Close call

[mikeh]

Can a 1N opening ever insist on game opposite a simple transfer?

Sure.

 

♠KQ10xx ♥xx ♦AK109 ♣Ax, if you would open 1NT.

 

♠A109x ♥xx ♦AKJ10x ♣Ax

 

Stuff like that.

 

If a hand does not exist where one would force game, then Responder has no problem.

Anyone who opens 1N 15-17 with either of these hands is an idiot.... note that the OP stated that partner was a good player... not an idiot :)

[kenrexford]

That is, unless Opener really should not have opened 1NT.

(...)

BTW -- I like a one-under super-accept to show THAT hand, actually.

Wow you have bids in your system that say "sorry dude I misbid" ?

Well, bids that say, "Sorry, pard, I took a wild ass position."

 

Anyone who opens 1N 15-17 with either of these hands is an idiot.... note that the OP stated that partner was a good player... not an idiot

 

True. That would be an idiot opening, either one. However, good players sometimes make idiot decisions. If a good player makes an idiot decision early on, it is on him to correct that later.

[han]

It's been a while. I think I passed at the table and there were exactly 9 tricks.

[mcphee]

Pass at pairs, game at imps sure looks sensible to me.

[OleBerg]

I pass too, although it helps to know what kind of super accepts you play. If pard had a doubleton heart, I might want to go on.

 

This is the kind of game where you might make if pard isn't too strong in spades. ♠AKQx is very bad.

You need seven covers. A doubleton can provide one, meaning that you now need six. Ace-fourth in trumps probably is two covers also, so now you need four additional covers. A trick source might provide some additional covers somewhere as well.

 

But, won't partner insist with that massive of a hand? I mean, if partner can look at his hand and realize that he has seven potential covers opposite a flat 5332, shouldn't he re-assess and bid something like 3NT or 4♠ as his "super-acceptance?" Or, make up a super-acceptance below 3♠ planning to accept any whisper bid at all?

Can a 1N opening ever insist on game opposite a simple transfer?

If I had somehow agreed to always open 1nt with 5-card majors without good interiors, and held:

 

♠AQ10

♥65432

♦AK10

♣Ax

 

I just might do it at red, Imps.

[ArtK78]

The title of this thread is "Close call." I used to play with a very nice lady by the name of Pat Close. She was a sound player for the most part, but every so often she would make a bid or take an action that was more than a little out there - for example, and in keeping with the discussion in this thread, bidding game over a 2 level transfer after a 1NT opening (1NT - 2♦ - 4♥).

 

I used to refer to these as "Close calls."

[Finch]

If I had somehow agreed to always open 1nt with 5-card majors without good interiors, and held:

 

♠AQ10

♥65432

♦AK10

♣Ax

 

I just might do it at red, Imps.

That's still not a1NT opening unless playing 16-18

[OleBerg]

If I had somehow agreed to always open 1nt with 5-card majors without good interiors, and held:

 

♠AQ10

♥65432

♦AK10

♣Ax

 

I just might do it at red, Imps.

That's still not a1NT opening unless playing 16-18

You're probably right. (I've been playing 12-14 for 20 years.)

 

Still, if I had accepted to open 1nt with a 5-card major, I might also have accepted to adhere strictly to my nt-range.

[Rossoneri]

I might probably pass, but would be somewhat tempted to try 3N.