[hrothgar]

Povratnik, on 2020-May-15, 16:18, said:

Balanced or distributional?
Probabilities of 4 cards, 5 cards, 6(+) cards?

(All those question will also be answered by me. I can do it first, if it's helpful...)
I'll answer the questions tomorrow.

Assuming that the auction starts 1♣ - (X)

Most likely to be balanced

Holding a hand like

♠ KJx
♥ x
♦ xxxxx
♣ Qxxx

I'd bid an immediate 3♣

For me to make a single raise on five pieces, I'd need something like

♠ Qxx
♥ Qxx
♦ xx
♣ Qxxxx

[mycroft]

For me, pass vs double makes a huge difference. And if it doesn't to you, you don't play the same game I do.

After 1♣-p, 2♣ is 10+, 5+ clubs. After 1♣-X, 2♣ is 6-9ish, at least 4 clubs (would be nice if it were 5). Like Hrothgar, with more shape, I'm likely to bid 3, but I tend to play that as weaker in high card than 2 as well (again, remember my 1♣, at least when I have 5 of them, is almost always 15+ BAL).

Slipping in "LHO passes/doubles" as if they are equivalent, in this situation, is either attempting to palm a card or, as I said, you play so totally a different game from me that any attempt to meet minds would be pointless.

[Povratnik]

hrothgar, on 2020-May-15, 16:30, said:

Most likely to be balanced

If balanced, most likely 5332, or 4333? (Rhetoric question, you don't need to answer)

You are basically claiming that bid 2♣, in the context, isn't much of a lie (having in mind the differences between 2♣ and 3♣). And if East has a reason to bid 2♣ instead of 1NT, he can afford to do so.

OK, I can accept that in your niche, the lie is small and excusable (in my niche, it's huge). But you didn't say a word about the reasons. Why do you want to bid 2♣ (instead of normal 1NT) in the first place?
(mycroft is giving two very weak reasons. But at least he gave some reasons. You're acting as if 1NT card doesn't exist...)

PASS is very interesting, but if you want to make South silent, you can bid 1NT. Partner will get MUCH more accurate picture of your hand and will be able to make good decisions to the end of auction. If 2♣ should be bid before North's next turn - partner will do it. If 3♣ should be bid - he'll do that.

I'll ask you one more thing. Not for fighting reasons, I am just very curious:
What kind of hand should you have, to bid 1NT in this sequence?

[Povratnik]

It seems I ran into a tough, seasoned polemicist. Hits right away and right between the eyes!

mycroft, on 2020-May-15, 16:40, said:

For me, pass vs double makes a huge difference. And if it doesn't to you, you don't play the same game I do.

So what? By answering my question(s), you don't write for me exclusively, you write for the entire pool of readers. If I'm somehow flawed and unable to appreciate the virtues of your approach, you still have others...
I can answer in your manner:

For me, a dangerous vs harmless double makes a huge difference. And if it doesn't to you, you don't play the same game I do.

But what's the purpose?
Two out of three your paragraphs are trying to disqualify me from this discussion. But again, what's the purpose? (My opinion about the purpose of this thread could be seen in the red part of the very next paragraph)

It seems that any double makes a huge emotional impact on you. Not on me. But, IMHO, this thread isn't opened for mind touching of potential partners. It's opened for posting relevant opinions, backed by quality arguments. Even very incompatible players should be able to communicate using the universal language of logic...

****** That was procedural. Now to the content:

Of course that double makes a huge difference. Gadgets go on and off; conventional bids become natural; natural bids become conventional; invitational bids become preemtive...
But that's all irrelevant in the context. If I understood well, the OP wants to hear deep, sound logic in the spirit of natural system; not some scientific mumbo jumbo.

Another difference is very relevant - PASS becomes possible. In this case, PASS is MUCH better than 2♣, but we at least partially agree about this one.

Yes, a double influences the strength needed for certain bids, but what about distribution? I don't see a difference worth mentioning. If you see "a huge difference", you should elaborate - but more to the point and more in the spirit of natural system...

Sarcastic Povratnik said:

After 1♠ PASS, 2♠ tends to be balanced, 3♠ tends to be distributional. However, after 1♠ Dbl, both 2♠ and 3♠ are usually balanced, because - with more shape, I like to bid 4♠...

