Opening with 19p and balanced hand

[Haakon S]

I have 4♣and three cards in the other suits, 19 points. Do I have to open in 1♣in SAYC?

[kenrexford]

Some play that you can open 2NT if 19+. One benefit is leads coming in, so you want holdings where lead advantage exists, if a close decision. To be "plus," I personally usually want not 4333, so I adjust 19 down to 18 for starters. I want great controls. A=2, K=1. With 6-7 controls, I am thinking upgrade. With 8-9, I am heavily thinking upgrade. The more controls, though, the fewe lead advantages. So, I want 10's and 9's. But, maybe.

[BunnyGo]

It depends a lot on the specifics of the hand. The default is "yes, open 1♣." But the words, "have to" are a bit strong. If I have a bunch of KJT combinations, or AQT, or things I want to protect, I may open 2NT to make sure I declare. If my spots are very good, I may be upgrading anyways. However, I don't often do this; the default is to open 1C.

[jillybean]

What the rabbit said. All 19hcp are not the same, could you post the full hand?

[wank]

basically an auto 1♣ - you aren't going to be upgrading a 4333 into 2nt unless you're a serial overbidder

[Finch]

It depends a lot on the specifics of the hand. The default is "yes, open 1♣." But the words, "have to" are a bit strong. If I have a bunch of KJT combinations, or AQT, or things I want to protect, I may open 2NT to make sure I declare. If my spots are very good, I may be upgrading anyways. However, I don't often do this; the default is to open 1C.

 

If you have a 4333 19-count the chances are that you are going to declarer whether you open 1C or 2NT

[Quantumcat]

I would open 1♣ and rebid 2NT because that's what I've got - I wouldn't normally open a 19-count 2NT unless I had a nice 6-card minor. OP's hand sounds like it is in the bottom range of 1♣-then-2NT.

[kenrexford]

A109-A109-A109-AK109.

 

If you don't open this 2NT, you are a serial underbidder.

[mikl_plkcc]

A109-A109-A109-AK109.

 

If you don't open this 2NT, you are a serial underbidder.

 

I open 1♣ and rebid 2NT. I bid all balanced hands strictly to the number of HCPs.

 

I would open 1♣ and rebid 2NT because that's what I've got - I wouldn't normally open a 19-count 2NT unless I had a nice 6-card minor. OP's hand sounds like it is in the bottom range of 1♣-then-2NT.

 

If I have a nice 6-card minor, I NEVER open 2NT because my system don't allow me to bid NT with a 6-card suit or a 5-card major. I will try to count tricks, losers and controls and decide whether to open 1 of the minor or 2♣.

[Zelandakh]

I open 1♣ and rebid 2NT. I bid all balanced hands strictly to the number of HCPs.

Mikl, I can recommend the Victor Mollo "Bridge in the Menagerie" series of books to you. Not only are they extremely funny and entertaining, I suspect one or two of the sequels might actually open your eyes to some of the ways where one can improve as a bridge player. Or you could sit on a cornflake and wait for the van to come...

[kenrexford]

I open 1♣ and rebid 2NT. I bid all balanced hands strictly to the number of HCPs.

 

 

 

If I have a nice 6-card minor, I NEVER open 2NT because my system don't allow me to bid NT with a 6-card suit or a 5-card major. I will try to count tricks, losers and controls and decide whether to open 1 of the minor or 2♣.

 

You certainly can agree to notrump ranges that have overlaps as far as effective ranges if you want. You also can have effective ranges that are wider than most folks. But, you really ought to have a reason. If the reason is that counting non-honors and counting trick sources is too hard, or if you do not understand what the heck any of this means, or if you want artificial barriers that establish reliability as to some random factor, you probably cuase more trouble for yourself than you think, though.

[mikl_plkcc]

You certainly can agree to notrump ranges that have overlaps as far as effective ranges if you want. You also can have effective ranges that are wider than most folks. But, you really ought to have a reason. If the reason is that counting non-honors and counting trick sources is too hard, or if you do not understand what the heck any of this means, or if you want artificial barriers that establish reliability as to some random factor, you probably cuase more trouble for yourself than you think, though.

