Back to you at the three-level

[MickyB]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skxhaj9xdat9xxcat]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♦-(3♠)-P-(P)

 

What's your call playing standard methods, and how close is it?

 

We were actually playing 1♦ as (17)18-19 balanced or natural and unbalanced, which allows partner to act a little more aggressively than if we could have a weak no-trump. Does this change your answer?[/hv]

[Fluffy]

I think its a double regardless, but 3NT is also an option given the unlikellyhood of partner having penalty pass here.

[hanp]

Maybe I'm missing something but don't we have a balanced 16-count? Kx and A10 also seem excellent holdings for opening 1NT.

[MickyB]

You've got pretty nice methods having opened this 1♦, so that is what I did.

 

1D:1S, 1NT = 5D4H, now pard has 2C bad preference or 2D good preference

 

1D:1NT, you can rebid 2C as 14-16 unbalanced without four clubs

 

plus you are better placed in competition than playing standard methods.

 

 

In short, if you consider AJ9x Kx AT9xx AT to be a WTP 14+ to 17- 1NT opening playing standard methods, I probably won't persuade you to open the actual hand 1♦, but if you consider the 4252 to be close then it definitely feels right to open 1♦ playing our methods.

[wclass___]

Pass. Not close.

[aguahombre]

You've got pretty nice methods having opened this 1♦, so that is what I did.

 

 

Agree with Hanp about opening 1NT. You describe your balanced 1D openings as (17) 18-19. That means your upgrades are with good 17's.

 

But you like your follow-ups so much you want to lower the standard even more in order to use the toys. My opinion of doing this is probably of only mild interest, since I am not one of the great theorists. It has to be rough on partner, though.

[2Macchiato]

Just do something sensible. 3N is not sensible. Double emphasises your heart / diamond holding (you have to cope with the awkward 4 ♣ response.

 

I'd bear in mind that 3 ♠ is liable to be weak and gives you a problem. Obviously you can solve this with Pass (timid), 3N (risky), Double (noting that partner had an opportunity to bid already) - that's pretty much it (unless you fancy 4 ♥ !)

 

I'd be inclined to Double.

[MickyB]

You've got pretty nice methods having opened this 1♦, so that is what I did.

 

 

Agree with Hanp about opening 1NT. You describe your balanced 1D openings as (17) 18-19. That means your upgrades are with good 17's.

 

But you like your follow-ups so much you want to lower the standard even more in order to use the toys. My opinion of doing this is probably of only mild interest, since I am not one of the great theorists. It has to be rough on partner, though.

I wasn't intending to upgrade it, I was intending to treat it as an unbalanced hand.

[nige1]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skxhaj9xdat9xxcat]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♦ (3♠) _P (_P)

??

What's your call playing standard methods, and how close is it?

We were actually playing 1♦ as (17)18-19 balanced or natural and unbalanced, which allows partner to act a little more aggressively than if we could have a weak no-trump. Does this change your answer?[/hv]

IMO

• Normal methods: open 1N = 10, 1♦ = 5.
  
• MickyB methods: open 1N = 10, 1♦ = 9.
  (In either case you have nearly half your HCP in your short suits).
  
• Now: 3N = 10, _X = 7, _P = 6.
  3N may make but If it is the wrong guess, it is hard to double and may even be a good sacrifice against 3♠.
  Double is fine if partner can pass for penalties. Otherwise it makes 3N harder to reach and may wrong-side the contract. Normally, after your double, partner will play a level higher with the lead though your ♠ Kx. This may matter if opponents double. Another consideration is that, if partner has 4+ ♥, then he does not have a good hand because he did not double 3♠.
  

[655321]

As the auction went, I would pass. I don't like double, and I would want to be stronger/have some immediate tricks to bid 3NT.

 

But I don't like the 1♦ opening at all, even with the methods to show 45 in the red suits after a 1♦ opening. I don't want to show an unbalanced 45 hand of indeterminate strength, I want to show a balanced 15-17.

