[Liversidge]

---

Last night, playing with the 'big guys' at our club, I opened 1♦ and rebid them, which was passed. We made, some pairs did likewise. Nobody bid 1NT (we play the weak NT).
One of the best players at our club said he would have opened 1NT, which was cold when we looked at the cards. I said I had two doubletons, but he pointed out that I had practically 6 tricks off the top without any help from partner once I got the lead, and if partner had nothing we would have stolen the contract. Was he right, or was it 20:20 hindsight? (No other pair bid 1NT.)

[diana_eva]

Liversidge, on 2014-August-29, 01:10, said:

---

Last night, playing with the 'big guys' at our club, I opened 1♦ and rebid them, which was passed. We made, some pairs did likewise. Nobody bid 1NT.
One of the best players at our club said he would have opened 1NT, which was cold when we looked at the cards. I said I had two doubletons, but he pointed out that I had practically 6 tricks off the top without any help from partner once I got the lead, and if partner had nothing we would have stolen the contract. Was he right, or was it 20:20 hindsight? (No other pair bid 1NT.)

I would open 1NT on this hand, but I can understand 1♦ bidders. Coming from a 16-18 NT range, I found it hard to adapt to 15-17. It took me several years to experience "upgrades" on good 14s and when I did it was on hands like this one, with lots of tricks in hand. I think it depends a lot on experience, and I would not recommend upgrading 14s before you're very comfortable with what happens over 15-17 NT.

Edit: NVM, when I posted this I didn't notice the weak NT.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2014-August-29, 02:31

[akwoo]

Liversidge, on 2014-August-29, 01:10, said:

---

Last night, playing with the 'big guys' at our club, I opened 1♦ and rebid them, which was passed. We made, some pairs did likewise. Nobody bid 1NT (we play the weak NT).
One of the best players at our club said he would have opened 1NT, which was cold when we looked at the cards. I said I had two doubletons, but he pointed out that I had practically 6 tricks off the top without any help from partner once I got the lead, and if partner had nothing we would have stolen the contract. Was he right, or was it 20:20 hindsight? (No other pair bid 1NT.)

Warning: My experience is in a Kaplan-Sheinwold (i.e. weak NT w/ 5 card majors) rather than Acol context. I don't know if this makes a difference.

When I played weak NT, we systemically opened 5422 hands with 5 in a minor with the right point count 1NT. This means you'll almost never have to rebid a minor with 5 and partner can more confidently expect 6. You have a nice well-defined system available over 1N, and you'll be fine if partner transfers into your doubleton. At matchpoints, you almost never want to be playing a minor suit contract (except as a sacrifice) anyway.

With this hand though, I think I would upgrade and consider it a 15 count, and I very rarely upgrade.

[EricK]

If you opened 1♦, why didn't you rebid 2♣?

The biggest problem with opening this a weak NT is not the distribution, it's the strength. 6 tricks in hand is great for playing 1NT if partner has nothing; but it's great for missing 3NT, when partner has a little bit and can't picture this sort of playing strength opposite.

[helene_t]

Playing strong nt there is a case for opening this hand 1NT (upgrading to 15 or even 16). Semibalanced and 3-suited hands with 15-16 points are awkward in strong nt systems because they are sorta worth a 3rd bid but not quite. So one should open 1NT as often as possible as it may be the last chance to show the strength of the hand.

But playing weak NT (assuming this hand is worth 14) I think it's a bit silly. It wrongsides the contract, partner won't make the right decision over interference, if partner takes you out to 2M on a five-card suit it probably won't be the right contract, you'll almost never find a minor suit contract when that is right. And partner won't find the diamond lead if you end up defending.

If the minors had been reversed the case for opening 1NT would be much stronger since the hand is too weak to reverse so you wouldn't be able to show both your suits anyway.

[Cyberyeti]

Over 1♦-1M I might well have bid 1N, I'd only have opened 1N if playing 15-17, realistically what do you need for a decent shot at game ? Axxx, Axxx, xx, J9x or J10xx, Axx, xxx, KQx, the sort of hand that will pass a weak notrump like a shot, and if you can make 1N+1 at pairs you need 10 tricks in clubs to beat that.

But yes this is a 2♣ rebid not 2♦, do you really want to play 2♦ opposite Axx, xxxx, xx, KQxx for example, 10 tricks in diamonds but 11 in clubs most of the time (and often 9-10 in NT as they have more spades than hearts and you've bid hearts so they may well find the wrong lead or hearts can be 4-3).

[Zelandakh]

I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. Change the hand to ♠T8 ♥97 ♦AT76 ♣AQJ62 and 1NT looks more appealing. Change it to ♠K8 ♥K7 ♦KT76 ♣QJ632 and I would expect everyone to open 1NT despite "two doubletons".

