[zasanya]

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding went 1♣-(P)-1♥-3♦

I was playing tm with unknown intermediate as my P;and unknown experts as my ops.I opened 1♣ sayc and faced a problem on 3♦.
Q.1 Would you have opened 1NT?
Q.2 What would you do in this situation?

[gwnn]

I would never have opened 1NT, 1♣ is just fine. I might overbid to 3♠ if pd bids spades.

Now I double (I don't like support doubles over 2M).

[Walddk]

Among experts I would think double stands out a mile. I am not so sure I would risk that playing with an "unkown intermediate". I think I would overbid a little with 3♠.

And no, this is not a 1NT opening because you don't have a rebid problem if RHO passes.

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Q1: 1 NT is an option, but 1C is better,
especially if you play with an unknown guy
Q2: X, what ever partner does, it should work
out ok, X is card showing, but he may take
it as t/o or penalty

With kind regards
Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

Walddk, on Sep 18 2007, 10:01 AM, said:

this is not a 1NT opening because you don't have a rebid problem if RHO passes.

I don't think that any hand can be disqualified from opening 1NT on the sole grounds that an alternative sequence provides no rebid problems. If there ARE rebid problems, then I agree that it strengthens the case for opening 1NT. But if there are no rebid problems it does not necessarily disqualify the 1NT opener.

Indeed, some months back I opened 1NT on precisely that shape, at the time playing 12-14 1NT. An excellent result ensued when the opponents were preempted out of bidding their Heart fit (where a 1H overcall could have been expected over a 1C opener). Opponents objected to the 1NT opener on the grounds that I had no rebid problem were I to open 1C. I countered with the objection that 1C opener is less pre-emptive than 1NT (as the hand subject to the complaint exemplified).

That example does not precisely translate to the current circumstances, I agree, because a strong 1NT opener is not designed for pre-emptive effect, where the weak 1NT is. I am unconvinced that this distinction is relevant to the point of principle: whether there is any range of 1NT opener for which you should be disqualified from making the bid if there are alternative routes without rebid problem.

There are, I suspect, some players who would open 1C rather than 1NT with (say) 4-2-3-4 shape, intending to rebid 1S, despite being in range for 1NT. I might personally disagree with that philosophy, even though I would not expect the partnership to come totally unstuck on a significant number of hands where both members of the partnership are in synch.

Arguably you do indeed have a rebid problem in certain contested auctions. Arguably you might feel more comfortable after 1N (4H) P P ?? than after 1C (4H) P P ?? If you do not, then that may just be a bad example sequence rather than disproof of principle.

Assuming the range of 1NT is 15-17 then I probably would disagree with a 1NT opener on this hand on the grounds that despite the high card points being in range I think that the playing strength of the hand slightly tops partner's expectation.

[Codo]

Jack,

I really dislike your argument in the b/I forum. I had disliked them in the A/E forum too, but here there may be freshmen who read and even believe your words.

You are of course right that opening 1 NT is not just too avoid rebid problems. But one reason to open an offshape NT is the rebid problem. Another oneis the honour location, but this is a different story.

Your example prooves nothing:
1. You cannot compare a situation in a strong NT context with a weak NT hand.
2. Of course off shape NTs work sometimes. But I doubt that you should advertise this approach, because the losses will be much higher as long as you don´t know when their is the right moment for an offshape NT bid.

And your idea about opening 4234 hands in your NT range with 1 Club isn´t valid either. Of course you can come away -or even win- SOME hands with a bad approach. But you will reach the goal to win MANY hands with better bidding methods quite often, so this idea is useless.

[jtfanclub]

zasanya, on Sep 18 2007, 02:46 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding went 1♣-(P)-1♥-3♦

I was playing tm with unknown intermediate as my P;and unknown experts as my ops.I opened 1♣ sayc and faced a problem on 3♦.
Q.1 Would you have opened 1NT?
Q.2 What would you do in this situation?

I'd bid 3♠, in for a penny....

I think the hand is just >< too strong for a 1NT bid. I am 5422, and I have honors in every suit, which is good, and I have a tenace I need to protect, which is good, but I don't think 1NT accurately describes the playing strength of the hand. Change the clubs to AKxxx and I'd open 1NT.

