1NT response when playing 2 over 1.
I am sure this must have been asked before and I just cant find the Q & A .
So here goes --- the partnership is playing 2 over 1 , 5 card majors, short club and strong (15-17) 1 NT’s. The bidding goes something like
1D (P) !NT …………………….now clearly the 1NT response now has a much larger range instead of being the Acol 6-9 or thereabouts ( which is not alerted) it now becomes 6-11 or perhaps even a bad 12. The question is simple should this 1NT bid be alerted??? The bid is not forcing , it can be ( and is often) passed and is best described as invitational. I do not consider the bid any more unnatural or unexpected given the system than the 1NT Acol response.. 4C 1 (b) in the blue book suggests at least to me that there is no need to alert this. My immediate view was it did not need to be alerted.
There is no appeal , everybody accepted and we have moved on. I have had today however a conversation with another club director who disagrees and says it should be alerted.
I would appreciate your views…I am sure this must have cropped up often before and it is only because we have recently seen 2/1 being played at the clubs I am a member of that the question has come up.
Thanks and Regards
Jim Wallace
Comments
I think 4D2 of the latest Blue book covers this and it changed recently. If the 1NT response is up to a bad 12 you announce "up to x points". If it is forcing you announce "forcing"
Indeed, if the 1NT response can have 11 points, then it should be announced. Almost certainly if a pair is playing 2/1, then they will need to announce in the sequences 1H:1NT and 1S:1NT.
It's not so clear with 1D:1NT though, which was the sequence mentioned in the question. Responses to 1D are typically a bit different from responses to 1H or 1S. After 1D:1NT opener will always pass with a "weak NT" hand, so it's not common to include invitational hands in the 1NT response. In particular, most people would respond 2NT with an 11-count, or if the hand is not so suitable for NT, would find some other bid depending on agreements. Indeed, many (most?) "2/1" partnerships don't actually play the specific sequence 1D:2C as game forcing at all.
So, sure, if the partnership has confirmed that their 1D:1NT response can have 11 points, then it should be announced. But you shouldn't conclude that everyone playing "2/1" will need to announce in the sequence 1D:1NT - it very much depends on the partnership.
This did used to be technically alertable, although many of my opponents seemed to wonder why I needed to alert it, which I think is a fairly good argument for the change in approach.
As Jeremy and Manchester point out, it's now an announcement.
I would agree with @davidcollier that, …”it very much depends on the partnership.”
@BigJim - your opponent’s non-forcing 1NT response in the range of 6-11 or 6-12 sounds like a recipe for a lot of poor contracts IMO.
The 1D bid, in preference to their short club, shows a biddable diamond suit, denies a 5-card major and denies a balanced 15-17 point hand. The club suit could be a singleton or void.
Does their 1NT response deny a 4 card major? Does it show cover for clubs? Is it silent on diamonds?
A pass by opener 14v6 will probably be ok
A pass by opener 14v11 or 12 is likely to be a missed game.
On what basis does opener continue to bid with 12-14 point hands opposite a 1NT response?
There isn’t enough information in your OP for a definitive opinion, but it sounds like it would be prudent to quiz them on their convention and make sure they are fully explaining it etc.
If the 1NT bid conveys more than a simple point range, such as denying a 4-card major, then I would agree with the TD you spoke with, it should be alerted.
the NT response would deny an unbid 4+ card major.
One might pass a 1NT response in cases where you would pass and invitational bid.... such as:
1D - 1NT
2C - 2NT - if you are going to pass the 2NT bid, then you might as well pass the 1NT bid. If you have a hand that would accept such an invite, then you bid on.
Even after 1M - 1NT - this will either be some rubbish misfitting hand or an invitational hand (10-11) with 3-card support for your major as they have not made a limit support bid in your suit it denies 4-card support (or 3 card support with 6-9) and not bidding a new suit at the 2-level denies game values.
So you might pass a 'forcing' or 'semi-forcing' 1NT response where you would again pass the invitational rebid of 3 of your major.
