in game. Still room for them to have 20 opposite 5. Still room, in fact, for them to HAVE game on. Not playing precision it is not uncommon to rely on oppo protecting in order to find your game..

To summarise my thoughts:
Downsides to protecting are
If partner has values, they will not be enough for game.
If partner has values, we probably have trump control
If partner has values, oppo likely have a better spot.
There is room for partner to lack sufficient values for 1N our way to be viable.
If partner lacks values then oppo may have a game that can only (now) be reached by my protecting.
If partner lacks values then I am likely to be walking into a doubled penalty.
Worst case scenario, we get doubled and they have no game on.

Sure there are upsides to balancing with a natural 1N, but frequency??

[Lurpoa]

Maybe the response is in: "Why didn't he double ?"

Be the ♥ with you all.

[Vampyr]

Lurpoa, on 2013-December-17, 14:36, said:

Maybe the response is in: "Why didn't he double ?"

He didn't double because LHO has a monster and you are in trouble.

I think that this is a question that can only be answered by partnership agreement; if partner is a pick-up partner don't play with him again; you don't need these headaches.

My partner and I would play it as unusual, but I can't picture a hand we would do it on and not have opened.

[Lurpoa]

Vampyr, on 2013-December-17, 20:49, said:

He didn't double because LHO has a monster and you are in trouble.

I think that this is a question that can only be answered by partnership agreement; if partner is a pick-up partner don't play with him again; you don't need these headaches.

My partner and I would play it as unusual, but I can't picture a hand we would do it on and not have opened.

YES !

YOU MUST AGREE ON THOSE KIND OF THINGS WITH YOU PARTNER.
We have been trying to say this for years .
But some of the posters do not like to hear that.
Glad you agree !
One upvote from us to you.

Be The ♥ with you, my dear friend.