diana_eva Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 Would you open this 1NT? No special agreements, 15-17 assumed. Does this fall into a "just bridge judgement 1NT" for you? [hv=pc=n&http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?s=SQ87HAK62DT4CAJ92&d=n&v=b&a=PP?]200|300[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 I would open this 1NT playing with GIB, but not generally speaking with humans if indeed playing 15-17 (I prefer 14-16 anyway). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 I would not treat this as a 15-17 NT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 This one is close, but I would. Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 If I played 14+ to 17- I'd think about it but still wouldn't, but playing 15-17 I don't see this as good enough. This is a better 14 than the other hand, but not an upgrade to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnu Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 If you have to open this 1NT, you should change your range to 14-16, etc so partner has a clue about your actual range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMorris Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 I think if you are going to play 14-17 you should just say so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 Of course not.. you got a normal, straight down the middle, 14 H. The only reason to open 1NT is a desire/need to hog the hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 What's special about this hand? Pretty much nothing - no 5-card suit, no touching intermediates, no backup for the SQ... Looks just like a balanced 14 to me and I would treat it as such. Add the SJ a couple of more useful tens, e.g. QJ7 AK102 64 A1097, and I would upgrade to a 15-17 NT. ahydra 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 No way on these colors. I've upgraded similar spot deficient in 3rd on favorable vul to bug lho knowing it was a swing action and it only works 1/2 the time even then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diana_eva Posted November 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 OK thanks. This hand and the other similar poll were both opened as 1NT in a team match I played. The player who opened THIS hand (poll #1), made a comment on how bad it was for the other player to upgrade THAT hand (poll #2). I said IMO they're both bad and not worth upgrading, altho his was clearly closer and we got into a bit of an argument on hand evaluation etc. So I wanted to check, just how close and why wd anyone upgrade in a random game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 OK thanks. This hand and the other similar poll were both opened as 1NT in a team match I played. The player who opened THIS hand (poll #1), made a comment on how bad it was for the other player to upgrade THAT hand (poll #2). I said IMO they're both bad and not worth upgrading, altho his was clearly closer and we got into a bit of an argument on hand evaluation etc. So I wanted to check, just how close and why wd anyone upgrade in a random game. Both hands are routine 14 counts. If these are regularly opened 1NT, they should disclose their range as 14 to whatever, otherwise it is a CPU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diana_eva Posted November 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 Both hands are routine 14 counts. If these are regularly opened 1NT, they should disclose their range as 14 to whatever, otherwise it is a CPU. Nope the context is different. The hands were opened by two different players, in two random partnerships - no disclosure issues. When they upgraded they did so without partner knowing their 15-17 1NT can look like that. That's why I posted, if two separate people considered these to be worth upgrading maybe I need to fine tune my hand evaluation skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 If you have to open this 1NT, you should change your range to 14-16, etc so partner has a clue about your actual range. You mean the opponents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar13 Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 On the knife edge, but no upgrade--switch the ♦T and the ♠7 or 8 and I would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillPatch Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 This hand has 14.7 Kaplan and Rubens points. For balanced hands, are roughly comparable in number to the 40 hcp per 52 card hand. pluses that make this a very good hand for 14 HCP: Surplus Ace; 3 quick tricks, a surplus of over 1/2 qt from normal 14 hcp hand,86% of high card strength in the 2 long suits, good placement of 9 with j and higher honor. Neutral factor: only slightly greater than average intermediate spot cards for a hand with this many honors. Negative factor: bad 10 placement. Positive factor not measured in Kaplan and Rubens points: majority of cards in majors. Reason for aggressive upgrading: Our side is vulnerable. At IMPS vulnerable we gain 10 imps if game is bid and made and they underbid, and lose only 6 imps if we bid to game, and they bid a trick short and both sides make 8 tricks, From this math at the scoring table all authorities agree that games should be bid more aggressively vulnerable than not. Sorry Ggwhiz, your argument for upgrading more NV for third seat preempting fourth is unsound. Strong NTs are for efficient game bidding, not preemption. Thomas Andrews, a major bridge simulator and the author of the free Bridge dealing program Deal, has derived from simulation that game should be bid on average vulnerable at IMPS with 24 hcp between the side when both partners hold balanced hands; versus the 25 hcp generally held necessary not vulnerable when we want a minimum 50% shot at game. I am my friend Hermann, another fellow simulator, joined me in selecting the upgrade on this hand. It feels much better only being outvoted 13 to 1 rather than 26 to 1. I am glad that none of my fellow BBO forum members upgraded the other 14 HCP hand. It had sterile distribution and few pluses. I think it is only worth 14.0 Kaplan and Rubens points at most. No where near 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillPatch Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 Both vulnerable at IMPS is the hour for the Hideous Hog! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 No. There is no reason to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 late to the thread. I think this one is quite close. We have 5 controls, and only 1 Queen and 1 Jack, This is a significantly above average honour distribution. In addition, and this is a powerful factor, partner is a passed hand and he will almost never invite game after I rebid 1N, even on hands where 9 tricks are pretty good, especially after an uninformative auction. Having said that, I would need another 10. The problem is that the 10 we own is likely not very useful. It isn't worthless, but I'd want another 10 somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasetb Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 Initially I voted (a close) No, but I have changed my vote to a Yes, for three reasons. One, it makes rebidding easier over 1♣ - 1♠. I feel that I'll choose the wrong thing to do between raising on 3 and rebidding 1NT with a Max and partner passing with many hands that have great play for game. Two, I am eating up space so the opponents can't make a cheap overcall to find a good contract or lead not otherwise found. Three, if we have the values for 3NT but no Major suit fit, I want to guard the ♠Qxx because I expect a Spade lead. Only a true hand hog or a person looking for a swing might try 1NT on your second hand. It has nothing to redeem it, and I agree with Mike that it's only worth 13. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 I would not upgrade. I am not against upgraders but if they do so... I am with those who believes it should be alerted as 14-17. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcphee Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 I am a yes, but I like to open NT on 14 when holding 2 aces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 The hand actually is worth 15, or even more, if there's a major fit. But that's far from certain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 This hand is an awful lot closer to a 1NT opening than the other hand, but I still wouldn't upgrade. But it is on the edge. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 If the diamond 10 were in any other suit, it's strong enough. If the spades and diamonds were switched, it would be preemptive enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts