An ominous hand

[dwar0123]

dwar0123, I would like to address two of your points

 

I think this is a common fallacy. My 1N opening bid does not show a 14 count with a 6 card minor. If you would truly like the entire list of hands that I would open 1N with, in roughly decreasing order of probability, it is:

I understood that you open 1nt with a wide range of hands; that it includes hands with 12-13 points and a running 6 card suit is what concerns me.

As to the first part of your sentence, since I would accept a NT invite with Qx Txx AKQJxx Qx, I do not see why I cannot possibly think Jx Txx AKQJxx Qx is "worth" a good 14 points. I suppose if you forced me to assign a number to it, I would say "about 14", but part of bridge is bidding tactically, and I do not see why we should not apply that element to opening bids.

I appreciate that a 6 card running suit is worth more then 10 points, especially if you get in early. My issue isn't with hand evaluation as much as with the opening of this shape with the intent to mislead the opponents.

Is opening 1S with KQJxx ATxx xxx x a "psyche" to you also in first seat, playing a standard 2/1 style? I would always open this hand, not because I consider it worth 12 points, but because I think it is tactically sound and that I will do better in the long run to open this kind of hand. If you do not object to the second example, I do not think you should object to the first.

No, it is merely light, but it is not misleading the opponents about the playing strength of your hand. It is spades. Opening 1nt shows a balanced 15-17 count, not a distributional 12 count with a lot of trick taking power but no defensive power.

 

To many of the others, I wouldn't open the OP hand 1nt and if it happened against me I wouldn't call the director. My issue isn't the OP hand but Roger's suggestion he would open 1nt with even worse hands, as low as a 12 count.

[mgoetze]

Hi Roger,

 

I am very comfortable saying that I know without a doubt that it is better to open 1N than 1D on hands like this. It's not even a matter of opinion/style, opening 1D is an extremely losing style.

does it matter at all what sort of 1♦ opening you have? Specifically, would you consider it closer if your 1♦ opening promised 5 diamonds?

[rogerclee]

Hi Roger,

 

does it matter at all what sort of 1♦ opening you have? Specifically, would you consider it closer if your 1♦ opening promised 5 diamonds?

I love opening 1N so much on this handtype that I doubt it, but I have never played a style where a 1D opener showed 5, so it is hard for me to say that with any certainty. It seems that the main advantage to showing 1D is 5+ is that partner can be more aggressive with 3 card support. Since, if I open 1D, I am planning to compete to the 3 level in diamonds anyway if possible, I don't think there is a huge difference in this case.

[MrAce]

Roger just wrote everything i believe about opening 1NT style, but much better than i cld possibly express. As well as the off shapes that Phil mentioned.

[JLOGIC]

You only have 14 points though, and 1N shows 15-17

[dwar0123]

You only have 14 points though, and 1N shows 15-17

I know you are being ironic, but really, it wasn't about the 14 point hand OP posted but the 12 point hand roger described later on.

[Phil]

Early nomination for POTY.

[Phil]

Sorry, TOTY.

[Fluffy]

this popularity contest is becoming an spam on good threads :(

[Flem72]

I am very comfortable saying that I know without a doubt that it is better to open 1N than 1D on hands like this. It's not even a matter of opinion/style, opening 1D is an extremely losing style.

 

Agree completely. Even though he's not a Flem.

 

When I was first playing duplicate, Meyer Schleiffer (sp) used to open these patterns 1N all the time, even 12-14s, even with a 7 card minor.

 

A winning action.

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

 

 

[vuroth]

Huge thanks to mikeh and clee for clearly expressing their viewpoints. I've always been pretty stodgy/old fashioned in my NT ranges, but this was food for though.

 

Also lol@jlol

[awm]

I do think there's a disclosure issue here, and would tend to call a director (to record a psych) if someone disclosed "14+ to 17" and opened 1NT on a thirteen like this one.

 

It's often the case that the offensive and defensive valuations of hands are quite different, especially when you have shape. On this sort of hand, the offensive trick taking potential surely falls in the "15-17" range... yet the defensive value is terrible. Traditionally a 1NT opening has shown defensive value as well as offensive; this is similar to opening 2♣ strong on (say) nine solid spades and out. Once again, you are offensively strong enough for the opening but expect to provide little to no defense. These sorts of openings benefit in two major ways: (1) they get you to game contracts that might be hard to bid otherwise (2) they fool opponents into thinking you have defense, and keep them out of the auction. One major problem is that (3) partner may double the opponents' contract for penalty based in part on your presumed defense (especially at MP where aggressive penalty doubles often pay), only to find it icy cold. People who open this way frequently often have an undisclosed understanding with partner that no defense is promised, allowing them to get the benefit of (2) without the downside of (3).

