14 points

[eagles123]

Matchpoints

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk6ha94dak743c752&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv]

 

2/1 15-17 NT

 

is it close

 

thanks

 

Eagles

[gszes]

it is this kind of hand that drives directors crazy when opps complain "he only had 14". It might be best for all concerned and any ruling body in general to include the provision that all NT ranges include min- to max+ (15- to 17+) and make the game more one of judgement than nitpicking. We can put this on our CC but that kind of thing will often get overlooked especially if a pair arrives just in time. The number of times responder will bid 6/7 something :knowing: you have at least 15 hcp will crop up a couple of times a year so the slight expansion of range is anything but horrific. How about those 15 counts that look like dreck QJ AQ32 Q43 KJ32. How many downgrade that 15 count and open 1c instead? Again it is a matter of judgement.

[wank]

I'd open 1d but i wouldn't complain if p opened 1nt

[manudude03]

I would open 1NT, but I'd feel a lot happier if that ♠K was the ♣K.

[Phil]

At MPs red I'm not upgrading.

[jogs]

I'd open 1d but i wouldn't complain if p opened 1nt

 

You wouldn't complain, but would opponents complain after they misdefend?

[hrothgar]

I think that this is a clear 1NT.

 

All your points are Aces and Kings and you have an AK in your longest suit.

[hrothgar]

You wouldn't complain, but would opponents complain after they misdefend?

 

Why should I care?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk6ha94dak743c752&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200|

Matchpoints

2/1 15-17 NT

is it close

thanks[/hv]

Close but I rank

1. 1N = BAL 14+-17- HCP. Pre-emptive. IMO, 14 HCP in aces and kings with a good 5-card suit is quite enough. (I agree with gszes the law should mandate that you should declare the "actual HCP range that you use" rather than prevaricate with a so-called "upgrade" ranges).
2. 1♦ = NAT. Lead-directional. You don't have much in the way of tenaces, to protect.

[akwoo]

The odd thing about this hand is that, if you have agreed to open 1N on balanced hands in range with a 5 card major, and the diamonds and hearts were switched, I don't think there would be many votes for 1N.

[MrAce]

Matchpoints

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk6ha94dak743c752&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p]133|200[/hv]

 

2/1 15-17 NT

 

is it close

 

thanks

 

Eagles

 

You have 14 hcp, with a good 5 card suit and all prime cards. Only thing missing is the spot cards. I would not mind whichever pd prefers to open.

I would open 1 NT. With 3-2 majors it has sort of preemptive effect on LHO. Especially at MP.

 

 

[WesleyC]

The odd thing about this hand is that, if you have agreed to open 1N on balanced hands in range with a 5 card major, and the diamonds and hearts were switched, I don't think there would be many votes for 1N.

 

 

Really? Both look like clear 1NT opening to me, especially if you play 1M - 1NT as less than 100% forcing.

[rmnka447]

I'm more in the 1 ♦ camp although I'd have no problem if someone opened 1 NT I wouldn't be critical.

 

However, in any follow up bidding, I not apt to be turning down any invites and may be a bit more pushy than usual.

[helene_t]

1♦ but close. The hand is better than 14 for a suit contract, but I will raise if partner responds 1♥ so that's ok.

[billw55]

I'd open 1d but i wouldn't complain if p opened 1nt

Same for me. The high cards are good quality, but no spots and no incentive to get into our NT system.

[jogs]

Why should I care?

This happens too often. BIT, 1NT. Then you know it is likely a 14 HCP 5332 NT.

[hrothgar]

This happens too often. BIT, 1NT. Then you know it is likely a 14 HCP 5332 NT.

 

or a 4153 hand

or maybe a 6322

or very rarely a 7222

Then there was the time it was a 6331 with a stiff king

Or there are the times that its a balanced 8 count

 

(Then there's the really weird stuff)

 

Simply put, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[ggwhiz]

1nt is hardly a hanging offence even though I voted obvious but I much prefer 1♦ with the lack of body cards.

 

Aces and Kings are better for suit play and notrump plays much better if pard happens to bid it.

 

I also have an advantage in that if I rebid 1nt and partner checks back with 2♣ I can super accept to show my shape and upper range.