This means that they are actually not likely to end in bad contracts - occasionally 1N instead of 3M, but this sort of thing seems to happen in all systems. (in ACOL we open 1NT and pass with a 10 count opposite and potentially miss 4-4 fit in a major with our combined 22-24 count)
However, defending against the 1NT response is more difficult as it could be anything from 5/6 points to 11 points. Shape could deny support or could have 3 card support. The side bidding can find out more if they are interested so they do not suffer from this wide ranging value/shape response, but playing against this can be difficult. You might overcall and find the ops with a working 23 count and lots of defence, or you might pass and the ops have 17 points and you miss game.
Having said this, I think that the 1NT response should be announced as up to 11 (or whatever)
@Martin - Thanks for the reply.
I was asking specifically about the 1D - 1NT sequence.
1H / 1S - 1NT is clearly conventional with specific rebids for opener to further describe their hand. The sequence in question is not ‘clearly conventional’, with no obvious rebids, and was not alerted or announced as a conventional bid.
So, even though I don’t disagree with your general comments, I am still none-the -wiser about opener’s decision-making process with 12-14 point hands: Opener has no reason to bid again unless they want to show further length in diamonds or additional length in clubs (assuming the 1NT response denies a 4-card major).
The phrase ‘invitational’ has no meaning beyond the common understanding that responder has a minimum of 6-points. It doesn’t matter what the range of the 1NT is if opener has no way of asking ‘min or max’ and responder has no way of showing ‘min or max’ strength.
So, again, on what basis does opener bid again when they hold 12-14 point hands? Perhaps it might be simpler to consider only ‘balanced 12-14 point hands’.
On the broad understanding we have here, opener has no rebid and would always (not occasionally) miss a game fit with a balanced 12-14 point holding opposite a partner with game going values.
In that context an 'invitational hand would be 10/11 points.
Opener would choose to pass if they would not accept the invitation to game via a later 2NT call. If they would accept a later invite to game and call 3NT then they would not pass 1NT.
So 1D - 1NT - pass would mean opener would have about 10 - 13/poor 14.
1D - 1NT - 2C/D - 2NT... this is the sequence where there is a choice would accept the invite to game or not. If the decision is not then you prob should pass 1NT.
1D - 1NT - 2NT would ask responder to bid game with their top-end hands.
I can understand that someone does not know to announce the 1NT here as it is natural and shows a willingness to play in 1NT. I think that is should be announced due to the unexpected point range.
Don't forget that there is no game values with 10/11 opposite 12/13. With 14 and 11 there can be, but how often does that happen? How often does the miss of a game occur compared with how often they play in better 1NT contract than 2 of a minor, or 1NT making rather than 2NT -1?
So they may miss the occasional 14-11 3NT games, but they also stay out of non-making 25 point game attempts
@Martin - Thanks again for the reply.
My comments are based on the OP, which says, “… now becomes 6-11 or perhaps even a bad 12.”
[1D - 1NT - pass] and [1D - 1NT - 2C] are not relevant because the former sequence is the basis of my query and the latter has already been acknowledged as a possibility that suggests the opener is not balanced.
[good 14 upgraded to 1NT] is not relevant to my query because it is not in the bidding sequence I have queried.
[1D - 1NT - 2NT] - why does opener respond to 1NT with 2NT whilst holding a balanced 12-14 point hand? You seem to have missed the point of the question I am asking (I accept that you might not have and that I am misunderstanding your reply). So, to put it another way, why does a balanced 12-14 point opener sometimes bid the sequence [1D - 1NT - pass] and at other times bid [1D - 1NT - 2NT]? What are the determining features in opener’s decision-making process to bid on, when in both of those scenarios, responder only guarantees 6 points?
The decision to bid on has nothing to do with responder and everything to do with the opener.
As I say, I don’t expect you to have answer, and as already mentioned, ”it very much depends on the partnership” as to what the answer actually is.
