goodwintr

Just a thought: if you win regularly by opening 1NT with 14, and lose occasionally by not opening 1NT with 17, why not try 1NT = 14-17? The wide range can be tolerated if you play something like Keri responses, with a lot of invitational sequences that end at two of a major (not 2NT or above). I've been using 14-17 for a while, but do not play enough bridge to have a real feeling for it, so this is only a suggestion, not something I would defend to the end of the earth. T.L.Goodwin

All I will say is, try the simulation I suggested above. Fix one hand at S-AQJxx H-AJ10 D-AKQxx C--, and let the generator deal the other three hands at random. The claim is simply that it will be very rare indeed that everybody else will pass over a 1S opening bid. [This is not to say I believe you should open 1S -- only that the fear that it will go 1S - P - P - P is largely unwarranted. As I suggested before, there are other more cogent arguments for opening 2C.] TLGoodwin

There are many good arguments for opening 2C on S-AQJxx H-AJ10 D-AKQxx C--, but fear of being dropped in 1S isn't one of them. There is virtually NO chance that this will happen, as you will discover if you generate a bunch of deals with this hand fixed and everything else random. Somebody "always" finds a bid. Churchill (in "Churchill Natural Bidding Style At Contract Bridge") told about a hand he played with Roth in 1941. Roth held S-- H-AKQJx D-AQ10 C-KQ109x, and out of deference to Churchill (who played no strong forcing opening bid) opened one heart. It went P - P - P, and Roth immediately berated Church for not keeping the bidding open when he, Roth, had a game in hand. Church's hand was 109xx xx xxxx xxx, and a forcing defense held declarer to five trump tricks, one club, and one diamond -- making one heart on the nose! The deal actually belonged to the opponents in two spades. (Church said he got no thanks at the for keeping the side low, however. . . .) How did Churchill utilize the 2C opening bid, then? The answer is that he didn't open 2C at all -- or any other two-bid (except 2NT), for that matter. I doubt if THAT part of the style would attract many adherents today! TLGoodwin

This may be a bit off-topic, but: Lukewarm, if you think the hypothetical responding hand is only invitational, not a game drive, opposite a weak notrump, "Keri" handles it better than Stayman. The Keri technique would be to transfer to 2H, then rebid 2S, showing invitational values and both majors, with spades at least as long as hearts. On the hypothetical deal, this would land you in two spades, which looks like a better contract than 2NT. In general, Keri seems to have some advantages over Stayman when responder has invitational strength. TLGoodwin

If you open the bidding on Qxx xx AQxx KJxx, then presumably you drive to game as responder with KJxx AQxx xx Qxx -- proving the validity of the ancient formula, "an opening bid plus an opening bid produces down one." Add a few tens to the hands and game prospects improve markedly; and while I don't claim to know the method, I'd bet the Rubens-Kaplan calculator would make either hand an opening bid if you give it a couple of tens. As has often been said here, one hand (or one pair of hands) doesn't prove anything. I would only suggest that dogmatism is misplaced when it comes to deciding what to do with these marginal cases (and the original problem hand is marginal, in my view). My partnerships would pass the original hand, because we like to have 2 1/2 quick-tricks when we open a balanced 12-count. But we certainly don't claim that we must be right and the openers must be wrong. TLGoodwin

Having said what I just said, I would nevertheless open all three of the hands 1NT (if in range). Each of them has a "must-declare" holding, Kx or Qx, so you should go out of your way to get in the first notrump.

I recall Kaplan saying somewhere that he didn't think he had ever opened 1NT, holding a five-card major suit. That may be extreme -- but still, Kaplan's opinion is surely worthy of some respect, and might (perhaps) cause some of the respondents here to rethink their certainty that it is "always" right to open 1NT. I also recall more than one occasion when opening the five-card major led to game in the major, bid and made, after a single raise from 1M to 2M -- while they opened 1NT at the other table and played it right there. Conclusion? Here, as elsewhere, it doesn't pay to be dogmatic.