[kenberg]

I am one of the 1D openers and, for me, it is not close. This means that I would not have to think twice about it, but I don't mean that anyone who opens it 1NT is clearly wrong. I am simply certain of what I would do. And I would not call a director if an opponent opened this 1NT when their card said 15-17.

 

About the director call. Any bridge book that you read tells you that evaluating a hand involves more than counting high card points. Assuming that we believe this, then we should allow the opening bidder to do more than count high card points. I open it 1D. If you want to open it 1NT, go ahead.

[jogs]

or a 4153 hand

or maybe a 6322

or very rarely a 7222

Then there was the time it was a 6331 with a stiff king

Or there are the times that its a balanced 8 count

 

(Then there's the really weird stuff)

 

Simply put, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

Oft shape NT is usually 2NT openers. Haven't seen opponents opening 1NT with a singleton very often.

But BIT then 1NT is almost always oft shape or out of range.

[billw55]

I am one of the 1D openers and, for me, it is not close. This means that I would not have to think twice about it, but I don't mean that anyone who opens it 1NT is clearly wrong. I am simply certain of what I would do. And I would not call a director if an opponent opened this 1NT when their card said 15-17.

Same here. I am definitely bidding 1♦. And a director call for 1NT would be silly, to say the least.

[Winstonm]

Upgrading has not worked out well for me in the past, but I still open this hand 1NT.

[Vampyr]

About the director call. Any bridge book that you read tells you that evaluating a hand involves more than counting high card points. Assuming that we believe this, then we should allow the opening bidder to do more than count high card points.

 

Yes, but as per Nigel above, why not put it on your card and announce accordingly? What is listed on a CC, and announced, is HCP after all, nothing else.

[Winstonm]

Yes, but as per Nigel above, why not put it on your card and announce accordingly? What is listed on a CC, and announced, is HCP after all, nothing else.

 

 

O.K., but I value the AK in a 5-card suit as 8 points. So I have my 15 HCP. do I not?

[kenberg]

Yes, but as per Nigel above, why not put it on your card and announce accordingly? What is listed on a CC, and announced, is HCP after all, nothing else.

 

I think we would have to do this on many bids. I play Flannery as 11-15. If I have a 16 count that includes Jx of clubs might I decide it is only 15 highs? Quite possibly, if the rest of the hand is a bit sleazy. I have, on occasion, declined to open 2NT when my 20 count includes AK tight. Or KQ tight.

 

Maybe we could pre-alert for all calls: We sometimes use our judgment instead of simply counting high card points. The only problem would be that everyone else does also, so why bother.

 

I once had the following happen. 1NT on my right, I held AKQJxx in spades and an outside Ace. I decided to double, passed out. I cashed my seven tricks for down 1. My rho announce he was summoning the director because the double of a 15-17 point NT shows at least 15 highs and I had only 14. My lho very forcefully instructed his partner, my rho, to leave him out of any such objection. My rho decided to leave it be. We all came to be friends, I think the devil had briefly invaded rho's body.

 

As near as I can see, directors approve of this approach. I rarely open 1NT on 14, in particular I opted for 1D on the OP hand. Give the suits a little more body, but not more highs, and I would opt for 1NT. With or without the extra body I would not question either the ethics or the judgment of anyone who opened it 1NT. I open it 1D because it is not such a great hand and we might well want to compete to 3D. Maybe right, maybe wrong.

 

I did play for a while with someone who seemed to have trouble determining whether numbers summed to 14 or 15. Time to put down 15- to 17or even 14+ to 17. But this also causes problems since some of those hands that he would open 1NT I would not dream of opening 1NT. Maybe at the highest levels partners come to full and complete agreement on such matters, each opening 1NT on exactly the same hands, but for me it is loose around the edges. Different people, different views. Example: Some time back partner opened 1NT and the opponents asked if he could ever do this holding a singleton. I explained that we had no agreement that prohibited it, we do not routinely do it, I had on some occasions done so when I thought there was good reason to do so, I had never seen him do so. This seems reasonable to me. If we had to get the legal teams out to negotiate full agreement in everything, we would never get around to playing. "I, on rare occasions, might do such and such, but I have never seen partner do it" seems fair information. I once had a partner who started frequently psyching 1S in third position. I told him he had to stop or we had to start alerting. I prefer he stop. He stopped.

 

A mild and infrequent give on highs when compensating features occur seems right, it does not in my opinion contradict full disclosure.