Are you impressed by the explanation? (3♠ is balanced, because I don't need it to be distributional, for private reasons) Yours isn't much more useful...

mycroft, on 2020-May-15, 16:40, said:

Slipping in "LHO passes/doubles" as if they are equivalent, in this situation, is either attempting to palm a card or, as I said, you play so totally a different game from me that any attempt to meet minds would be pointless.

They are equivalent for my question (above I claimed that a double has negligible impact on distributional meaning of the next LHO's (natural) bid).
If you claim they aren't equivalent, you should explain the natural, universal reasons. (Presence and absence of certain gadgets aren't universal reasons, they're conventional and therefore local; yours and hrotgar's affinity to jump to 3 level with possible 7 cards fit - aren't universal reasons, they're private)
You can disqualify me, but you still owe the answer to others...

[Povratnik]

jddons, on 2020-May-13, 02:53, said:

For the life of me, I can't understand why a hand with poor trumps and no ruffing value wants to play at the 2 level when trumps might well break 5-1.

This is probably the most valuable sentence in this entire thread! So in short - your team mates are wrong.
I can write my own analysis, but it doesn't seem you really need it...

[DavidKok]

This seems to have blown up, but I'm going to brave the storm and share my thoughts anyway.

This is a tough decision to make, and I'd pray not to be stuck in this situation too often. But if I do get this hand and auction, my bid is Pass. The reasoning is as follows:

• 1NT should in my view be at least mildly invitational for 3NT, if partner turns out to be of the 18-19 balanced variety (or "nice 16 with long clubs"). With this piping hot mess I'll think twice before implying anything like that, and thrice before making the weak hand declarer. Add about a jack and two tens to my hand and we're talking, although depending on your agreements redouble would be more sensible with that hand.
  
• XX should be quite a lot stronger than this. Above I mention 'agreements', but in the absence of those I think a redouble should slow at least 10 points and deny a long suit. We're about a king short.
  
• 2♣ makes no sense to me at all. I agree with Povratnik that jddons' sentence is the most insightful one in this thread. We have no guarantee of a fit, and if it is a 4-4 or 5-4 fit I bet we won't get to play the hand in 2♣ (call me a pessimist, but the statistics are on my side). Furthermore my hand is completely flat, and I don't even want a club lead against their 2X. Furthermore if I bid 2♣ I think partner is justified in taking out their 2X to 3♣ with any hand that is not a flat minimum, which would be even worse. However, there's something more about this bid at the bottom.
  
• 1X (anything) would be an interesting try as a psych here (I guess 1♥ would then have to be favourite?), but I don't psych.

One advantage Pass has that hasn't been mentioned so far, is that if the points are distributed equally (which seems likely, partner has 12+, we have 7 and that North fellow seems to have at least 10) the odds that we will get to bid again are magnificent. South has 0-11 points and probably no great club length, so he will likely bid some suit at the 1-level. I'm planning for the auction to go something like 1♣-(X)-Pass-(1♥)-Pass-(Pass)-?. By passing one round we now have a lot of freedom to express this hand, and paint a much more accurate picture than we could earlier. In particular I think the choices are X, 1NT and 2♣. My reasoning here would now be:

• 1NT is not an option, since I don't have a heart guard. There is no risk partner will suddenly start thinking of game though, but it would still be a poor bid.
  
• X ideally shows fewer hearts, maybe a hand more like 3=2=4=4. Keep in mind we did not bid 1X on the first round, so partner shouldn't suddenly play us for something useful like 4=1=4=4 or 4=1=3=5.
  
• 2♣ shows the support on the second round, but without any implications of shapely hands. In particular we are not inviting partner to bid on if the opponents do not let us play the contract there, which is a big plus in my opinion.

I think personally I would go with X on the second round. If partner has a heart guard he can safely bid 1NT, if he has a fourth club and no heart guard then he can retreat to 2♣, and with neither of those he can always 'flee' to 1♠ on an empty four card suit (did you see how beautifully placed our king is?). This is more flexible than 2♣, and I love flexibility with tough hands. Although I guess a lot of the other commenters here might prefer 2♣ on the second round, finally showing that support in a contested auction.

