[jillybean]

---

MP

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2025-May-19, 08:34, said:

---

MP

1♥

perhaps 2♦, but today 1♥

(don't have strong objections to pass)

[jillybean]

hrothgar, on 2025-May-19, 08:38, said:

1♥

perhaps 2♦, but today 1♥

(don't have strong objections to pass)

it's the n/b forum, please elaborate

[Huibertus]

1NT, take out the 1♥/1♠ bid of either opponent Then hope partner bids a very aggressive 3♦ for you to pass on, and you've probably stolen the part score. Not enough strength for 2♣ not enough ♦ to support ♦. Psyching 1♥/♠ as someone seems to (jokingly?) suggest could see partner simply raising it to 4. Pass is an option, but you need to be sure of your partnerships upper limit for a 1 opening.

[jillybean]

Huibertus, on 2025-May-19, 08:58, said:

1NT, take out the 1♥/1♠ bid of either opponent Then hope partner bids a very aggressive 3♦ for you to pass on, and you've probably stolen the part score. Not enough strength for 2♣ not enough ♦ to support ♦. Psyching 1♥/♠ as someone seems to (jokingly?) suggest could see partner simply raising it to 4.

1♥ is not a psych

[hrothgar]

Huibertus, on 2025-May-19, 08:58, said:

1NT, take out the 1♥/1♠ bid of either opponent Then hope partner bids a very aggressive 3♦ for you to pass on, and you've probably stolen the part score. Not enough strength for 2♣ not enough ♦ to support ♦. Psyching 1♥/♠ as someone seems to (jokingly?) suggest could see partner simply raising it to 4. Pass is an option, but you need to be sure of your partnerships upper limit for a 1 opening.

1♥ is not intended as a psych. I think that its a good description of the hand.
I'd consider the bid absolutely clear cut if the red suit holdings were reversed.

If partner raises to three or even four hearts, I expect this to have good play.

To me, at least, 1NT promises real values. It's one of the bids that I would never consider.
I think that pass is much better.

I also think that 2♦ is more than reasonable. Partner rates to have four hearts.

Please note, my club length is the main reason that I am not bidding 2♦.
My club length increases the chance that partner holds the dread 4=4=3=2 pattern.

Even so, I don't consider 2♦ at all unreasonable.

[DavidKok]

1NT, with pass being a worse second option. I've already been accused of masterminding so I'll refrain from showing 4(+)♥ with 1♥ or 10-11 HCP with 2♦. Most people also require four diamonds to raise, especially if 1♦ is regularly only 4 cards.

Your 1♦ style matters here, as does your 2♣ style with primary diamonds.

As a bonus, 1NT promises (for some people 'promises') 4(+)♣ and commonly denies four diamonds. Partner should be in a good position to decide what to do.

Not N/B:

Spoiler

You can play that 1♦-1NT; 2♣ shows 3(+) clubs unbal and still never miss your minor suit fit. Such a fun and completely natural 'gadget'! And useful too for those misfit minimum reverse 5431's.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-19, 09:50, said:

As a bonus, 1NT promises (for some people 'promises') 4(+)♣ and commonly denies four diamonds. Partner should be in a good position to decide what to do.

It does for me 4/5♣. With 6 I bid them.

[mike777]

1NT

strangely the bid so seldom comes up, I would think it would more often since I play it as such a wide range.

[jillybean]

I prefer 1nt to pass, but with xx, Jxx in the majors, I'm far more comfortable with 1H
Where are the spades, and the rest of the hearts?

[AL78]

I play in Acol weak NT land so 1NT 6-9 HCP denies 4CM.

[AL78]

I play in Acol weak NT land so 1NT 6-9 HCP denies 4CM.

[thepossum]

My first inclination was pass
Chance that South will bid and see what happens next

I have had a worse 1 diamond hand