I might open 1NT anyways if we're not playing true garbage stayman, so I can respond 3♠ to Stayman.

[FrancesHinden]

Q1. No, I would not open 1NT because
i) it is the wrong shape
ii) it is too strong

Q2. Assuming I am happy partner would understand, I would double 3D for take-out.

[han]

Agree with Roland.

[skjaeran]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 18 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

Q1. No, I would not open 1NT because
i) it is the wrong shape
ii) it is too strong

Q2. Assuming I am happy partner would understand, I would double 3D for take-out.

Agree.

[mikeh]

skaeran, on Sep 18 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Sep 18 2007, 06:02 PM, said:

Q1. No, I would not open 1NT because
i) it is the wrong shape
ii) it is too strong

Q2. Assuming I am happy partner would understand, I would double 3D for take-out.

Agree.

agree

On a slightly related note, I was kib'ing a home team game (we had 5 players on our team) and was watching Alan Graves, a Grand LM, and occasional member of the BW MasterSolvers panel. He held a 15 count 4=2=4=3, with concentrated values in the pointed suits, and chose 1♦ rather than what I considered to be an automatic, but flawed, 1N... KQxx Jx AKJx Jxx.

We spoke later, and he said that he liked 1♦ because:

1. He expected few rebid problems if the hand belonged to his side

2. He wanted a diamond lead if the hand belonged to the opps

3. He down-graded the hand due to the Jacks holdings, especially the rounded suits.

I suspect, but did not ask, that he would have bid 1N at mps.

[han]

Mikeh, it would have been really funny if you had given the 1D opening without telling that it was Alan Graves who bid it. I bet many posters (including myself) would have used strong words to express their disgust with this choice.

[pclayton]

Hannie, on Sep 18 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

Mikeh, it would have been really funny if you had given the 1D opening without telling that it was Alan Graves who bid it. I bet many posters (including myself) would have used strong words to express their disgust with this choice.

You wouldn't get them from me. Every few weeks I pick a balanced 15-17 that I choose not to open 1N on because:

1. I have a concentration of values between two suits (especially ♦/♠)
2. I have two four card majors and am a dead minimum
3. I have a very strong 4 card major and a maximum
4. I have an aceless 15
5. I have a great 17 with a good 5 card suit
6. I have a 5332 with a 5 card major and a weak doubleton

Other factors include a lack of tenaces and whether or not I anticipate a rebid problem.

I hate to put opening bids into a little box, like "Balanced 15-17? 1N". If my judgement says to open with 1 of a suit, then I will allow myself this.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Sep 18 2007, 12:32 PM, said:

chose 1♦ rather than what I considered to be an automatic, but flawed, 1N... KQxx Jx AKJx Jxx.

We spoke later, and he said that he liked 1♦ because:

1. He expected few rebid problems if the hand belonged to his side

What was he planning to bid if his partner had said 1♠?

In My Humble Opinion, and trust me, I'm no Grand Life Master, SA already suffers from putting a gigantic range of hands into 1 of a minor, from a 4-3-3-3 12 count to a 6-4-2-1 22 count. If he considers this a 14 count, great, bid it like it's a 14 count. But throwing in even MORE hands into 1 of a minor just makes for more problems later, when on some normal hand his partner is tying to figure out what he has.

[1eyedjack]

Codo, on Sep 18 2007, 12:29 PM, said:

Jack,

I really dislike your argument in the b/I forum. I had disliked them in the A/E forum too, but here there may be freshmen who read and even believe your words.

I am sure that all the beginners who read this thread must be so relieved to have such a diligent self-appointed guardian overseeing their interests.

I am undecided whether your dislike of my post is founded on a belief that it is inappropriate to the B/I audience or that the argument is flawed. I suspect both, and I suspect that your opinion on the latter drives your opinion on the former. That being the case I am content to live with that dislike, because I am unpersuaded by your premise and regard the conclusion consequently suspect. I confess that I had not considered the target audience when responding. I simply responded to a post on which I held an opinion. The response automatically went to the same forum as the originator. I probably should have thought harder about that issue.

