weak NT?

[1eyedjack]

My first inclination was to open 1NT, and I guess I would still do that at the table. Is there not some principle about values increasing in strength when they complement each other in the suit? I would rate the ♥T to be worth more than the average T, and the ♦J to be worth a Q. I might even assign some positive value to the ♦98 although I am not convinced it is necessary to justify the opener. Sure I can see hands where it could backfire, notably when responder has a balanced game try.

 

2♠ seems like a worse error, although I think the comment "bid what you can make opposite a 6 count" may be a bit tongue in cheak. Most 6 counts will not have the ♣Q or an Ace, let alone both. West could have a 12 count (KQJ in each red) and still not be able to make more than 8 tricks). Even so, let's get practical: 8 semi-solid is never squalid.

[inquiry]

2♠ seems like a worse error, although I think the comment "bid what you can make opposite a 6 count" may be a bit tongue in cheak. Most 6 counts will not have the ♣Q or an Ace, let alone both. West could have a 12 count (KQJ in each red) and still not be able to make more than 8 tricks). Even so, let's get practical: 8 semi-solid is never squalid.

I agree 2♠ is not a good bid. If you are quoting me with "bid what you can make opposite a 6 count" you are terribily misquoting me. I didn't say bid 4♠ because you an make opposite 6 pts, I said don't bid 2♠ because you could make game opposite just 6 points, and even wiht fit, opposite as few as 4 points. I then suggested my bid would be 1♠, but that I didn't object to 4♠.

[JRG]

Here's a hand that Free and I got wrong yesterday.

We were playing MOSCITO, where a first/second seat NT promises 11+ - 14 HCP.

 

I passed in first seat holding

 

A82

QT7

QJ98

Q83

 

To me, the hand looks much too weak to consider opening.

 

My question is the following: How do folks value NT opening bids?

I typically use my own judgement, which is reasonably close to Kaplan / Rubens adjusted point count.

 

I know that others consider HCP good predictors for NT openings.

 

thoughts? Comments?

For what it is worth, your hand and question reminded me of a couple of articles I've read (I don't remember if they were in the Bridge World or ACBL Bulletin -- more likely the former as I tend to skim or not read the latter).

 

One article was on HCP. It suggested adding a 1/2 point for each Ace and subtracting a 1/2 point for each queen. So I suppose this uses a 4-1/2, 3, 1-1/2, 1 count (rather than 4-3-2-1) which keeps the 10 points per suit, 40 points in the deck total. That method reduces the value of this hand.

 

The other article was based on experience (with various example hands). I don't remember if the person had done an objective analysis (by using random deals and testing his hypothesis). Anyway, the basis of the article was "try to play in NT if you hold 3 Queens" (or, obviously 4). The premise was that the trick-taking power of Queens was enhanced at NT.

 

My personal evaluation is that I like the values of the hand (J, 10, 9, and three 8s). QJ98 is a nice combination. However, I dislike the 4-3-3-3 shape and quackiness, so I treat this as an "average" (or even "average-minus") 11-count. So, if my range for a bid is 11+ to <something>, I don't make that bid.

 

I don't pretend to be expert. I make very simple "adjustments" (so I can say it is a bad xx count or a good xx count for notrump):

 

- I boost the value if I like my intermediates (10s are a very definite plus; 9s & 8s help give "body")

- I lessen the value if the hand is quacky

- I lessen the value for 4-3-3-3 and boost it a bit for 5-3-3-2

 

Your hand comes in for all three adjustments with the net being "bad" rather than "good".

[luke warm]

Min 4-3-3-3 hands are AWFUL ..p will never believe y got this hand.. if he does you need to change your convention-card ..this is not a weak NT opening imho  :)

Rgd Dog.

 

 

well needless to say, i couldn't disagree more... this hand would never surprise my pard... as a matter of fact, playing game forcing 2♦ (assuming he was going to bid 4♠ all along), he'd know i was 4333 after my first rebid... after my *second* rebid, he'd know my exact shape

 

1N : 2♦

2N* : 3♣*

3♠*

 

2N shows any 4333, 3♣ asks 'where 4?', 3♠ shows 3343.. if pard is slammish he can continue relaying to ask for controls, followed by spiral scan... but as i said, opening that hand is strictly a matter of preference.. not right or wrong, just preference

[1eyedjack]

One of the problems with trying to evaluate West's hand (as a potential 1N opener) down to a pinhead is that whatever method of evaluation you use is only going to give you an impression of its average playing potential. At that point in the auction the variance will be quite large. Even if the mid-point of the curve is on the low side the curve will be quite broad and there will be a considerable area (albeit less than half of the total) that falls in the upper end of the playing potential (expected by responder). The difference in appearance between two wide, flattish curves with slightly different midpoints is not so noticeable as the difference in appearance between two narrow curves whose midpoints are displaced by the same amount ... the area of overlap between the two in the latter case is less.

