How to handle this hand?

[twcho]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sxxh10xxdakqcaj1098]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Assuming playing 15/17 NT and 2/1, what will you open with the above hand?

 

Let's assume you start with 1♣. Partner reponded 1♦ (not Walsh style). Will you rebid 1NT or 2♦ (is 2♦ a reverse?) or some other choice?

[gnasher]

I'd open 1NT. Not having done so I'd rebid 1NT. This sort of problem is a lot easier if you don't think of it as a problem.

 

1♣-1♦; 2♣ isn't a reverse. It shows four diamonds and a minimum.

[Cascade]

A raise is not a reverse.

 

1♣ then 1NT is fine.

 

If you hate this without stoppers you could rebid your five-card club suit.

 

I dislike 1NT opening with only 14 HCP and two suits unstopped. Yes I know the hand has more potential than an average 14 but a strong NT will not usually have two suits unstopped.

[P_Marlowe]

1C, followed by 1NT, I am not in the upgrading business.

 

The raise to 2D is not a reverse, but it would show 5-4,

most players (on this forum at least) will open 1D with

4-4 in the minors.

 

If you always respond with a major, in case you have a

4 card diamond suit and a 4 card major (call it "Walsh light"),

than you could agree, that the 1D response showed a 5

card suit, and in this scenario, it may make sense to raise

with 3 card support, otherwise, why should i pretend to be

5-4, if I can show my distribution nearly to 100% (I am either

5332 or 4333), what more do I want?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Codo]

I would open 1 NT.

If this would be forbidden, or we have the clear agreement that 1 NT shows 15-17 HCPS, I would rebid 1 NT.

[655321]

1NT for sure.

 

If you open 1♣ it can only be because you don't think this balanced hand is strong enough to open 1NT, so you rebid 1NT to say so.

[the hog]

1C followed by 1NT. Really this is not a problem hand.

[Fluffy]

I have heard of the reverse thing before and it is playable only if you sistematically open 1♦ with (13)45 minimum. The gain is slim.

[pooltuna]

open 1♣and rebid 2♣ unless partner bids 1NT

[EricK]

This hand isn't nearly an upgrade to 1NT - the nine points in diamonds aren't pulling their full weight, and both majors are completely unstopped. So it is a 1♣ opener for me.

 

The trouble with hands like this is that NT from partner's side could easily play 3 or 4 (or more) tricks better than from yours. When partner responds 1♦ this does nothing to alleviate those concerns - in fact, it heightens them.

 

So I think those who rebid 1NT are making a safe position for themselves in the post mortem ("1NT shows 12-14 balanced. That's what I've got!"); but I'm not convinced that bidding this way maximises the expected score on the hand.

 

If you bid 2♦, partner with any extras will be still look for NT; and if he doesn't have extras, 2♦ is almost certain to be very playable. The same can not be said for a NT contract unilaterally bid by, and played from, your hand.

 

2♦ is better than a 2♣ rebid, though, as partner will pass 2♣ with most mediocre hands with 1 or 2 ♣ even with long ♦, and will even pass with some strongish hands with a singleton ♣.

 

Similarly, I would raise a 1♥ response to 2♥. However, I would rebid 1NT after a 1♠ response.

[Phil]

No strong feeling about 1♣ vs 1N, but I slightly prefer 1♣. The overstuffed tripleton mitigates the value of the AJT98.

 

Easy 1N rebid over 1♠ or raise to 2♥.

 

Oops - meant 1♠; agree with Fred's comments about raising diamonds.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Phil

[skjaeran]

I open 1NT. Having opened 1♣, rebidding 1NT is fine, you're showing the 12-14 NT you've evaluated (downgraded to :lol: ) the hand to be worth.

[cherdanno]

The trouble with hands like this is that NT from partner's side could easily play 3 or 4 (or more) tricks better than from yours. When partner responds 1♦ this does nothing to alleviate those concerns - in fact, it heightens them.

 

So I think those who rebid 1NT are making a safe position for themselves in the post mortem ("1NT shows 12-14 balanced. That's what I've got!"); but I'm not convinced that bidding this way maximises the expected score on the hand.

I have had lots of bad and few good experiences by not bidding a balanced hand as a balanced hand (years ago a partner of mine liked to do this).

I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of right-siding.

[EricK]

I don't like bidding balanced hands as if they are non-balanced, and I very rarely do it. In fact I am more likely to bid semi-balanced hands as if they were balanced because it looks like NT will be the right contract - especially played by me.

 

Perhaps this comes down to a question of bidding philosophy.

 

Should the sequence 1♣ 1♦ 1NT be analagous to the conversation

 

"I have an opening hand, clubs might be a good trump suit"

"Well I have a few points too. Might I suggest diamonds as a trump suit?"

"I have a minimum hand and fancy playing NT"

 

Or should it be closer to

 

"I have an opening hand and at least 3 clubs"

"I have a few points and at least 4 diamonds"

"I have a minimum balanced hand"

 

And similarly, ought 1♣ 1♦ 2♦ suggest

 

"I have an opening hand, clubs might be a good trump suit"

"Well I have a few points too. Might I suggest diamonds as a trump suit?"