It is apparent to me that you did not read my post particularly carefully. You make out that I advocated opening 1C on 4-2-3-4 when in fact I advocated the opposite (notwithstanding Mikeh's subsequent anecdote). You repeated a point that I already acknowledged in my original post (that there are differences between a weak and a strong 1N opener).

In fact, in a purely constructive sense (ie disregarding pre-emptive effect) I think that you have more of a rebid problem when playing a strong 1N than weak, although opener's rebid problem is deferred until his second rebid. Playing a weak 1N if it goes (uncontested) 1C-1H;1S-1N then opener has a clear pass on hands when he might have considered opening 1N, being in range. Playing a strong 1N, and holding a correspondingly stronger hand, after the same auction opener may be in doubt about whether to make another try, when opening 1N eliminates that (particular) problem. I think that the hand in the original post is clearly worth another try, hence my opinion with the rest of the forum, as I have already stated, that the hand is not appropriate to open 1N.

As regards educating beginners, there are two generalisations that I have observed (and of course there are individual exceptions):
Generalisation 1: Beginners dislike opening 1N (or playing in NT), tend to look for excuses not to open 1N, and absolutely would never open an "off-shape" 1N, having half an excuse not to do so.
Generalisation 2: Beginners view what you regard as off-shape as being either illegal or being much more deeply flawed on merit than practical results justify. Consequently they are unduly surprised and upset when they encounter it at the table, quite possibly perpetrated by an opponent rather than partner.
If my post does something to restore balance in this area then it would not be a bad result, in my opinion.

As regards what is "off-shape", that is an arbitrary cut-off that is open to any partnership to define. An off-shape 1N is one that is outside the parameters of partner's expectations. But partner's expectations may be subject to prior agreement, and it is a prejudicial term that implies unacceptability in an objective sense.

Players learn the game by a variety of ways, and not all players find the same approach to learning is best for them. When I was learning I found it useful to try out different methods on the fringe of acceptability, seeing how often they worked and why they failed when they did. So I am not particularly in favour of a dogmatic protectionist approach.

I begin to think that having a "B/I" section in these forums is a bad idea. There are few ideas in the game that have merit which are too difficult at least for an intermediate player to appreciate. There are some, but they tend to be blindingly obvious and would be overlooked by such players without wasting too much time. Virtually every time I see criticism of a posting in this section the critic complains that it is inappropriate to an absolute beginner, wilfully disregarding that the forum is also aimed at any intermediate player below "advanced" status.

[helene_t]

For me this shape is equally suited for a 1♣ and 1NT opening and I will let it depend on honor locations. But I think this hand is slightly too strong for 1NT. So 1♣.

Now dbl if p can be relied upon to understand that. Otherwise 3♠. Since I considered the hand too strong for a 1NT opening it's not an overbid.

[zasanya]

Thank you all for your replies.Just to complete the story P had

---

I dbld.P passed.RHO had 6 card ♦ suit.3♦ x made on our table.
On the other table my teammate with 6 card ♦ bid 2♦. N/S found their ♠ fit.Teammates rightly sacrificed.5 ♦ x was -2.
Moral of the story :Make a bid that P would understand .

[gwnn]

Morale of the story: don't pass partner's takeout doubles holding nuthin.

[Walddk]

zasanya, on Sep 19 2007, 09:01 AM, said:

Thank you all for your replies.Just to complete the story P had

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ Qxxx ♥ Qxxx ♦ x ♣ Qxxx

I dbld.P passed.RHO had 6 card ♦ suit.3♦ x made on our table.
On the other table my teammate with 6 card ♦ bid 2♦. N/S found their ♠ fit.Teammates rightly sacrificed.5 ♦ x was -2.
Moral of the story :Make a bid that P would understand .

>>Rant<<

The real problem is that most intermediates don't know when a double is for penalties and when it's for take-out. It's a difficult area even for more advanced players. Experts in regular partnerships have clear agreements.

For years I have encouraged intermediate players to focus on the basics, and yet we see that all they (the majority sadly) are interested in is to add convention upon convention, crying for more space in their profiles.

They would be better off if they play nothing but Stayman and Blackwood. If you are determined and have flair, you will get far if the basics are routine stuff. Forget about fancy conventions. Either you forget them, use them when you should not, and don't use them when you should.

>>Rant over<<

Roland