What are you supposed to do?

[Hanoi5]

You hold:

 

♠Q65

♥K9

♦AQT764

♣KT

 

Both Red, you open 1♦ after RHO's initial Pass. 1♥ onj your left 1NT by partner, Pass by RHO. Yes, opening 1Nt would have been so much better but, what do you do now?

[Fluffy]

If my hand wasn't worth 1NT before, it is not worth anything else than 2♦ now. Except pass wich I'd try at MPs.

[gwnn]

I think I bid 2D... Who knows? It would be clear with AJTxxx of diamonds and that's what I presumably have for not opening 1NT :)

[rogerclee]

2D is extremely bad IMO

[ArtK78]

2♦ at IMPs. Pass at matchpoints. Seems pretty clear.

[MarkDean]

I also like 2D. If partner has a great supporing hand, he can bid again. I think we need a pretty good catch to have 3NT be better than a finesse. Even if I try to give pd a max, fiting hand, such as JTx QJxx Kxx QJx, we are likely down on a spade lead.

 

Plus I have to keep up the streak of always disagreeing with clee.

[jjbrr]

Ya I don't think 2♦ is extremely bad at all. Seems like a coinflip to me between pass and 2♦. I think everyone agrees this was a 1NT opener.

[ArtK78]

No, everyone does not agree that this is a 1NT opener. At least, not at IMPs.

 

Opening this hand 1NT at IMPs is a good way to avoid a good diamond slam or game.

[whereagles]

3♦. Maybe pard can figure this has to be a good min because I'd bid 3NT with just about any 15+ hand.

 

Simple, no? :D

[CSGibson]

No, everyone does not agree that this is a 1NT opener. At least, not at IMPs.

 

Opening this hand 1NT at IMPs is a good way to avoid a good diamond slam or game.

Funny, I was thinking that opening this 1N is a good way to get to a good 3N or 4M game, and even right-siding the sucker...

[the hog]

2D is totally obvious, as was the 1D opening.

[jdonn]

To me it's clear to open 1NT because this is an awkward strength to describe. Frankly I can't believe people are so content rebidding 2♦ here. I would consider 2NT. Partner's free 1NT call tends to be more like 8-10 and this hand has a lot of potential. But I would have avoided the whole thing and opened 1NT, a totally accurate depiction of my strength which hides distributional information that tends to be irrelevent from the opponents, given that we belong in notrump so much more often than diamonds (at least in game). It even protects two Kx's.

 

I also just love the argument that opening 1NT with 14, showing 15-17, will miss a slam but bidding 1♦ then 2♦ which is somewhere in the 10-15 vicinity will let you find it.

[kenrexford]

Echo -- this is a 1NT opener.

 

Echo2 -- when you have a 1NT opener, there is no answer to what you should do later after having not opened 1NT, because the hand is already incapable of description. Whatever you bid now shows a hand that is not the one you were dealt, because with that hand you would have opened 1NT.

 

Echo3 -- I agree that it is absurd to suggest that opening 1♦ (possible 11-count, 3+ diamonds) is more likely to bend us toward slam than 1NT (2+ diamonds). That only happens if partner is a moron.

[OleBerg]

Both opening 1♦ and bidding 2NT now seems obvious to me.

 

As we didn't open 1NT partner will now we have an intermidiate unbalanced hand.

[rogerclee]

Just going to throw it out there that if you start opening 1N on this hand type and look at your results from doing it, I just really don't think you will be unhappy with them. You don't need to be an expert to realize that having a trick source and making your opponents lead into a blind 3N is really good for you, on top of the preemptive value of opening 1N and avoiding all of these rebid problems.

[dake50]

Partner suggests NT. I have a good source of tricks and middling for 1D opener.

2NT. I see nothing wrong with 3NT, partner.

[MarkDean]

To me it's clear to open 1NT because this is an awkward strength to describe. Frankly I can't believe people are so content rebidding 2♦ here. I would consider 2NT. Partner's free 1NT call tends to be more like 8-10 and this hand has a lot of potential. But I would have avoided the whole thing and opened 1NT, a totally accurate depiction of my strength which hides distributional information that tends to be irrelevent from the opponents, given that we belong in notrump so much more often than diamonds (at least in game). It even protects two Kx's.

 

I also just love the argument that opening 1NT with 14, showing 15-17, will miss a slam but bidding 1♦ then 2♦ which is somewhere in the 10-15 vicinity will let you find it.