With regards to your question, “… how often does that happen?” It very much depends on the quality of the competing pairs, in my experience. So more often it will be more successful when played by good declarer against poor defenders, IMO. But as a player, seeing the exact bidding sequence 1D-1NT, I would want to know why opener bids after a 1NT response sometimes but not others when it appears that they are holding the same power/shape hands.
If declarer always passes the 1NT response to 1D when holding 12-14 balanced points, then the 1D bid should be alerted because it now means ‘either a balanced 12-14 point 1NT or a genuine diamond 12-19 points.”
It seems to be a valid question with no obvious answer.
I appreciate the interest.
The other bidding sequences I gave were an attempt to explain what this is the case.
Opener only passes the 1NT when balanced and weak. Otherwise they would be bidding on.
When not balanced and weak they can bid again.
Obviously they may be semi-balanced and weak but not want to bid 2D
> I would want to know why opener bids after a 1NT response sometimes but not others when it appears that they are holding the same power/shape hands.
>
I don't think it is normal to bid the same hand in 2 different ways based on thumb in the air
I am not sure why... in acol if we open 1S then we either have a strong balanced hand or 5+S and 12-19ish.
Every hand is either balanced or unbalanced. When we open 1 suit, we are automatically saying that we do not have a balanced hand within our NT opening range. Therefore we either have an unbalanced hand or a balanced hand that is outside of the opening 1NT range.
With 2/1 I think it is normal to play 1NT as 15-17, therefor 1D will be unbalanced hand (12-19ish) or weak balanced 12-14 or strong balanced hand with 19 HCP.
I think this discussion is straying off TD issues.
People do play 1NT responses as wide ranging and non-forcing (0-12 is not unheard of). These 1NT responses are announced. The soundness or bridge merit of these methods is not concern of the TD when explaining the regulations to players.
@Martin - thanks for the discussion. You haven’t said anything that I disagree with in the round.
@Robin_BarkerTD - the TD issue is that there is potentially a partnership understanding regarding the meaning of the 1D opening bid that is not being shared with the opposition.
When responder bids 1NT knowing that opener either has a balanced 12-14 1NT and that opener will now pass or, with a stronger hand, they will bid on with, then that possibility should be made available to the opposition by way of an alert of 1D. The possible conventional use of 1D should be explored rather than putting the onus on the opposition to work for themselves that the opener is weak.
Knowing that the 1D is possibly a weak 1NT allows opponents to consider interfering with a 1 level bid, rather than finding they have to subsequently bid at the 2 level.
1D can be a weak NT for anyone who plays a strong NT and it's not alertable. It's just a matter of knowing their basic system.
There's nothing surprising about passing to show a weak hand.
@gordonrainsford - thanks for the view. I’m happy for you to make the argument because it seems to be easier to make the argument in favour of the alert.
I wouldn’t disagree, except that they say they play a short club, not a better minor that could be less than 3.
So why 1D, rather than 1C. We don’t have the benefit of seeing the hands, we just know there was an irregularity and a discussion that wasn’t particularly revealing.
If they say they play a better minor, which could be less than 3 cards, then, fair enough, I’d agree with you. But when they say they play a short club, but bid the diamond on a weak NT opening hand, it feels like something is being kept hidden, even if it is as simple as showing a 5-card diamond suit.
Happy to hear views of why a such a balanced hand, playing a short club, would show a 3 or 4 card diamond suit over a 2-card club suit.
If 1C is strong and 1D is catch-all opening, including a minimum balanced opening, then 1D should be announced as “May be two, with up to five clubs”. If 1D includes unbalanced hands with 5 or 6 clubs, then the announcement will be "May be one, with up to six clubs".
The traditional way to open balanced hands in a strong NT system was to open 1D when they are longer than clubs or when 4-4 in the minors.
It's a relatively recent and minority thing to open 1C with hands with a doubleton club and four or five diamonds, which is why it requires a special announcement.
You seem to want it to be the other way around, but it's not.
@gordonrainsford - I don’t understand what you mean by, “You seem to want it to be the other way around, but it’s not.”
