[Little Kid]

Undiscussed the auction goes:

(1♣)-Pass-(1♥)-1NT
(2♣)-2♥

1NT is natural, unfavourable vulnerability. Your only agreement is that you play lebensohl if they interfere over a 1NT opener. What would 2♥ be?

[rogerclee]

Little Kid, on May 5 2010, 01:05 AM, said:

Undiscussed

So it's a transfer.

BTW I think (agree with you?) that playing "systems on" is not a very intelligent method in this auction.

[helene_t]

IMHO, with a decent pick-up p, the probabilities are something like:
40% game try, ostensibly with four spades.
35% spades-diamond 5-5
15% transfer
10% spades-diamonds 4-6 (4-5?)

I suppose it could be 5-5 in pointed suits, assuming we play sound overcalls so that my initial pass doesn't make that unlikely.

I suppose it it could also be "stayman".

Spades-diamonds 4-6 is not so likely I think except as an option in "stayman". I.e. with a weak hand with six diamonds, just bid 2♦.

I don't think it would be particularly stupid to play it as a transfer. It's not like we desperately need the 2♥ bid for some other purpose and it is probably important to have the 1NT-overcall declare. But transfer obviously isn't the default agreement, certainly not if we play Lebensohl. Not sure if Clee is being sarcastic or what.

[Ant590]

50p says it was intended as natural

[the hog]

Looks like it was intended as a transfer.

[MFA]

Natural. I don't like it if we are supposed to improvise some conventional meaning that we have not discussed, when the bid might as well be natural.

Why shouldn't it be possible, for instance, to hold a 6 card heart suit with a hand that could not take action over 1♣?

[WellSpyder]

helene_t, on May 5 2010, 03:33 AM, said:

IMHO, with a decent pick-up p, the probabilities are something like:
40% game try, ostensibly with four spades.
35% spades-diamond 5-5
15% transfer
10% spades-diamonds 4-6 (4-5?)

Just as well I don't play as a pick-up partner very often, then! As far as I am concerned, if it is undiscussed and it is possible for the bid to be natural then that is what it is. Indeed, if any pair on a normal club night produced this auction I would think there would be at least an 80% chance that the bid was meant as natural.

[gwnn]

Ant590, on May 5 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

50p says it was intended as natural

50 quid says transfer. everyone who thinks otherwise are from another planet.

[Tomi2]

yeah, love this.

some days ago i have tried to make an excel sheet with all possible auctions that look like:

(1x) - ?
1x - (something non pass) - ?
(1x) - something, maybe pass - (something mb pass) - ?
1x - (something, mb pass) - something mb pass - (something, but no pass if pd passed) - ?

all somethings were limited to 2NT

and I found more than 1700 possible auctions. This one is even one level more, so I have to add those for my "partnership-understanding-in-competitive-bidding-test"

[helene_t]

OK, I probably underestimated the complexity of this problem. The true probabilities may be:
10% game try, ostensibly with four spades.
10% spades-diamond 5-5
10% transfer
10% spades-diamonds 4-6 (4-5?)
10% Natural
10% Random psyche
10% Blame transfer
10% Misclick
10% Ken Rexford
10% Other

[dake50]

Shouldn't an Advanced and Expert-Class Bridge blog be debating what this bid SHOULD be?
Not some Pick-up (therefore non-agreed) what if? Pick-up guarantees an undiscussed /unsimilar to discussed will be ambiguous.

Where does that fit into the labeled topic heading?

[gwnn]

This is a free country, we are allowed to open any thread we like, on any topic we like. You are free to reply or not, if you think the question is bad, best is if you don't reply.

[ArtK78]

gwnn, on May 5 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

This is a free country, we are allowed to open any thread we like, on any topic we like. You are free to reply or not, if you think the question is bad, best is if you don't reply.

I hear patriotic music playing in the background.

[mikeh]

The real answer is that the bid means whatever partner thinks it means.

What should it be? Natural, and I would go so far as to say that it is silly and unplayable to treat it any other way.

It is apparent that there are people who think that partner is never allowed to hold 5+ hearts and a hand/suit too weak to act directly but able to compete now. I'm not one of them.....my rho's tend to respond 1♥ with, say AJxx Jxxx Jx xxx and I'd like to be able to find our 8 or 9 card heart fit.

For those who argue: if 2♥ is a transfer, we find hearts via 2♦, let me ask you what partner is supposed to bid over 2♣ when he wants to compete in diamonds.

This is, in my view, clearly best played as natural, but, as the posts here show, there are a lot of people who don't understand why. Maybe this post will explain it.

[cherdanno]

I wish hanp would read this thread just so he could post "I completely agree with mikeh." I agree with hanp anyway.

[jjbrr]

dake50, on May 5 2010, 09:21 AM, said:

Shouldn't an Advanced and Expert-Class Bridge blog be debating what this bid SHOULD be?
Not some Pick-up (therefore non-agreed) what if? Pick-up guarantees an undiscussed /unsimilar to discussed will be ambiguous.

Where does that fit into the labeled topic heading?

I actually think this is a good topic. I haven't talked about auctions after 1NT in this position with anyone, and I admit I would have defaulted to the agreement "systems on over 2♣ and dbl by NT openers and NT overcalls."

Obviously in theory this is inferior to something like what MikeH is proposing, but I'd be a little surprised to learn that this would be standard in a pickup partnership of experts.

[WellSpyder]

jjbrr, on May 5 2010, 11:08 AM, said:

I haven't talked about auctions after 1NT in this position with anyone, and I admit I would have defaulted to the agreement "systems on over 2♣ and dbl by NT openers and NT overcalls."

I think if you haven't discussed sandwich 1NT auctions, both players are quite likely to assume that agreements will be the same as following a 1NT overcall, which in turn is quite likely to be (or to be assumed to be) the same as following a 1NT opening.

My impression is that your default agreement of "systems on" here is the typical agreement in the US. I see from the OP's profile, though, that he or she is based in London. In England I think "systems on" would be a very unusual agreement after intervention over 1NT, even when it is double or 2♣ (thereby leaving room for systems on if desired), and "natural" (perhaps with Lebensohl or Rubensohl) would be much more common.

[Jlall]

mikeh, on May 5 2010, 10:48 AM, said:

For those who argue: if 2♥ is a transfer, we find hearts via 2♦, let me ask you what partner is supposed to bid over 2♣ when he wants to compete in diamonds.

Yeah and how do you play 2D after 1N p ? if you play transfers. Obviously transfers suck!

I understand theres more likelihood that you should play in 2D when the auction goes this way, and less need to transfer and bid again, but you are still in bad shape when you have an invitational hand and you don't play transfers. Personally I'd like to be able to transfer to a major and bid 2N more than I'd like to have the ability to play 2D (and this is always the argument for transfers).

I think this 1N bid is stronger than a 1N opener, and if I had 7 points or whatever I would want to be able to invite.

Also, as an added bonus you get to rightside 2 of a major which is not negligible when partner has a strong hand and RHO has a strong hand.

[FrancesHinden]

Natural.

Starting from the "if it could be natural, it is natural" point of view, I would assume it's natural if I haven't discussed it.

As I have discussed it in my regular partnerships, I don't have to guess, I know it's natural. We don't play transfers after any 4th seat or sandwich NT calls because we think it's more likely you want to play in 2m, and much less likely you have an invitational hand as you passed over RHO's 1-level opening.

[Winstonm]

cherdanno, on May 5 2010, 11:01 AM, said:

I wish hanp would read this thread just so he could post "I completely agree with mikeh." I agree with hanp anyway.

Not me. I agree with Cherdanno.