I think that opening 1NT is certainly reasonable, and I would likely do it myself, but I think that last sentence in your post is nonsense: surely we will miss the (very) occassional slam this way.

 

Slam is not about having X HCP, it is about tricks, and opposite the right hand 6+ dimaonds can be worth more than the extra queen. And it is not like partner has to guess the contract over 2♦, he can find out if you have 10 or 15. Many partnerships (including all of mine) cannot even ask about diamonds over 1NT when responder has a 3442 hand or the like.

[rogerclee]

To me it's clear to open 1NT because this is an awkward strength to describe. Frankly I can't believe people are so content rebidding 2♦ here. I would consider 2NT. Partner's free 1NT call tends to be more like 8-10 and this hand has a lot of potential. But I would have avoided the whole thing and opened 1NT, a totally accurate depiction of my strength which hides distributional information that tends to be irrelevent from the opponents, given that we belong in notrump so much more often than diamonds (at least in game). It even protects two Kx's.

 

I also just love the argument that opening 1NT with 14, showing 15-17, will miss a slam but bidding 1♦ then 2♦ which is somewhere in the 10-15 vicinity will let you find it.

I think that opening 1NT is certainly reasonable, and I would likely do it myself, but I think that last sentence in your post is nonsense: surely we will miss the (very) occassional slam this way.

 

Slam is not about having X HCP, it is about tricks, and opposite the right hand 6+ dimaonds can be worth more than the extra queen. And it is not like partner has to guess the contract over 2♦, he can find out if you have 10 or 15. Many partnerships (including all of mine) cannot even ask about diamonds over 1NT when responder has a 3442 hand or the like.

AKxx Qx Kxx Axxx

 

1D-1S

2D-2H

2N-3D

3N-?

 

Maybe you would bid 4C and maybe you would pass, but the point is that it's not obvious at all to get to all of these slams you automatically miss by opening 1N.

[jdonn]

To me it's clear to open 1NT because this is an awkward strength to describe. Frankly I can't believe people are so content rebidding 2♦ here. I would consider 2NT. Partner's free 1NT call tends to be more like 8-10 and this hand has a lot of potential. But I would have avoided the whole thing and opened 1NT, a totally accurate depiction of my strength which hides distributional information that tends to be irrelevent from the opponents, given that we belong in notrump so much more often than diamonds (at least in game). It even protects two Kx's.

 

I also just love the argument that opening 1NT with 14, showing 15-17, will miss a slam but bidding 1♦ then 2♦ which is somewhere in the 10-15 vicinity will let you find it.

I think that opening 1NT is certainly reasonable, and I would likely do it myself, but I think that last sentence in your post is nonsense: surely we will miss the (very) occassional slam this way.

 

Slam is not about having X HCP, it is about tricks, and opposite the right hand 6+ dimaonds can be worth more than the extra queen. And it is not like partner has to guess the contract over 2♦, he can find out if you have 10 or 15. Many partnerships (including all of mine) cannot even ask about diamonds over 1NT when responder has a 3442 hand or the like.

Partner doesn't have to guess the contract over 1NT either. If your system is inadequate I don't know what to tell you, but even if you could convince me 1NT is worse for slam bidding (which I doubt you can) it's so much better for game bidding that I don't think it would matter.

[MarkDean]

To me it's clear to open 1NT because this is an awkward strength to describe. Frankly I can't believe people are so content rebidding 2♦ here. I would consider 2NT. Partner's free 1NT call tends to be more like 8-10 and this hand has a lot of potential. But I would have avoided the whole thing and opened 1NT, a totally accurate depiction of my strength which hides distributional information that tends to be irrelevent from the opponents, given that we belong in notrump so much more often than diamonds (at least in game). It even protects two Kx's.

 

I also just love the argument that opening 1NT with 14, showing 15-17, will miss a slam but bidding 1♦ then 2♦ which is somewhere in the 10-15 vicinity will let you find it.

I think that opening 1NT is certainly reasonable, and I would likely do it myself, but I think that last sentence in your post is nonsense: surely we will miss the (very) occassional slam this way.

 

Slam is not about having X HCP, it is about tricks, and opposite the right hand 6+ dimaonds can be worth more than the extra queen. And it is not like partner has to guess the contract over 2♦, he can find out if you have 10 or 15. Many partnerships (including all of mine) cannot even ask about diamonds over 1NT when responder has a 3442 hand or the like.

