toothbrush Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 May be it is because I'm used to play dutch acol, but I would open this 1♣. I'm unable to find any rebidding problems (strong enough to reverse). Finding a minor game (without control ♠) or a minor slam seems much easier to me after opening 1♣. If my partner would often open these hands with 1NT, I would think that he tries to avoid letting me play. If you have agreed that these hands are opened, I have no problem with it if you alert that it may be 5422. I agree that it is a style issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 The hand is not even nearly strong enough for a reverse. HCP isn't everything (and 16 with a lost Q is still poor), and this loser-hand proves it again. If it would be strong enough for a reverse, I don't think anyone would open 1NT since this hand is about avoiding the biggest lie. Reversing is one of the worst lies imo, but I guess you are 'covered' by the very accurate HCP count... :ph34r: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted June 12, 2006 Report Share Posted June 12, 2006 In the SAYC/2 over 1 context the problem is presented in, 1NT seems clear to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Some people even think a 5M332 distribution is not balanced. But give them a 5m332 and they think it is (do you get the logic?)... :P Yes, I get the logic.When you have a 5-card major, the chance that you want to play in your major suit fit is much greater than the chance you want to play in your minor-suit fit when you have a 5-card minor. I'll explain why as well, if you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted June 13, 2006 Report Share Posted June 13, 2006 Some people even think a 5M332 distribution is not balanced. But give them a 5m332 and they think it is (do you get the logic?)... :P Yes, I get the logic.When you have a 5-card major, the chance that you want to play in your major suit fit is much greater than the chance you want to play in your minor-suit fit when you have a 5-card minor. I'll explain why as well, if you like. No need to explain why, since apparently you don't get the logic as well. The main distribution is the same, yet 5m332 get a label 'balanced' but 5M332 does not. Has nothing to do with the method, the advantages,... It's about 'what is balanced and what is not'. 5332 seems not always to be balanced, there's no logic in that. Not opening 5M332's with 1NT (and why) has some logic, but this is completely irrelevant in this matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfgauss Posted June 14, 2006 Report Share Posted June 14, 2006 Some people even think a 5M332 distribution is not balanced. But give them a 5m332 and they think it is (do you get the logic?)... :D Yes, I get the logic.When you have a 5-card major, the chance that you want to play in your major suit fit is much greater than the chance you want to play in your minor-suit fit when you have a 5-card minor. I'll explain why as well, if you like. No need to explain why, since apparently you don't get the logic as well. The main distribution is the same, yet 5m332 get a label 'balanced' but 5M332 does not. Has nothing to do with the method, the advantages,... It's about 'what is balanced and what is not'. 5332 seems not always to be balanced, there's no logic in that. Not opening 5M332's with 1NT (and why) has some logic, but this is completely irrelevant in this matter. This appears to be a silly point about semantics. Certainly one could define a term which depended on the ordered distribution as opposed to the unordered distribution. There's even some bridge logic why you'd want such a term to exist. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limey_p Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 I like to play garbage stayman - responder can take out with a weak hand with 4-4 in the majors. So a hand like this without a 3-card major shouldn't open 1NT. I am a 1♣ opener. 1NT is more attractive if opening in fourth seat, since pard is less likley to need to run to a major. AP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchiu Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 1NT. WTP? Sure, you occasionally run into trouble with Garbage Stayman, but this is a matter of freqency. No other bid has a smaller frequency of substantial detriments (like partner floating 2♣ when you are in fact cold for 3N, or carrying to 3N when you can't make much, or giving a detrimental false preference). Playing two-way garbage stayman (see post in another thread) where partner is encouraged to pass 2♦ with four diamonds, or (43)=4=2 shape, this problem becomes even less noticable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Some people even think a 5M332 distribution is not balanced. But give them a 5m332 and they think it is (do you get the logic?)... :) Yes, I get the logic.When you have a 5-card major, the chance that you want to play in your major suit fit is much greater than the chance you want to play in your minor-suit fit when you have a 5-card minor. I'll explain why as well, if you like. No need to explain why, since apparently you don't get the logic as well. The main distribution is the same, yet 5m332 get a label 'balanced' but 5M332 does not. Has nothing to do with the method, the advantages,... It's about 'what is balanced and what is not'. 5332 seems not always to be balanced, there's no logic in that. Not opening 5M332's with 1NT (and why) has some logic, but this is completely irrelevant in this matter. While you are talking about language, Frances is talking about bridge. I find the latter more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 While you are talking about language, Frances is talking about bridge. I find the latter more interesting. Guess what, you're talking about your personal interests - boooooooring - while I'm still talking about 'bridge language'... If people misinterprete one little part of my previous on topic post, then I think I have a right to defend myself. In the context of people saying what's balanced and what's not, this was bloody relevant. Any response to a retorical question is a pure waste of time, as is any continuation in this ridiculous debate. Get a life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Once again, I wonder why we must open 1NT on this type of offshape hand. That Q-x of spades isn't carrying full weight. Furthermore I want to TABLE this hand, not declare it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Interesting hand... I consider this hand right on the cusp between a 1♦ opening (intending to rebid 2♣ over 1m) and a 1NT opening. I'd probably upgrade the hand to 1NT, however, I don't have a strong objection to a 1♦ opening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_c Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Interesting hand... I consider this hand right on the cusp between a 1♦ opening (intending to rebid 2♣ over 1m) and a 1NT opening. I'd probably upgrade the hand to 1NT, however, I don't have a strong objection to a 1♦ opening.Upgrade? Are you looking at the same hand? The hand given in this thread is ♠Q4 ♥A9 ♦KT87 ♣AK943 which is plenty strong enough for a 1NT opening. Maybe you are referring to the hand in Helene's thread, ♠Ax ♥xx ♦Axxxx ♣AQxx ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Interesting hand... I consider this hand right on the cusp between a 1♦ opening (intending to rebid 2♣ over 1m) and a 1NT opening. I'd probably upgrade the hand to 1NT, however, I don't have a strong objection to a 1♦ opening.Upgrade? Are you looking at the same hand? The hand given in this thread is ♠Q4 ♥A9 ♦KT87 ♣AK943 which is plenty strong enough for a 1NT opening. Maybe you are referring to the hand in Helene's thread, ♠Ax ♥xx ♦Axxxx ♣AQxx ? Thanks for the catch... You're completely correct. I confused the two hands.WAY too many threads floating arround in my head right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 I think there is much to be said for opening 1N with 5422 shape when the 4 card suit is red and the 5 card suit is lower ranking. The reason has less to do with whether or not 5422 falls within a definition of balanced than it has to do with my aversion to rebidding a 5 card suit if it can be avoided (ie after 1S response) when a 1N rebid would mis-state the strength of the hand. Whether it might also be tactically beneficial to open 1NT on other 5422 hands is another matter. The argument is perhaps less compelling, but it may be on balance the more compelling option even so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.