OK, so you guys don't like my constructed example hand, or my interpretation of the sequence as "running back to clubs." So, what do you think your partner has? T.L.Goodwin

The first hand looks like a pass to me, regardless of colors. With all due respect to the people who would bid 1D, that seems like bidding to hear yourself bid: balanced hands are defensive, not offensive, and 1D takes away virtually no useful bidding space. It might be different with S - AQxxx and D - KJx, where a 1S overcall would at least wipe out the one-level. In fact, does anyone think Meredith wouldn't have bid 1S with the actual hand? The second hand also looks like a pass to me, for pretty much the same reasons as before. 1S would shut out hearts at the one-level, but that is about the extent of its virtues. I have heard people say they like to have length in opener's suit, because that means advancer will be short there and accordingly long in overcaller's suit. It seems just as likely that it means the deal is a relative misfit, and you will be happier defending. The fact that you have defensive values doesn't suggest that you shouldn't defend, if you see what I mean. T. L. Goodwin

Nobody (so far) has suggested a hand for partner (who responded 1D to your 1C, then bid 3C over your raise to 2D). So I'll propose one: S - Kxx H - xxx D - Kxx C - 9xxx. He responded to 1C in case you had a moose (and also because he didn't want to give the opponents a free run). He didn't raise clubs because no club raise seemed appropriate. He didn't bid 1NT because he didn't want to wrong-side that contract, and because he thought he was a little weak for that bid. (Maybe he is one of those people who believe 1C-1NT shows 8-10.) So he bid a squirrelly 1D, thinking the bidding wouldn't get out of hand. (1C-1D-2D is something of a rarity, after all.) Now he is just taking a preference back to clubs, where he knows you have real length. (He assumes you would have opened 1D with 4-4 in the minors, or that you would have rebid 1NT instead of 2D.) So, pass 3C, unless you want to bid 4C or 5C as a sacrifice. T.L.Goodwin

There is a definition of "expert" in the Encyclopedia of Bridge (at least there is in the latest edition I have, which is 1984). I goes, EXPERT. A player of conceded skill. The caliber of the player accorded this title will vary with the circles in which he regularly plays; expertise cannot be measured by masterpoints or in any other mechanical way, such as by having won one tournament or even by having played in international competition. The title of expert will probably be recognized as valid only when it has been awarded by a verdict of the expert's peers. It is, however, loosely used to characterize anyone who plays better than the usual level of the game in which the player plays. I guess that means you are an expert if your fellow competitors think you are an expert -- which might not be a very helpful definition. Still, it does have the merit of eliminating "self-styled experts" from the category, since the title would have to be awarded by others, not by oneself. T.L.Goodwin

It isn't unreasonable to require people who use "unexpected" methods (in context of the specific event) to provide some guidance to the opponents by way of a suggested defense. This doesn't have to be (perhaps shouldn't be) elaborate or "best," but just a suggestion to facilitate their (short) discussion. For example, suppose you play that a 1C opening bid shows four spades -- that was part of La Majeure D'Abord, a system that is bound to be unfamiliar to most people. The opponents need to know what it means when they double 1C, and they need to know what it means when they bid 1S (or 2S) over 1C. I'd play the spade bids as natural, and the double as takeout of spades, and I'd tell them that and let them make up their own minds. If they don't want to be bothered "until it happens," then why isn't it reasonable (and reasonably fair) to provide them with a "suggested defense" (no more elaborate than the one suggested above) that they can use as a default option?

I was one of several kibitzers when Free bid and made six hearts, and I confess that as I was watching, I was wondering just why he was getting the trumps right. When he explained to Richard that "it was obvious that trumps were 4-1," I was still wondering. NOW I get it: the Rule of Symmetry! I am reminded of the time, several years ago, when a good friend of mine won the finals of a Regional Knockout by "guessing" successfully to take an anti-percentage finesse for the queen of trumps in a grand slam. When the opponents asked him how he had managed to get that right, he explained with a straight face that, "The queen lies over the jack." I'm told he won a lot of IMPs with the finesse, and a lot more with the remark. . . . TLGoodwin

The multi defense proposed in this thread (double with a good hand and a major suit, overcall 2H with a sound club overcall, overcall 2S with a sound diamond overcall, 3m overcall not as sound as the 2M version, etc.) has appeared in print -- Granovetters, Bridge Additions 96. Since we don't get much practice against multi in ACBL-land, I don't have much of a handle on the actual effectiveness of the defense. TLGoodwin