[sfi]

Povratnik, on 2020-May-17, 13:27, said:

Why do you want to bid 2♣ (instead of normal 1NT) in the first place?

Because the double makes it very likely the opponents are about to compete and I want to tell partner I have support for their suit. It's hard for the opponents to penalise if I raise immediately, since LHO's double is almost certainly some sort of takeout. On the other hand, if I wait and support clubs later then it is is much easier for them to double if we don't really have a fit.

Quote

What kind of hand should you have, to bid 1NT in this sequence?

NT should be constructive, showing a real desire to play there rather than being used as a default bid. This is a very minimum hand for this action which is why hrothgar and I came down on opposite sides of the 1NT vs. pass question. But after the double it should tend to deny four clubs unless you really want to angle for NT. Here you're not strong enough and your spot cards are too poor to love bidding NT. And your positional advantage from bidding NT has gone down for two reasons - your kings are likely to be well placed anyway and you want the doubler on lead since they are less likely to have a long suit and more likely to lead away from broken honours.

As Mycroft said, the double makes a huge difference in what your priorities should be in the auction. It's now competitive and you're probably going to hear a suit from your LHO right now. So you're less likely to be looking for game and more likely to be in a competitive part score battle and your were when partner opened. If you treat the two auctions as equivalent you're likely to lose out when the opponents compete.

[Stephen Tu]

IMO it's pretty close between 1nt and 2c, I wouldn't be too upset about a partner who did either. Vs. pass, either option mildly preempts the opponents, and lets partner know we aren't broke which tends to help his further competitive decisions quite a lot. 1c-x-p-2h-p-p-? You feel a lot better letting partner decide over 2H than you in this position.

2c -- the main advantage is partner will know about the 4th trump. This allows him to compete more freely on appropriate hands with 5 clubs, which he would be maybe less inclined to do if we could be 3343 or 3433 concealing a bad major, or perhaps worst 3352 concealing bad diamonds. The main disadvantage is that we are totally flat, but mostly partner should not be playing us for a lot of distribution since most hands with more distribution and same range are bidding 3c. But there are going to be some hands with 7 tricks in NT but only the same 7 tricks in clubs.

I wouldn't worry that much about partner being 3 cd clubs. On average he will have 4+, and given RHO's takeout double and supposed length in majors this increases the chance he has real clubs substantially.

[pilowsky]

One of the first things I learned about publishing is to never make the title of your paper a question because the answer is always no. So it did not surprise me at all when I saw a post entitled "what is normal in SAYC?" that everyone has a different opinion. There is, of course, no "correct" answer. The "best" answer is surely the answer that gives the best score. Since we can only be certain what that answer is after we have seen all of the hands (double-dummy), it follows, that there cannot be an answer to the question "What is normal?". It's a bit like asking what is the best form of government to prevent a tidal wave? The question provokes heat but no light.

[Povratnik]

@DavidKok
You wrote a fairly big post. I should write a similar one on my own and then discuss with you. Forgive me, but now I have to focus on sfi's post, since I have a comment on literaly EVERY sentence...

******

Quote

Why do you want to bid 2♣ (instead of normal 1NT) in the first place?

Because the double makes it very likely the opponents are about to compete and I want to tell partner I have support for their suit.
1NT is perfect bid for that purpose. With 2♣ you suggest more shape and greater length than you actually have. And partner can (wrongly) bid 3♣ over their 2M because you mislead him/her. In my niche, it's unforgivable.

It's hard for the opponents to penalise if I raise immediately, since LHO's double is almost certainly some sort of takeout.
With what strength could they penalize? My estimation, based on East hand and previous auction, is - on average, EW have 19.5HCP, NS have 20.5HCP. They can penalize if you pick a wrong denomination (which clubs could well be) or if you bid too high.

On the other hand, if I wait and support clubs later then it is is much easier for them to double if we don't really have a fit.
Of course you shouldn't support clubs later. If you pass in your first turn (which is fully legitimate decision), you should continue with green cards, hoping for the red one

Quote

What kind of hand should you have, to bid 1NT in this sequence?

