Jump to content

Anyone for 1NT opening?


How much is this hand worth?  

41 members have voted

  1. 1. How much is this hand worth?

    • Bad 17
      3
    • 17
      7
    • Good 17
      6
    • Bad 18
      9
    • 18
      14
    • Good 18
      2


Recommended Posts

Mike, of course we all want to reach fewer games when playing MPs. I just think that responder is taking care of this already, and I don't need to adjust my opening bids accordingly. However if you upgrade your opening hands at IMPs more often, he bids game with any 8 points opposite 15-17 NT opening, and you accept all invites because it is IMPs, you might end up playing a little too many 21 hcp 3NT games :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering whether anyone would consider downgrading this to 1NT (15-17) opening:

852

AKQ

654

AKQ2

 

Arend

 

Oops, hand added.

this is a normal 18 to me. The shape isn't great, no tens, but the control is good.

You often make 4H if partner hold 6 hearts and a side suit aces, in which case, you won't bid it if you open 1NT. You have a pretty good chance in 4S as well if partner holds 6 baby spades and a side suit ace. For 3nt, you don't need much as well, all you need is some level of fit in C or H, when in H, you have a block problem, in that case, you want partner to hold magic CJ, side suit A and magic HJ to make 3nt. but your really have a good play in 3nt when partner holds C fit,

like SAKx Hxx Dxxxx Cxxxx, and partner won't move if you open 1NT. So all in all, it's really not an 1nt opener in my opinion. For this hand, it's usually easy to play, either go down early or claim early and everybody like easy hands:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering whether anyone would consider downgrading this to 1NT (15-17) opening:

852

AKQ

654

AKQ2

 

Arend

 

Oops, hand added.

this is a normal 18 to me. The shape isn't great, no tens, but the control is good.

You often make 4H if partner hold 6 hearts and a side suit aces, in which case, you won't bid it if you open 1NT. You have a pretty good chance in 4S as well if partner holds 6 baby spades and a side suit ace. For 3nt, you don't need much as well, all you need is some level of fit in C or H, when in H, you have a block problem, in that case, you want partner to hold magic CJ, side suit A and magic HJ to make 3nt. but your really have a good play in 3nt when partner holds C fit,

like SAKx Hxx Dxxxx Cxxxx, and partner won't move if you open 1NT. So all in all, it's really not an 1nt opener in my opinion. For this hand, it's usually easy to play, either go down early or claim early and everybody like easy hands:)

I am exactly not convinced by your arguments. Your constructions need the magic 6-7 hcp to make 3NT. My partners usually need 8 hcp to hold 6 magic among them.

If partner transfers into hearts, I would feel better if I can systematically superaccept with this hand. But again, you need magic 6 "points" (and game is still not cold due to the almost automatic trump promotion if they lead the right pointed suit).

 

Arend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is too subtle for me, what does it mean that you are exactly not convinced?

That I need to treat this as 18-19. If my partner needs 6 magic hcp, he needs actually 8 hcp, and we get to game after I open 1NT.

 

Edit: Oops, only now I saw my grammar error -- I meant to say "I was not exactly convinced" by the arguments. Which is probably just bad English for "not convinced".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious to know the results of a simulation. However, I would still wonder, should it favor a downgrade, whether it properly values the trick-taking power of the hand.

 

A couple of quacks in the unbid suits in partner's hand is almost enough for game. When I first saw the hand I felt 1 was automatic, but the arguments for downgrading now have me sitting on the fence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I accept that AKQ tight is a "bad" holding and 4333 is a "bad" shape, this is in the context of they "only" provide 3 tricks and the shape cannot supply length tricks. I think that the presence of 2 AKQ for a total of 6 honor tricks and obvious contribution to at least one of pards suits means that overall it is a hand that must not be devalued for any reason......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that AKQ count more than 9 hcp, and 4333 leads to deevaluation, so the 2 issues more or less cancel each other.

 

I think that with the concentration of values in 2 suits only, a case *might* be done to treat is as 2 suiter, opening 1C and reversing in hearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that with the concentration of values in 2 suits only, a case *might* be done to treat is as 2 suiter, opening 1C and reversing in hearts.

Please!

 

Remember that there might be children who read this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that with the concentration of values in 2 suits only, a case *might* be done to treat is as 2 suiter, opening 1C and reversing in hearts.

Please!

 

Remember that there might be children who read this forum.

I do not think children should learn to downgrade specifically this hand to 15-17 1NT :-)

 

Wanna create a censorship committee ? :angry:

 

I think that the type of values (AKQ clustered), no good intermediates, and the 2-suit concentration of honors make the hand suit oriented, if we do find a Moysian, it may well play better than in NT.

Soimetimes we may end in the 33 fit, s**t happens, sometimes we avoid playng NT with the tenaces led through in dummy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I am sure everyone here is subscribed to The Bridge World :) (if you are not, you should) maybe some have recognized the hand. The rebid problem at matchpoints after 1-(1)-X (double promising at least 4 cards in both majors) was given as a MSC problem for this October.

50% of the panel voted for 2 (which is a game force in BWS), but the only convincing point given by its supporters was that partner could be 5-4 in the majors. Instead, almost everyone who seemed to have thought more about the problem and constructed hands for partner voted for 2 or even 1. It looks like game needs a lot (or magic cards). Who am I to judge but to me it seems like the majority got this wrong.

Only one comment mentioned opening the hand 1 NT instead, although it seemed like the most sensible option to me. I see I get at least a substantial minority support here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...