 

The other issue is that people's hand evaluation can differ. There are some players in the LA area (not Roger) whom I've played against extensively. My strong impression is that the most common high card point total for their 1NT (disclosed as 15-17) opening is 14, with 13 being a close second place. They upgrade virtually any 14 with a five card suit and virtually any 13 6m-(332), as well as some 14s that have "nice spots" or "aces rather than queens"... or just any 14 "because it's MP NV." There is always a semi-reasonable explanation for the upgrade... but I can't believe that a 1NT opening that is most frequently 14 hcp (and sometimes 12 or 13 with no defense at all) should be routinely disclosed as "15-17" without there being an issue. Yet if no one ever reports these "minor deviations" how can evidence ever accumulate?

[MrAce]

I do think there's a disclosure issue here, and would tend to call a director (to record a psych) if someone disclosed "14+ to 17" and opened 1NT on a thirteen like this one.

 

It's often the case that the offensive and defensive valuations of hands are quite different, especially when you have shape. On this sort of hand, the offensive trick taking potential surely falls in the "15-17" range... yet the defensive value is terrible. Traditionally a 1NT opening has shown defensive value as well as offensive; this is similar to opening 2♣ strong on (say) nine solid spades and out. Once again, you are offensively strong enough for the opening but expect to provide little to no defense. These sorts of openings benefit in two major ways: (1) they get you to game contracts that might be hard to bid otherwise (2) they fool opponents into thinking you have defense, and keep them out of the auction. One major problem is that (3) partner may double the opponents' contract for penalty based in part on your presumed defense (especially at MP where aggressive penalty doubles often pay), only to find it icy cold. People who open this way frequently often have an undisclosed understanding with partner that no defense is promised, allowing them to get the benefit of (2) without the downside of (3).

 

The other issue is that people's hand evaluation can differ. There are some players in the LA area (not Roger) whom I've played against extensively. My strong impression is that the most common high card point total for their 1NT (disclosed as 15-17) opening is 14, with 13 being a close second place. They upgrade virtually any 14 with a five card suit and virtually any 13 6m-(332), as well as some 14s that have "nice spots" or "aces rather than queens"... or just any 14 "because it's MP NV." There is always a semi-reasonable explanation for the upgrade... but I can't believe that a 1NT opening that is most frequently 14 hcp (and sometimes 12 or 13 with no defense at all) should be routinely disclosed as "15-17" without there being an issue. Yet if no one ever reports these "minor deviations" how can evidence ever accumulate?

 

I took a break from Bridge close to 9 years and started again playing in BBO where the alerts were not really a big concern at table games which i play most besides GIB duplicate. Reading what u just wrote, it is very hard to disagree with what you said, especially if i played live/competitive bridge frequently.

[quiddity]

People who open this way frequently often have an undisclosed understanding with partner that no defense is promised, allowing them to get the benefit of (2) without the downside of (3).

...

They upgrade... virtually any 13 6m-(332)

 

Does this style work for them? It seems terrible.

[Phil]

Yet if no one ever reports these "minor deviations" how can evidence ever accumulate?

 

I think the hard evidence for these types of unconcealed agreements is to see how they regularly respond with 8-9 counts.

 

Axxx xx KJTx xxx....and see if they pass "because its MPs?" <_<

[han]

I usually open 1NT with 14-counts that have a 6322-hands (where 6 is a minor of course). I am not sure but I think I've had more bad results than good results doing this, the count may be 3-1 against me in the last year or so. I remember one silly 3NT-4 best.

 

I don't have enough data to come to any conclusions, and I certainly cannot claim that I know what is best. Usually when people say that they know without a doubt that one style is better than another, I think that they don't know what they are talking about. In clee's case I know that he (1) likes to make strong statements, (2) has played a lot of bridge in recent years, and (3) has been doing very well. I will certainly take his opinion seriously.

[Antrax]

After reading this thread, I will consider opening similar hands 1NT. At the table the notion never even crossed my mind, before posting here. That's all I could hope for - I don't know if Bridge even has "right" answers out of the context of skill level and system.

[PhantomSac]

I am very comfortable saying that I know without a doubt that it is better to open 1N than 1D on hands like this. It's not even a matter of opinion/style, opening 1D is an extremely losing style.

 

You are easily within strength to open 1N, and opening 1N has tons of additional upside. You could make it impossible for them to find their fit, convince them not to bid game, convince them not to compete once it goes, say, 1N (2H) X P 3D, when a standard auction might go 1D 1H X 2H 3D 3H.

 

People will tell you things like opening 1N is matchpointitis or "too unilateral" or "misdescriptive/anti-partnership", but honestly those are just meaningless buzzwords and they just have not seen how amazing it is to open 1N on a hand like this. You have almost the perfect hand too, 6 solid and very little outside. I would consider it automatic to open 1N with Jx Txx AKQJxx Qx, and I would even do it with xx Txx AKQJxx Qx but that is more controversial.

 

Now that jdonn is back can we get roger to return? This was one of the greatest/funniest CLEE moments ever.

[Zelandakh]

Now that jdonn is back can we get roger to return? This was one of the greatest/funniest CLEE moments ever.

It would be nice to see han again too. If you have any influence...