NT should be constructive, showing a real desire to play there rather than being used as a default bid.
1NT is perfect default bid and perfectly matches my real desire to play that contract. But that's not the main point. The main point is:
With 1NT, I am perfectly describing my hand and partner becomes not the captain, but the COLONEL of the whole table. After my first bid, s/he is in a position to bid/pass/double as perfectly as it's possible in the game of bridge. With 2♣, I am sending a distorted image and partner can, and frequently will, make some very costly mistakes...

This is a very minimum hand for this action which is why hrothgar and I came down on opposite sides of the 1NT vs. pass question.
1NT and PASS both have it's merits. 1NT gives the highest probability of a good result, while PASS gives an opportunity of an extraordinary good result.
So if your team has a comfortable lead, you should bid 1NT. If you're behind, you should seriously consider PASS.

But after the double it should tend to deny four clubs unless you really want to angle for NT.
Says who??? On the contrary - if I really, really want to play NT, I might say it with less than 4 clubs. Otherwise, I'm precisely 3334. Naturally, 1NT (after 1♣ PASS, or after 1♣ Double) doesn't deny four clubs; it guarantees four clubs.
That's probably the main cause of disagreement between me and your wing. You actually DON'T assume that East has 4 clubs when he bids 1NT? Maybe a separate thread should be opened, for that question exclusively...

Here you're not strong enough and your spot cards are too poor to love bidding NT.
It's not about mine, it's about combined strength. We have about 19.5 points and should bid 1NT. If we don't - they will.
And it's not about burning, passionate love . It's about coldblooded calculation:
If we play 1NT - 7 tricks brings us +90, 6 tricks bring us -50
This way we are earning about 1IMP per board, which is remarkable, considering the nature of the board.
If they play 1NT - 7 our tricks brings us +50, 6 tricks bring us -90
This way we are losing 1IMP per board.
So, whichever side first bids 1NT, has a significant advantage.

And your positional advantage from bidding NT has gone down for two reasons - your kings are likely to be well placed anyway and you want the doubler on lead since they are less likely to have a long suit and more likely to lead away from broken honours.
First, nobody is likely to have a long suit. Even if South leads from a long suit, he'll most probably be unable to establish and cash the tricks.
Second, why would North lead from broken honours into the opener? He most probably has at least one sequence. And he'll choose a safe (but possibly nasty) lead... South, however, probably doesn't have a safe lead. He might give us a pleasant surprise ...
Third and most important:
It's not about whether East or West will declare. It's about whether East or NORTH will declare. (See my previous comment)

As Mycroft said, the double makes a huge difference in what your priorities should be in the auction. It's now competitive and you're probably going to hear a suit from your LHO right now. So you're less likely to be looking for game and more likely to be in a competitive part score battle and your were when partner opened. If you treat the two auctions as equivalent you're likely to lose out when the opponents compete.
My question wasn't about priorities. My question was about the distribution. Could you give me a one natural, universal reason why would 2♣ be distributional after pass and balanced after double?

I apology for length, but despite of being short, your post was really, REALLY provocative

[Stephen Tu]

Povratnik, on 2020-May-17, 20:24, said:

1NT is perfect bid for that purpose. With 2♣ you suggest more shape and greater length than you actually have. And partner can (wrongly) bid 3♣ over their 2M because you mislead him/her. In my niche, it's unforgivable.

How much length and shape do you assume for 2 clubs? Most of us will bid 3c with 5 clubs and a stiff. Not just 2c which is unlikely to buy the auction and doesn't inconvenience the opponents nearly as much. We'd usually only have 5 cd support on some 5c332 hands where we thought 3c was a bit higher than we really want to go by ourselves. We expect 4 cards and modest values for 2c.

It seems you assume 1nt promises 4 clubs which I don't think most people do. You would enforce a 1d call on a hand like KJx KQx xxxx xxx?

[Povratnik]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-May-17, 21:06, said:

How much length and shape do you assume for 2 clubs? Most of us will bid 3c with 5 clubs and a stiff. Not just 2c which is unlikely to buy the auction and doesn't inconvenience the opponents nearly as much. We'd usually only have 5 cd support on some 5c332 hands where we thought 3c was a bit higher than we really want to go by ourselves. We expect 4 cards and modest values for 2c.

It seems you assume 1nt promises 4 clubs which I don't think most people do. You would enforce a 1d call on a hand like KJx KQx xxxx xxx?

