1nt + 1nt = ??

[Mbodell]

Partner and I disagreed on this hand so wanted to get extra judgment from the forums. The context is 6 board swiss teams if that matters.

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=sat9hk2daq76cq973]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1nt (15-17) - P - ??[/hv]

[mohitz]

more aggressive than what i prefer, but not the worst bid ever

[Little Kid]

3NT for me. Would accept on decent 16-counts so this is not quite good enough for 4NT. If you only accept on nice 17-counts or primed 16-counts then I suppose I would invite.

[Fluffy]

jackless 15 count with the right queens, slam is possible, but only in a minor.

 

If you have a way to know if partner has a 4 card minor use it, start with 2♣ and bid something forcing next, ideal auction:

 

1NT-2♣

2♥-2♠

3♣-4♣

[the hog]

This is a 3NT bid. As Fluffy said, slam in a minor MIGHT be possible, but is more likely to fail.

[effervesce]

Agree with fluffy - a slam needs a minor fit and maximum, fitting hand.

If I had a way of determining a minor suit fit, and a mild slam try, I'd bid that.

Without such methods, I think 3NT is much better than 4NT - there's not that many hands you want to be in slam.

[rogerclee]

4S is an infinitely better bid than 4N.

[hotShot]

I don't like your choices, because while 6NT seems far away 6m could be makable. With your side's combined 30-32 HCP and balanced hands there is not much chance for LHO to enter the auction.

[655321]

I don't know why 4NT is described as aggressive, it just seems like a bad bid to me.

[kenrexford]

1NT-2NT(relay)

3♣-3♥(3244, 14+ HCP)

 

That's what one partner and I play. Kinda cool for this hand.

[mikegill]

I actually play 4♠ shows a balanced hand that's inv to 6m but not to 6N, mostly because of a complete lack of another use for this bid. This easily qualifies, but if not playing that I would certainly just bid 3n.

[Apollo81]

Agree with Mike and Roger -- it's nice to have a system bid that shows a hand too weak to invite 6NT but strong enough to make 6m a good contract if opener has a fitting hand with a minor.

[whereagles]

there's a statistical study in John Boederer's "Thinking about imps" book where he concludes that NT slam on 4432s can often be made on 32 hcp counts. In light of that, 4NT is an ok bid.

 

But honestly, either you have methods to find a 44 minor slam or you're probably better off bidding 3NT.

[hanp]

Agree with 4NT just being bad bridge.

[jjbrr]

3NT for me.

 

It's better to be plus 490 than minus 50

[ArtK78]

I actually play 4♠ shows a balanced hand that's inv to 6m but not to 6N, mostly because of a complete lack of another use for this bid. This easily qualifies, but if not playing that I would certainly just bid 3n.

There is another use for the 4♠ bid. Whether it is better or worse than your use is a matter of opinion.

 

In situations where 4NT is a quantitative raise and 4♠ is an otherwise undefined call, one can differentiate between a strong invitation (one that should be accepted unless partner is a dead minimum) and a weak invitation (one that should be accepted only if partner is a full maximum). 4♠ is the weaker invite, and 4NT is the stronger invite. So, for example, in the simplest case, opposite a 15-17 1NT opening, responder, with 16 HCP and an otherwise unremarkable hand would bid 4♠ requesting a 6NT bid if partner had the full 17 HCP maximum; but with 17 HCP and an otherwise unremarkable hand he would bid 4NT requesting a 6NT bid unless partner had a minimum 15 HCP.

 

I don't recall specifically where I found this notion. It may have been from the Granovetter's now defunct Bridge Today magazine.

[goobers]

2nt. When the variables are the same, you simply add the coefficients together.

[vuroth]

2nt. When the variables are the same, you simply add the coefficients together.

Tsk tsk. hehe....

 

3NT for me, but what do I know? (That said, the treatment fro 4♠ makes sense to me....)

[straube]

1NT-2NT(relay)

3♣-3♥(3244, 14+ HCP)

 

That's what one partner and I play. Kinda cool for this hand.

That's not a good use for that sequence. It is much too specific in terms of pattern and pt count.

[kenrexford]

1NT-2NT(relay)

3♣-3♥(3244, 14+ HCP)

 

That's what one partner and I play.  Kinda cool for this hand.

That's not a good use for that sequence. It is much too specific in terms of pattern and pt count.

I'm not sure how you know this.

 

I mean, in general, overly specific meanings are a bad idea if you cannot cover other equally occurring hand patterns.

 

But, if you have a boatload of different options to handle a boatload of different patterns, how is that a bad thing simply because of the specificity?

 

I mean, would it be a bad thing to play a 1NT opening as showing 15-17 HCP simply because you limit the call to a 3-point range? Would it be bad to then have a 2♠ rebid after Stayman show 4-5 spades and 2-3 hearts simply because there are so many other patterns that need to be covered? Would it be bad for a 3♠ call after Responder in that sequence sets spades as trumps to show a spade control simply because there are three other suits, of which you have said nothing yet about their controls or lack thereof? Would it be bad to have a 5♠ response to 4NT then show two key cards plus the spade Queen simply because you might have a number of other holdings?

