Matters Of Evaluation

[Finch]

A 2NT opening shows the old-fashioned 20-22 HCP (NOT 20-21)

 

Assume your methods on the first two are such that whether the auction starts 1S - 1NT or you open 2NT, you can find and 8-card (or better) fit in either major*

 

You are playing with a long-time partner that you trust (i.e. there is no reason to mastermind, or to hog the declarership other than for positional reasons). This is purely a question of evaluation.

 

1.

[hv=d=y&s=sak1063ha10dqj10ckq9]133|100|[/hv]

 

2.

[hv=d=y&s=sak1063ha10dqj10ckq9]133|100|[/hv]

 

3.

[hv=d=y&s=sak1063ha10dqj10ckq9]133|100|[/hv]

 

Does your view change if partner is/isn't a passed hand (depending on the deal)?

 

Does the vulnerability or form of scoring matter? If it does, assume all are IMPs, the first is love all, the second is game all, the third is love all.

 

[*a bit more on methods if you think this is relevant:

- Finding 5m will be easier if you open 1S and partner has enough to respond

- If you open 2NT you will be declarer in NT or either major, partner will declare a minor

- If you open 1S, partner will declare hearts or (nearly always) NT, you will declare spades or clubs.]

[brianshark]

The first hand is the closest to being worth a 2NT opening. And I think I would, just to show the playing strength.

 

The second is not as strong a hand as hand 1 but certainly wants to declare so I might chance 2NT anyway.

 

The 3rd hand just isn't good enough for 2NT and is fairly lead-neutral so I open that 1♣.

[paulg]

I'd upgrade the first hand to 2NT as it looks like a 20 count to me.

 

I'd upgrade the second hand to 2NT as I don't want the lead through this hand in notrump.

 

I'd would not upgrade the third hand, but would prefer to be playing 5-card majors and open 1♣ with the intention of rebidding 2NT over 1♦/♥.

 

Paul

[benlessard]

Ill upgrade only the first hand & we play sound responses (i have no problem passing a 3334 with AJ. What i don't understand is those who frequently upgrade for 2Nt openings AND have weakish responses.

[helene_t]

I won't upgrade any of them but might open 2. 2NT to right-side the contract.

[hotShot]

The only hand that I would consider to upgrade is hand 1.

[Gerben42]

I voted for #1 and #2. Both contain a good 5-card suit and ♣AQ in the 2nd one is not really worth a downgrade like ♣KQ or so.

[kenrexford]

I originally clicked "all" because I did not read the question carefully. I switch to "none." If you play "20-22," then some 20's probably should not be opened 2NT. It is a matter of stated range.

 

That said, who plays 20-22 any more? Whatever.

[skjaeran]

1. and 2. are clear upgrades in my opinion.

I've never played the 20-22 range (I'm used to 20-21), but that wouldn't affect my evaluation of the hands.

[gwnn]

Just wondering here, what will pd generally force to game on? like a King and a little shape? Or a little shape? If we open almost all 20-22 hands 2NT, isn't including sexy 19 counts overloading it?

 

Signed,

     Walter the Walrus :)

[mikeh]

I'd open 1 with 2N, and would consider it normal valuation rather than an upgrade, altho I may be guilty of indulging in semantics. I can't see how any rational valuation scheme can place this hand below 20 hcp.

 

 

2 ...is close, but I wouldn't upgrade... not enough spot cards.

 

 

3 ... I'd never upgrade.

[inquiry]

1. i would surely open 2NT

 

2. I would open 2NT if partner was a passed hand

 

3. I would not open 2NT.

[Guest Jlall]

1) yes

2) no

3) no

[dake50]

Only #2 persuades me to lie 1 point as I gain on lead in every suit.

#1 seems no problem to 1S. Pard in 3N okay.

#3 no problem to 1C. Again no lead value.

[pclayton]

1. and 2. are clear upgrades in my opinion.

I've never played the 20-22 range (I'm used to 20-21), but that wouldn't affect my evaluation of the hands.

Ditto.

 

I think AKJxx more than makes up for AQ dub on 2.

[han]

1) yes

2) no

3) no

Ditto, I thought this was an easy question.

[pclayton]

1) yes

2) no

3) no

Ditto, I thought this was an easy question.

Since A, B and C are roughly split 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, I think this is anything but universal.

[han]

I have often seen easy questions that a majority gets wrong, nothing new Phil. :)

[Apollo81]

I would upgrade #1 and hog the declarership on #2 for positional reasons.

[awm]

I agree with Noble. The first one is "really worth" a 2NT bid. The other two aren't, but hand number two has enough positional values that it might be right to open 2NT in any case so as to right-side the contract. Hand three is not close to 2NT in my opinion.

[ochinko]

1) always

2) most of the times

3) some times

[Finch]

I don't know if there is any interest in what happens on these hands, personally I was just interested in the results of the poll.

 

Hand 1 you will play in 4H if you open 2NT, partner will play 4H if you open 1S. It doesn't matter which way up you play it.

 

Hand 2 you will play in 1S making 6 or 7 tricks if you open 1S, and 3NT making 6 or 7 tricks if you open 2NT.

 

Hand 3 you should play in 4S+1 whetever you open, and again it doesn't matter which way up (in fact the final declarer will depend on your exact methods).

 

Interestingly, one US WC player canvassed separately opened 1S, 1S and 2NT (i.e. 3 only). But we weren't certain he appreciated that your methods could still find all the 5-3 major suit fits after a 2NT opening.

 

I did a simulation on hand 2 (the one which generated most debate at the table). The conclusion from the simulation was that

- it is not 'worth' opening a 20-22 2NT in that you will not miss a game opening 1S that you would otherwise reach.

- on the same basis, you shouldn't open 2NT opposite a non-passed hand, there is too high a risk of getting too high.

- I didn't believe that the positional advantage from opening 2NT outweighed the cost of going off in 2NT/3NT. My partner (who opened 2NT) looked at the same simulation results and claimed that it did. So we'll leave that one as unproven.