 

As the auction progresses particular aspects of the hand will assume a more certain value. The average playing potential will shift (potentially either way) and the variance will narrow.

 

I feel that if I open this hand 1N then my partnership has a head start on the opponents in this process, and if the average is initially shifted slightly to the left then it is a price I am prepared to pay for that strategic advantage.

 

In the UK it was something of a standing joke that some players who played 12-14 1NT would almost routinely open 1NT with an 11 count. Leaving aside the questionable ethics of this (even if responder religiously bids on the assumption of a full 12 count plus) the reason that the practice became so popular is because it was on balance highly successful. And here we are talking about opening a hand that is a full point shy of the agreed minimum, not just a "bad" v "good" hand of specific point count. I think that the success was put down to preemptive effect (I expect the true analysis would be quite complex), but the precise cause of the success is perhaps not relevant.

[luke warm]

I feel that if I open this hand 1N then my partnership has a head start on the opponents in this process, and if the average is initially shifted slightly to the left then it is a price I am prepared to pay for that strategic advantage.

and that, in a nutshell, is why i love the mini so much

[dogsbreath]

hi ..maybe i didnt make my point clearly..

Doesnt bother me if y like to open these 1NT ..but surely you MUST adjust your C.Card ..you say 11-14 but you and p will both open a 4-3-3-3 10 count? this is getting very close to an undisclosed agreement...

Rgds, Dog

[Free]

We NEVER open 1NT with 10 HCP, Richard not even with all 11 pointers, since it's a system obligation. So it's still 11+-14 for us :rolleyes:

[luke warm]

i wish i had the energy to do what ben did with the cavendish hands when evaluating zar points... i'd go to the vugraphs and look at the hands that could have opened a mini but passed, and see what would have happened had they opened... i admit, that's one of the major things i do while kibbing, so maybe i'll start saving those as they come up

[keylime]

To Luke Warm,

 

Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, and of course, ditto. :P

[1eyedjack]

i wish i had the energy to do what ben did with the cavendish hands when evaluating zar points... i'd go to the vugraphs and look at the hands that could have opened a mini but passed, and see what would have happened had they opened... i admit, that's one of the major things i do while kibbing, so maybe i'll start saving those as they come up

I wish it were possible. But even if you had the energy, how can you predict how the players at the table would have reacted to the mini?

[luke warm]

not sure... it would depend on what others play against mini nt as to what their overcalls are... but i've watched *so* often that i can't help but believe things would be very different on some of the game/slam hands

[Trpltrbl]

That's why I play 10-12 NT's, then this hand is considered good :lol:

But playing 11+ -14 I think this hand can be passed. Some of the people I used to play with, playing 11-14 NT, wanted to have for 11 count to have exact 2 aces and 1K.

Whatever your style is, stick to it. So pd knows for next time.

 

Mike ;)

[luke warm]

That's why I play 10-12 NT's, then this hand is considered good :)

But playing 11+ -14 I think this hand can be passed. Some of the people I used to play with, playing 11-14 NT, wanted to have for 11 count to have exact 2 aces and 1K.

Whatever your style is, stick to it. So pd knows for next time.

 

Mike :D

it seems unreasonable to me for a mini or weak nt to *have* to have 5 controls... i think that's about average for a 15-17 nt... for me, 10-13 nt must have 2 controls, with 4 counting as "max" (if the 2♦ bidding gets to the min/max ask)

[Trpltrbl]

That's why I play 10-12 NT's, then this hand is considered good  :)

But playing 11+ -14 I think this hand can be passed. Some of the people I used to play with, playing 11-14 NT, wanted to have for 11 count to have exact 2 aces and 1K.

Whatever your style is, stick to it. So pd knows for next time.

 

Mike  :D

it seems unreasonable to me for a mini or weak nt to *have* to have 5 controls... i think that's about average for a 15-17 nt... for me, 10-13 nt must have 2 controls, with 4 counting as "max" (if the 2♦ bidding gets to the min/max ask)

That's the main reason why I used to play with these pd's. Taking all the fun away.

 

Mike :D