[quiddity]

I would also prefer to open the hand 1NT. I don't understand doubling; isn't partner expected to act with 10+? We have 16 pts, 3 of which are of highly questionable value - I don't see any reason to think we have a game here.

[JLOGIC]

I consider this an easy pass.

 

Also, I would open 1N.

[MickyB]

Interesting. So, playing standard methods, what's the smallest change you would need to make to the honour structure of AJ9x Kx AT9xx AT in order to make it a 1D opening?

[the hog]

Yes, I would open 1NT and this is not a close decision.

Pass is pretty obvious now.

Fluffy, were you serious with 3NT? From where are your tricks coming?

[CamHenry]

I'm passing, but I have some sympathy for double. Anything else seems rather unilateral.

[hanp]

Interesting. So, playing standard methods, what's the smallest change you would need to make to the honour structure of AJ9x Kx AT9xx AT in order to make it a 1D opening?

I would open this hand 1NT. I could open 1D and rebid 1S but then I'd be guessing if partner bids 1NT, which might well be wrongsided already. With the Jx AQ10x AKJ10x Jx I posted recently I liked my partner's 1D opening. For me the dividing line for the 2-4-5-2 shape lies closer to the second hand, and for a 4-2-5-2 it lies closer to the first.

 

Maybe you have the perfect constructive methods for opening 1D with this kind of hand. But a very simple auction such as 1D - (2C) can be very tough for semi-balanced 16-counts. In fact, the auction you posted is very difficult, while it would not have been difficult had we opened 1NT.

[Fluffy]

Fluffy, were you serious with 3NT? From where are your tricks coming?

I didn't bother to count points, read we had 18-19 if balanced and assumed we had that B)

[OleBerg]

3NT

[CSGibson]

Interesting. So, playing standard methods, what's the smallest change you would need to make to the honour structure of AJ9x Kx AT9xx AT in order to make it a 1D opening?

Smallest change would be any that makes this unbalanced instead of semi-balanced, like moving the T of clubs to the suit with the Kx. Even then, I'd consider opening 1N.

[junyi_zhu]

I think its a double regardless, but 3NT is also an option given the unlikellyhood of partner having penalty pass here.

I feel 3NT is an underbid. This hand looks too slamish.

[gnasher]

I'd open this 1♦ even playing standard methods. 1♦-1♠;2♥-2♠;2NT seems a much better description than 1NT with this suit-oriented hand.

 

They don't always overcall 3♠, and even if they do I don't see why it's better to have said "I have 15-17 balanced" than "I have diamonds". 1♦ followed by a double of 3♠ isn't a bad description of what I have.

 

don't we have a balanced 16-count?

No, when the auction started it was worth at least 17, and it's not balanced.

[jdonn]

Opening 1NT is quite clear to me. It's a bit light to reverse, you want to be declarer, you block the opponents out of spades, you don't give away your shape when you reach your likely games of 3NT or 4♥, etc.

[whereagles]

Pard can easily have some flattish 6-7 and no bid.

 

I'd double now. Can turn out badly, but I don't think anyone can double me.

[aguahombre]

Opening 1NT is quite clear to me. It's a bit light to reverse, you want to be declarer, you block the opponents out of spades, you don't give away your shape when you reach your likely games of 3NT or 4♥, etc.

All of that was (is) what I thought. Then I ran K&R, and got 18.70. Wow; does that initial evaluation actually assume a fit in a red suit that we don't know about?

[nigel_k]

K&R likes aces and minor honours in sequences. Aces get a bonus for being in the long suits. 18.7 seems like a lot but I think the hand is close to being too strong for 1NT and easily qualifies for a reverse.

 

K&R breakdown is as follows:

 

1 Shape

2.6 Kx of spades

4.6 A of hearts

0.85 J9 of hearts

5.0 A of diamonds

0.75 T9 of diamonds

3.8 A of clubs

0.1 T of clubs

 

The base of 1 for 2452 shape compared to 0 for 2353 is just wrong, but none of the individual suit values is clearly excessive. I'd still rate the hand at over 17.5 which is the cutoff for 1NT unless you choose to open slightly heavy for tactical reasons.