You have not responded with a consideration of all the elements of the convention being used. We know: “… the partnership is playing 2 over 1 , 5 card majors, short club and strong (15-17) 1 NT’s…”
It might be convenient for you to ignore the short club because traditionally, the, “… way to open balanced hands in a strong NT system was to open 1D when they are longer than clubs or when 4-4 in the minors.” (That sounds like a description of ‘better minor’, which forms no part of the convention being discussed). However, we aren’t discussing history. The convention operates a short club (not declared to be strong), with 5-card majors and is silent on the diamond suit. Consequently, it is reasonable to ask, what does the 1D actually mean because if it shows a 5-card suit, that would be unusual and so require an alert.
If you disagree, I would be interested to know the reason.
@gordonrainsford - I don't understand your response. You appear not to have followed the conversation.
Your response describes historical use of 'the better minor': "...in a strong NT system was to open 1D when they are longer than clubs or when 4-4 in the minors."
The convention being discussed doesn't play a better minor system, so your point is lost on me.
It's fairly common when playing a short club to only open 1C with a doubleton when 4432 exactly. Opening 1C on a doubleton with four or five diamonds is increasing in frequency, but this does not make the other approach conventional or alertable as you have argued.
@gordonrainsford - You are incorrect. I have not argued that the diamond should be alertable if it is 4 or 5 cards. You even quoted me making the point that I was talking about 5-card diamonds.
As I said, you haven't followed the conversation. Disappointing.
The partnership has chosen to employ a short club. They have bid 1D in preference to a short club, on a hand that would appear to be no stronger than 12-14 points, given that they passed a 1NT response that shows (6 -11/12 points).
My suggestion is that opponents should query why 1D is bid, if 1C is viable alternative.
There is a reason why 1D was chosen in preference to 1C and I would suggest opponents always ask why.
I mention that it could possibly show a 5-card diamond holding, but it could also show a 4-card major, asking partner to bid theirs if they have one, then converting to 1NT (by opener) if there's no fit, or bidding 1NT by responder if they have no 4-card major to bid.
Just possibilities, sure.
Players are entitled to know the ins-and-outs of their opponents bidding system. You make assumptions about their system at your own risk.
That's the last word from me in this unproductive conversation.
@gordonrainsford - Yes, it would have been useful for you to have understood the comment in relation to the whole conversation. I had already acknowledged to Martin that I didn't disagree with his comment about that.
However, you keep dancing around the point I am making about the choice to bid 1D v 1C. You might believe you are being constructive, but I can tell you that you aren't.
A non-forcing 1D which can be 2 diamonds is announced.
A non-forcing 1D which can be 3 diamonds in a balanced hand is not alerted or announced. Bidding 3-card minor suits has been regarded as natural and not alertable 'forever'.
@Robin_BarkerTD - The pair weren't playing a short diamond.
We don't know what their 1D indicates.
Crucially, we don't know why 1D was bid in preference to 1C on a hand that appears to have been suitable for a 1C bid.
What is your view about 1D having additional meaning, such as indicating a 4-card major or a 5-card diamond suit? Are you happy to condone such events? Or are they perfectly allowable without alert or announcement?
I expect a 1D on a balanced hand with 3 D to have a 4-card major.
It didn't feel like a conversation, it felt like you were avoiding having a conversation.
Please feel free to address the actual issue I was raising, rather than the banal one that didn't need to be addressed.
Why do you think that hand appears to have been suitable for a 1C bid, when we have not seen the hands or had a description of them?
It is relatively standard in 2/1 that 1D shows 4+ Diamonds and 1C shows 2+ clubs... In this case, I would not ask any questions unless/until dummy came down with an unexpected shape (4 clubs and 3 diamonds, for example).
I think that I understand your questioning - that a partnership may agree to play 1C as denying a 5 or 4-card major and 1D as denying a 5-card major but showing at least 1 4-card major? If so, I have not come across anyone agreeing anything like that