AKxx Qx Kxx Axxx

 

1D-1S

2D-2H

2N-3D

3N-?

 

Maybe you would bid 4C and maybe you would pass, but the point is that it's not obvious at all to get to all of these slams you automatically miss by opening 1N.

I am confused by your example. Is the other hand supposed to be the one in the OP? Why did he not show 3 spades over 2H? Why did he bid 3NT over 3D?

 

And how do you think the auction would go with this hand opposite a 1NT opener? It is not clear to me that you would get to slam, and certainly not to 6D opposite some similar hands where that is better than nt (like Kx AJxx KJx Axxx).

 

Anyhow, I agree we are not going to get to all slams either way, I just think it is clear that opening 1D will get to some good slams that will be missed opening 1NT (however, I am not trying to argue that makes opening 1D a better bid).

[aguahombre]

Both opening 1♦ and bidding 2NT now seems obvious to me.

 

As we didn't open 1NT partner will now we have an intermidiate unbalanced hand.

Those are my sentiments. Get over the failure to open 1NT (Too late to correct that). You are now inviting game with a 2NT bid, opposite a partner whose 1NT response after an overcall is probably not a joke.

 

Partner has gained information he might not have had if you had opened 1NT. This information includes the likelihood that you have extra diamond length and things about the opponents' holdings.

[jjbrr]

Ya Clee's example hand is just extraneous info and doesn't serve much purpose in the theoretical world. It seems to me to be pretty arbitrary. But getting away from the theoretical world and into the practical world I reciprocate everyone's feelings when they say it's hard to describe this hand in this auction. I think the subset of hands that find a slam after this auction after a 1♦ opening is ridiculously small compared to those that get to slam after a 1NT opening that the gains from 1♦ are definitely negligible in the context of better game bidding, which I think 1NT is better suited for.

 

I think Clee is the first to say I'm old school about 1NT openers in terms of unbalanced/semibalanced hands, but I think this is a clear 1NT opener.

[gnasher]

AKxx Qx Kxx Axxx

 

1D-1S

2D-2H

2N-3D

3N-?

I am confused by your example. Is the other hand supposed to be the one in the OP? Why did he not show 3 spades over 2H? Why did he bid 3NT over 3D?

No, it was an example of a hand where slam is makeable opposite this opening, and (in Roger's view) we may not get there after a 1♦ opening.

 

And how do you think the auction would go with this hand opposite a 1NT opener?  It is not clear to me that you would get to slam, and certainly not to 6D opposite some similar hands where that is better than nt (like Kx AJxx KJx Axxx).

With both example hands, if you had nothing more sophisticated than Stayman available, it would go

 

1NT-2♣

2♦-4NT

6♦

 

In my partnerships, responder would show a balanced slam try at a lower level, opener would should five or six diamonds, responder would agree the suit, and either player would drive slam.

 

Anyhow, I agree we are not going to get to all slams either way, I just think it is clear that opening 1D will get to some good slams that will be missed opening 1NT

If it's so clear, I expect it will be easy for you to provide an example or two.

[Phil]

Add me to the 1N bidders. It seems the likely range when I have a 6 card minor is running 13(+) to about 16(-) so this hand easily qualifies.

 

1N frequently gets us on the bullet train to 3N and the defense will usually be in the dark.

 

Agree with Clee about this - try it, you'll like it.

[MarkDean]

No, it was an example of a hand where slam is makeable opposite this opening, and (in Roger's view) we may not get there after a 1♦ opening.

 

 

So there were two hands (OP and Roger's) and an auction...were those two hands supposed to have had the auction proposed by Roger? Because they do not match in my mind.

 

 

With both example hands, if you had nothing more sophisticated than Stayman available, it would go

 

1NT-2♣

2♦-4NT

6♦

 

In my partnerships, responder would show a balanced slam try at a lower level, opener would should five or six diamonds, responder would agree the suit, and either player would drive slam.

 

 

It is quite possible you are getting to slam off two aces with your unsophisticated auction: opener knows he has just one ace and the partnership has around 30 HCP. However, I will concede that a pair with better agreements can avoid this.

 

If it's so clear, I expect it will be easy for you to provide an example or two.

 

A small modification to the hand I put in the previous post should do: Kx Axxx Kxxx Axx.