 

In other words, you cannot know whether this use for this sequence is "too specific" unless you also know what other options are systemically available.

[aguahombre]

3NT is even easier here on the forum, because nobody ever downgrades an 18 to open 1NT, but everyone likes to upgrade. However, MSS might uncover a magic hand. Or puppet might uncover a 5-3 spade fit, which could prove to be magic.

 

Since i don't know which to try, will stick with 3NT. Checking for the spade fit is free, since I have to go through the 3C jump to insist on 3NT anyway

[straube]

1NT-2NT(relay)

3♣-3♥(3244, 14+ HCP)

 

That's what one partner and I play.  Kinda cool for this hand.

That's not a good use for that sequence. It is much too specific in terms of pattern and pt count.

I'm not sure how you know this.

 

I mean, in general, overly specific meanings are a bad idea if you cannot cover other equally occurring hand patterns.

 

But, if you have a boatload of different options to handle a boatload of different patterns, how is that a bad thing simply because of the specificity?

 

I mean, would it be a bad thing to play a 1NT opening as showing 15-17 HCP simply because you limit the call to a 3-point range? Would it be bad to then have a 2♠ rebid after Stayman show 4-5 spades and 2-3 hearts simply because there are so many other patterns that need to be covered? Would it be bad for a 3♠ call after Responder in that sequence sets spades as trumps to show a spade control simply because there are three other suits, of which you have said nothing yet about their controls or lack thereof? Would it be bad to have a 5♠ response to 4NT then show two key cards plus the spade Queen simply because you might have a number of other holdings?

 

In other words, you cannot know whether this use for this sequence is "too specific" unless you also know what other options are systemically available.

I disagree.

 

Let's suppose that 1N was an opening that asked partner to describe different things...patterns for example but possibly other things. We have 10 steps up to and including 3N so...

 

2C-1

2D-2

2H-3

2S-5

2N-8

3C-13

3D-21

3H-34

3S-55

3N-89

 

which means that responder could describe 89 things.

 

Of course, this hypothetical is generous because 1N is not a relay and responder will need many sequences to sign off or make invitations or to ask questions. So responder can in reality show significantly less than 89 things. For sake of argument, say he can describe 50 things.

 

I looked up on BBO that 14+ hands of the 3-2-4-4 pattern occur 0.36% of the time. That's without the constraint that partner has 15-17 balanced, so 14+ 3-2-4-4 is likely occur much less often. For sake of argument maybe 0.1% of the time. One in a thousand hands or so.

 

So devoting a sequence which ought to show something like one of 50 things to show something like one in a thousand things is not likely to be worthwhile.

 

The other thing to consider is that a hand that is 3-2-4-4 and 14+ pts has likely more safety in a contract of 4N (for instance) than other more distributional hands. So if you wanted to show a 3-2-4-4 with 14+ pts, the place to show this hand is likely above 3N and not below it.

[kenrexford]

Huh?

 

I mean, here's how I look at it. If 2♣ and 3♣ (puppet latter) handle the vast majority of hands with some major holding, and if 3♦, 3♥, and 3♠ cover a few freak options, and if 2♠ and part of 2NT handle most minor options, then all that's left is the 2344/3244 hands. So, you toss them into an unused bid.

 

I mean, sure, you can get some sort of low percentage for how often that comes up, but I'd bet that 2♣, 2♦ and 2♥ responses handle a BOATLOAD of hands.

 

I mean, if 0.36% represents a portion of the 5.72% of hands where 2♣, 2♦, 2♥, or 3NT does not handle the hand properly, then that's over 6% of the non-handled hands.

[hanp]

I agree with Ken that Straube's computation makes little sense.

 

I agree with Straube that Ken's agreement makes little sense.

 

As usual, I end up being friends with everybody!

[straube]

I agree with Ken that Straube's computation makes little sense.

 

I agree with Straube that Ken's agreement makes little sense.

 

As usual, I end up being friends with everybody!

Ken says that his 2C, 2D, and 2H handle a boatload of hands. I would emphasize rather that 1N preempts responder from showing shape. These bids can only handle a certain number of patterns (etc) before 3N has been reached.

 

Now any NT structure has to collapse certain patterns because there is just not enough room. My argument is that showing such a specific pattern and qualifying that it has to show 14+ hcps is a waste of that sequence.

 

We don't know the rest of the structure that Ken's partner played. Can he handle 3-4-1-5 or 4-1-3-5 for example? Can he distinguish 4-5-2-2 from 4-5-1-3 below 3N? How about 3-2-3-5?

But 3-2-4-4 with 14+ deserves to be shown below 3N?