Most of us will bid 3c with 5 clubs and a stiff.
I would jump with 5 clubs and a stiff, if I am afraid of something and think that jump will help. But whoever AUTOMATICALLY jumps with such hand, IMHO, bids badly.
When partner opens 1♣, you don't have the same arsenal as if they open 1♠. Not only it's not the same - it's lousy, in comparison. That's reality and should be accepted. Mature players can live with reality...

How much length and shape do you assume for 2 clubs?
Not necessarily 6421, but certainly much more than 4333. Rarely 6-4 or 5-4; usually 6322 (any), or 5332 with concentrated values. With defensive 5332, 1NT is more natural. For example, with ♠K93 ♥J95 ♦K6 ♣109764, I'll bid 1NT. With ♠xx ♥xxx ♦Axx ♣QJ10xx, I'll probably bid 2♣.
I might sometimes even bid 2♣ with ♠xx ♥xxx ♦xxxx ♣AKQJ. But with ♠K93 ♥952 ♦KJ6 ♣8764??? In my niche, it's a gross felony.

We expect 4 cards and modest values for 2c.
Well, IF 1NT promises 4 cards, it's not easy to find a good reason for bidding 2♣ with 4 cards

It seems you assume 1nt promises 4 clubs which I don't think most people do.
I certainly do and I'm shocked by learning that so many people doesn't. But that issue probably demands a separate thread...

You would enforce a 1d call on a hand like KJx KQx xxxx xxx?
In that particular case, I'd bid 1NT with less than four clubs (after 1♣ Dbl; after 1♣ PASS, it's more complicated). But that doesn't change the fact that 1NT promises 4 clubs, if you know what I mean

[hrothgar]

Povratnik, on 2020-May-20, 03:27, said:

How much length and shape do you assume for 2 clubs?
Not necessarily 6421, but certainly much more than 4333. Rarely 6-4 or 5-4; usually 6322 (any), or 5332 with concentrated values. With defensive 5332, 1NT is more natural. For example, with ♠K93 ♥J95 ♦K6 ♣109764, I'll bid 1NT. With ♠xx ♥xxx ♦Axx ♣QJ10xx, I'll probably bid 2♣.
I might sometimes even bid 2♣ with ♠xx ♥xxx ♦xxxx ♣AKQJ. But with ♠K93 ♥952 ♦KJ6 ♣8764??? In my niche, it's a gross felony.

I think that most of use are bidding 3♣ if not 4 with six card support

FWIW, I think that you are conflating a style of bidding that is used during uncontest auctions with the contest auction

Most notably, there are a lot of people for whom the auction 1♣ - (P) - 1N promises club length because the are willing to bid 1♦ with (for example) 3=3=4=3 shape.

I don't thing that this style normally applies after 1♣ - X

For example, I would bid 1NT holding

♠ Kxx
♥ Kxx
♦ Kxxxx
♣ xx

[mycroft]

• Just as a point, Hrothgar's favourite system plays aggressive, potentially 7-card fits as a rule; 1♥ (9-14, 4+ ♠)-p-2♠ is pretty normal on OP East's hand, for instance (I'm sure he will tell me if I'm reading it wrong and he wants more shape). He is both more comfortable and more willing to play bad Moysians than others are (and I am, for that matter). 1♥- (takeout "double")- causes more change to the system than in standard, of course.
  
• I think sfi and others have shown that our partner's expectations are very different to others - even to the point of "I don't think we can have a sensible discussion" on the merits. Yes, if this is a lie to your partner, that will be an issue. I expect partner will support with support in a competitive auction, even if with a pass, they would make a different call. You and your partners don't. That will affect your auctions, as my expectations will affect mine.
  
• There are a number of people here that are saying "but what if opener only has 3, and maybe only 12 high, and the suit splits 5-1? This could go for its life!" Sure - but 1NT is equally scary. Maybe more: after 1♣-X-1NT, fourth hand is *looking for* a penalty; I'd probably double on any 8-count that shows bad breaks. After 1♣-X-2♣, they're more likely to bid a fit when they have one; and also, to penalize, they have to pass and hope partner doubles again (frequently partner doesn't). So, frankly, in my experience, it's just safer to bid 2♣ than 1NT, *even when it's wrong*. Add to that the fact that by bidding 2♣, you are implying "we have a fit, so you have a fit", when bidding 1NT the implication is "we don't have a fit, neither do you" - so it is more likely 1NT will float. Which, if it's a good contract, is a good thing. If not, though...
  