 

Aren't HCPs accurate for playing NT with balanced hands?!

[kenrexford]

Aren't HCPs accurate for playing NT with balanced hands?!

As an estimate, sure. But why limit yourself to a flawed estimate that does not account for shape, how honors fit, where honors are, and how much body you have.

I mean, if you play A32 opposite Q4, you expect 1.5 tricks, right? If you play A10972 opposite Q4, I bet you expect more tricks. A6532 opposite Q4 is in the middle, as is A109 opposite Q4. All of these are 6HCP. The difference is that the 10, the 9, and the length all add tricks above 1.5, so should these not be counted?

[jmcw]

haven't come across a 4333 that was remotely close to an upgrade.

 

you should follow system unless you have a compelling reason not to, so this is an easy 1♣..

[the hog]

I open 1♣ and rebid 2NT. I bid all balanced hands strictly to the number of HCPs.

 

 

 

If I have a nice 6-card minor, I NEVER open 2NT because my system don't allow me to bid NT with a 6-card suit or a 5-card major. I will try to count tricks, losers and controls and decide whether to open 1 of the minor or 2♣.

 

Mikl, what you are playing is abut 20 years old.That's fine if you are comfortable with it. Others however play a more modern game.

[gwnn]

I have 4♣and three cards in the other suits, 19 points. Do I have to open in 1♣in SAYC?

Yes, pretty much, but I don't think that's a problem. It's pretty cool to play in a cozy 1C contract when strong/polish clubbers will play in 1NT and serial overbidders like kenrexford and bunnygo will play in 2NT or even 3NT! :)

 

A dream scenario is dummy having 3-4 clubs and a doubleton/singleton outside, then 1C can play very well because you have unexpected entries to dummy whereas in NT you will have to play everything out of your hand.

 

This post has been concentrating on the case where your partner is very weak because that is when your system will most likely matter.

[Phil]

A109-A109-A109-AK109.

 

If you don't open this 2NT, you are a serial underbidder.

 

Do we have to come up with such an extreme example to make a point?

[gwnn]

Do we have to come up with such an extreme example to make a point?

Why not? This is one hand that everyone (well, more than 99% of the people at least) would upgrade, we can agree and move on.

[kenrexford]

As an interesting support for this thinking, I suggest surveying 2NT openings on Vugraph of top games. I cannot recall the exact events that I personally surveyed, but I found that 19 HCP was the mos common actual holding when people opened 20-21 HCP 2NT. Obviously this might suggest that the ranges were incorrectly stated, but it might also suggest that the expert community deems many hands that seem like 19 to really be 20.

[Zelandakh]

As an interesting support for this thinking, I suggest surveying 2NT openings on Vugraph of top games. I cannot recall the exact events that I personally surveyed, but I found that 19 HCP was the mos common actual holding when people opened 20-21 HCP 2NT. Obviously this might suggest that the ranges were incorrectly stated, but it might also suggest that the expert community deems many hands that seem like 19 to really be 20.

How many of those upgraded 19s were 4333 though, ken? I think (almost) everyone here believes it is right to upgrade some 19s.

[kenrexford]

How many of those upgraded 19s were 4333 though, ken? I think (almost) everyone here believes it is right to upgrade some 19s.

Yes, but I was responding to the minority who do not, and who do not consider upgrading ever. As to how many were specifically 4333, I did not do any such specific analysis to my memory.

[Quantumcat]

If I have a nice 6-card minor, I NEVER open 2NT because my system don't allow me to bid NT with a 6-card suit or a 5-card major. I will try to count tricks, losers and controls and decide whether to open 1 of the minor or 2♣.

I really hate agreeing with the hog, but I'm not going to be rude like him. The problem with not opening these hands in NT is that you have absolutely no rebid when it comes back to you - you are forced to either overbid (by jump-bidding NT and showing more HCP than you have) or underbidding (bidding the same level of NT as the response). When you have a 19 count and a nice six-card club suit, you are really worth much more than opening 1♣ and rebidding 3♣ or 2NT. But what else are you going to rebid? Better to upgrade your hand to 20 or 21 in the first place.