"I have a minimum hand. I agree diamonds might be a good trump suit"

 

Or alternatively

 

"I have an opening hand and at least 3 clubs"

"I have a few points and at least 4 diamonds"

"I have a minimum hand with 5 clubs and 4 diamonds"

[Free]

I don't have strong feelings about it, but I'd open 1NT. Only other alternative imo is opening 1♣ and rebidding 1NT.

[nigel_k]

I would treat this as 2245 so open 1♣ then raise 1♦ to 2♦, or rebid 2♣ over 1♥ or 1♠.

 

For those determined to bid NT, this is easily a strong NT, not a weak NT. Opening 1♣ intending to rebid 1NT will only gain when partner responds 1NT. Otherwise you'll still bid NT from the wrong side and will have understated your values.

[cherdanno]

And similarly, ought 1♣ 1♦ 2♦ suggest

 

"I have an opening hand, clubs might be a good trump suit"

See, this is where we diverge already. I am sure the style you suggest is fine, but outside of England it might be difficult to find partners who play it, for the rest of us 1♣ says "uh, i have opening strength, or i guess s.th. resembling it that i feel like open, but i don't have a 5-card major - lets see whether we can find our 4-4 major suit fit? oh, and if you really care, my clubs aren't worse than my diamonds" ;) :)

 

More seriously though, I just don't think my hand screams playing diamonds instead of NT. (Thanks for the ♥T, dealer!) Also, possibly having to ruff with trump honors doesn't work so well unless it is partner who has the intermediates.

[EricK]

And similarly, ought 1♣ 1♦ 2♦ suggest

 

"I have an opening hand, clubs might be a good trump suit"

More seriously though, I just don't think my hand screams playing diamonds instead of NT. (Thanks for the ♥T, dealer!) Also, possibly having to ruff with trump honors doesn't work so well unless it is partner who has the intermediates.

It doesn't scream anything except "whatever we play it would probably be better being played from partner's side".

 

I am not that great at constructing hands etc, but it is hard for me to see how raising ♦ here (presuming partner is aware of the possibility) is going to lead to a worse result than bidding NT. You are right that trumping with honours is potentially bad; but it is seems unlikely in this scenario (assuming partner also makes "sensible" bids") that:

a. we end up in ♦

b. partner does not have a good ♦ suit (i.e. at least 5 and some intermediates)

c. NT plays better.

[Little Kid]

1♣ followed by 1NT. I don't feel particularly exstatic about upgrading this hand to 1NT with two ♣ losers before I can set up my source of tricks. With so few controls in the majors, I wouldn't be surprised at all to end in 3NT with 4 major losers and a ♣ loser. The diamond honours aren't pulling their full weight either so I will open 1♣ all day long.

 

I wouldn't ever dream of rebidding 2♦, I have a balanced hand so why lie about it. Being worried about major suit stoppers in 1NT seems a little pessimistic. If partner does raise, he will have the values to stop them cashing too many majors.

[marcD]

NV vs V this is a clear 1NT opener for me . the chances of rightsiding a NT contract by opening 1♣ are minimal. If I were to open 1♣ I would rebid 2♣ (I would possibly consider this if vulnerable)

[andy_h]

Agree with gnasher. Stoppers schmoppers. 1NT is also preemptive too.

[fred]

I would personally open 1NT, not just because I think the hand is worth 1NT, but because:

 

1) 1NT is good from a tactical point of view if the deal belongs to the opponents in one of the majors.

 

2) If you think this is close, let the vulnerability be the deciding factor. At this vulnerability you have more to gain and less to lose by opening 1NT than you would at any other vulnerability.

 

That being said, I can understand opening 1C and rebidding 1NT should partner respond 1 of a major.

 

What I can't understand is failing to raise a 1D response to 2D. IMO to bid anything other than 2D is really bad, Walsh or no Walsh. I would even raise to 2D painlessly if we had the agreement that 2D "promised" 4-card support. Partner will forgive me for breaking my promise when we end up in the right contract.

 

Aside from the obvious fact that, if notrump is right, partner should be the declarer, consider:

 

1) You have the AKQ of diamonds!!! - if you rebid 1NT partner is never going to play you for this good a hand in support of his suit.

 

2) The opponents' silence makes it likely that partner has a good hand. You probably have the values for game especially if your opponents, like most "modern players", believe in lightish overcalls even when vulnerable. For the purposes of both getting to a possible slam and getting to the right game from the right side of the table, it is important to make a statement right now that says "diamonds!".

 

3) Just because you are not playing Walsh does not mean that partner is a robot. Nobody is forcing him to respond 1D with a bad 4-card diamond suit when he has a strong 4-card major. The odds are strong that partner has at least 5 diamonds and, if he doesn't, raising to 2D is hardly the end of the world.

 

4) I am a generally a strong believer in rebidding 1NT with balanced hands.

 

In summary: think about the whole deal, not just your own hand and what your system dictates that you should do.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Jlall]

1) 1NT is good from a tactical point of view if the deal belongs to the opponents in one of the majors.

 

2) If you think this is close, let the vulnerability be the deciding factor. At this vulnerability you have more to gain and less to lose by opening 1NT than you would at any other vulnerability.

Yeah I think people overlook these factors too often.