• The discussion convinced me to run the numbers, because I "knew I was right", but anecdote isn't data. Because my version doesn't do double-dummy, I ran it on BBO's servers, and only did 2000 hands to avoid eating too many of their resources. The full dealer script and results are spoilered below, but the short answer:
  
  
  • Clubs: 3: 16%, 4: 29%, 5: *39%*, and the rest is 6+.
    
  • 1NT: -1 21%, -2 or more: 18%.
    
  • 2♣: -1 17%, -2 or more 15%.
  
  So the numbers support my opinion that 1NT is no safer, and possibly riskier, than 2♣ (even not counting the "easier to double NT" bit). I think also that "35-40% going down, in auctions that are likely to be doubled when it is wrong" supports my preferred chicken option (knowing that -80 is just as bad as -50 or -100, and almost as bad as -200). I've ignored the fact that the auction doesn't end, of course, especially when 2♣ (and, to a lesser extent, 1NT) would make.

Dealer script:

Spoiler

predeal east SK93,H952,DKJ6,C8764
produce 2000

west_open = hcp(west) >= 12 and hcp(west) <=20
west_major = spades(west) >=5 or hearts(west) >= 5
west_d = diamonds(west) >= 4 and diamonds(west) >= clubs(west) or shape(west, 4432)
west_nt = hcp(west) >=15 and hcp(west) <= 17 and shape(west, any 4333 + any 4432)

north_big = hcp(north) >= 19
north_nt = hcp(north) >= 16 and hcp(north) <=18 and hcp(north, clubs) >= 3 and shape(north, any 4333 + any 4432)
north_shape = shape(north, xxx2 + xxx1 + 4450 + 4360 + 3460 - 5xxx - x5xx)

condition west_open and (!(west_major) and !(west_nt) and !(west_d)) and ((north_big or north_shape) and !(north_nt))

action
    frequency "Opener's clubs" (clubs(west), 3, 13),
    frequency "Tricks in NT" (tricks(west, notrump), 0, 13),
    frequency "Tricks in clubs" (tricks(west, clubs), 0, 13)

Results:

Spoiler

Frequency Opener's clubs:
    3	     328
    4	     578
    5	     774
    6	     286
    7	      32
    8	       2
    9+	       0

Frequency Tricks in NT:
    0	       2
    1	       2
    2	       8
    3	      16
    4	      87
    5	     249
    6	     423
    7	     478
    8	     337
    9	     235
   10	     120
   11	      36
   12	       7
   13	       0

Frequency Tricks in clubs:
    0	       0
    1	       0
    2	       1
    3	       2
    4	      14
    5	      80
    6	     200
    7	     335
    8	     453
    9	     429
   10	     314
   11	     146
   12	      18
   13	       8

Generated 53408 hands
Produced 2000 hands
Initial random seed 1589996981
Time needed  249.180 sec

As a side note, I also wondered whether my "K/S bias" was affecting my judgment. Similar run, with a 12-14 NT:

• Club length is similar (this one is even more biased to 5+, but that could be the low sample size).
  
• NT: -1: 16%, -2+: 12%.
  
• 2♣: -1: 11%, -2+: *3%* (that could be the bias mentioned above).

No surprise that *anything* is safer here, of course; the danger is that opener's got the balanced minimum, and that hand opened 1NT. But I was surprised how much safer 2♣ was than 1NT in this case.

[smerriman]

hrothgar's BW poll voting makes for interesting viewing.

[hrothgar]

smerriman, on 2020-May-20, 19:29, said:

hrothgar's BW poll voting makes for interesting viewing.

Yeap

2♣ is definitley a minority position

Even so, you have what I consider to be quite strong players voting for each of the various options

[hrothgar]

FWIW

Playing MOSCITO and holding

♠ K93
♥ 952
♦ KJ6
♣ 8764

I would happily raise a 1♥ opening (showing 4+ Spades) to 2♠
However, I suspect that some of my partners would prefer a 1NT response

I would think strongly after a 1♦ opening (showing 4+ Hearts) and probably bid 1NT