[blackshoe]

A109-A109-A109-AK109.

 

If you don't open this 2NT, you are a serial underbidder.

 

I open 1♣ and rebid 2NT. I bid all balanced hands strictly to the number of HCPs.

George Rosenkranz and his fellows found that controls are more important than HCP in considering strong NT openings (19+ HCP). The Romex structure is:

 

1NT: 19-20 HCP and six controls (if balanced; 1NT in Romex is artificial and may have an unbalanced hand)

2♦: 21-22 HCP and seven controls, if balanced.

2♣: 23-24 HCP and eight controls

2NT: 25-26 HCP and nine controls (alternatively, open 2♣ and use the Kokish Relay). This 2NT opening is forcing to game.

 

If the hand has more or fewer than the suggested number of controls (A=2 controls, K=1 control), and is at the upper or lower end of its HCP range, respectively, it will be downgraded or upgraded one step (never more than one step) as appropriate. Ken's example hand would be opened 1NT in spite of the nine controls because it is "only" 19 HCP. If the hand had a Jack, it would be opened 2♦. BTW, the most common response to 1NT is 2♦, showing 6+ HCP, 0-4 controls, and if 3-4 controls, fewer than 3 cover cards. If responder bids this over Ken's example hand, opener will know he has no more than two kings. Higher responses (2♥ through 3♣) show specific numbers of controls. The auction 1NT-2♣-2NT shows the balanced 19-20, denying a four card major, so 3♣ now by responder is not Stayman. If opener had a four card major he would bid 2♦ over 2♣, which acts like Stayman. Responder's 2♣ shows 0-5 HCP.

[Phil]

I played against a Romex pair in the LM's. Was that you Blackshoe?

[kenrexford]

George Rosenkranz and his fellows found that controls are more important than HCP in considering strong NT openings (19+ HCP). The Romex structure is:

 

1NT: 19-20 HCP and six controls (if balanced; 1NT in Romex is artificial and may have an unbalanced hand)

2♦: 21-22 HCP and seven controls, if balanced.

2♣: 23-24 HCP and eight controls

2NT: 25-26 HCP and nine controls (alternatively, open 2♣ and use the Kokish Relay). This 2NT opening is forcing to game.

 

If the hand has more or fewer than the suggested number of controls (A=2 controls, K=1 control), and is at the upper or lower end of its HCP range, respectively, it will be downgraded or upgraded one step (never more than one step) as appropriate. Ken's example hand would be opened 1NT in spite of the nine controls because it is "only" 19 HCP. If the hand had a Jack, it would be opened 2♦. BTW, the most common response to 1NT is 2♦, showing 6+ HCP, 0-4 controls, and if 3-4 controls, fewer than 3 cover cards. If responder bids this over Ken's example hand, opener will know he has no more than two kings. Higher responses (2♥ through 3♣) show specific numbers of controls. The auction 1NT-2♣-2NT shows the balanced 19-20, denying a four card major, so 3♣ now by responder is not Stayman. If opener had a four card major he would bid 2♦ over 2♣, which acts like Stayman. Responder's 2♣ shows 0-5 HCP.

 

 

Since the 2NT range in normal worlds is 20-21, my example would be upgraded, because the 1minor...2NT range is 18-19. For that matter, any hand with three Aces and a King (or better) would be upgraded as to controls using that theory.I personally tweak this to consider an upgrade with 7+ controls, but then I evaluate shape (4-3-3-3 being a negative) but also under-evaluated 10's and 9's. If you expect that everyone has one 10 and one 9 on average, with a 2NT opening having slightly fewer than average "on average" because of so many honors taking up useful space, then anything more than one 10 and one 9, in useful places, is a plus. I need at least enough 10's and 9's to overtake the downgrade from the 4-3-3-3 shape problem. Obviously, four 10's and four 9's is CLEARLY enough. What number of useful 10's and 9's is enough is a fine line that could be discussed.