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2014-August-29, 05:20, said:

I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♣. Change the hand to ♠T8 ♥97 ♦AT76 ♣AQJ62 and 1NT looks more appealing. Change it to ♠K8 ♥K7 ♦KT76 ♣QJ632 and I would expect everyone to open 1NT despite "two doubletons".

Agree. Two small doubletons is completely different from Hx Hx, or even Hx xx.

[1eyedjack]

I am in the 1N camp. Cuts out the 1M overcall. Doesn't always work out well (nothing does).

[steve2005]

I think some people are not realizing poster uses weak NT and suggesting upgrading to open a strong 1N.



sorry think at most one person doing that and they later corrected

I agree with this evaluation so you open 1♦ and rebid strong 1N.
hand just has too much playing strength for a weak 1N.

[PhilKing]

FWIW, I don't think a weak no trump shows six playing tricks.

[neilkaz]

This looks to be too strong for a weak NT to me. I find nothing wrong with trying to bid the distribution with 1D then 2C but won't quarrel with a 1NT rebid.

[gszes]

There are 3 problems associated with opening this hand a weak 1n (no matter
if 12-14 or 13-15).

1. (as stated by may others) the playing strength which is much more like a 16.5
count than a 13 count)

2. the 22 small in the majors can lead to a lot of negatives when responder has
55 or greater in the majors and assumes a trump fit (this is not that common
but it can result in a pretty miserable score).

3. More obscure but important. Look at your hand. You have zero values that need
protection from a dangerous opening lead. when reasonable you should be looking for
ways to let partner (who may have vulnerable values) declare the hand. Don't let
this last idea mess with your bidding too much but keep it in mind when you have
a choice of ways to describe your hand.

I would have opened your hand 1d and rebid 2c (p will try to keep the bidding open with
a false 2d preference if they are near the top of a min response and you can then trot out
3d to show the extra values and let p declare 3n:)

[StevenG]

1♦ is great until they overcall a major (usually with a weak jump).

[damitall]

May I ask everyone a simple question ? What is the priority.? Is it to tell your partner what you hold? Is it so to say preempt opponents at the same time misinforming your partner? From the discussion that has taken place so far I guess the intention is to preempt opponents.Good Lord and if the opponents reach 3 NT and your partner is on lead the chances of his leading a diamond or a club are practically zero and it is the opponents who will steal the board.Against good level opponents it is an useless weapon.By opening and rebidding diamonds or two clubs you at least leave partner the option of sacrificing if the opponents reach a major suit game.You destroy partners faith by opening 1NT on such hands.

[1eyedjack]

damitall, on 2014-August-30, 01:17, said:

May I ask everyone a simple question ? What is the priority.? Is it to tell your partner what you hold? Is it so to say preempt opponents at the same time misinforming your partner? From the discussion that has taken place so far I guess the intention is to preempt opponents.Good Lord and if the opponents reach 3 NT and your partner is on lead the chances of his leading a diamond or a club are practically zero and it is the opponents who will steal the board.Against good level opponents it is an useless weapon.By opening and rebidding diamonds or two clubs you at least leave partner the option of sacrificing if the opponents reach a major suit game.You destroy partners faith by opening 1NT on such hands.

I see a few problems with this post.

Opening 1N in a particular situation is either a good tactical bid or it is not. Good tactical bids sometimes work, and sometimes fail. The measure of whether it is a good tactical bid is whether your overall long term net expected result is better than that of the next best alternative (here suggested as 1D). But even if your long term net result is optimised, on any given hand in the short term the result may be poor.

Any reasonable partner should appreciate that an optimal action can on occasion give a poor result. If he is upset then either
1) he is unreasonable, in which case I would not lose any sleep over it. You talk of priorities, so perhaps the highest priority should be looking for a new partner.
or
2) You have conflicting opinions on whether the bid is tactically optimal. Occasionally there may be areas in which even the most compatible of partnerships cannot come to agreement. If the situation is new and undiscussed, then again a reasonable partner should be open to the possibility of a conflicting opinion on optimal strategy. If he goes off the rails because an undiscussed borderline action fails with which he disagrees, then again it may be time to start looking for a new partner.

If you have discussed the situation, cannot come to an agreement on what is optimal, and despite which you choose the route which you consider optimal but know your partner to consider otherwise, and it happens to fail, then I agree that you only have yourself to blame. But I am assuming that this scenario is not being seriously considered in this thread.

One of the higher priorities for partnership discussion and express agreement is the definitions of high frequency bids, such as a weak 1N opener. If I prefer to open 1N on this hand it would arise after having discussed with my partner the requirements for a 1N opening bid, and provided that this falls within that definition, which it will if we conclude that it is tactically optimal, then partner has absolutely no reason to lose "faith" in the partnership, as you put it, if this happens to be one of those occasions when it fails. There is no question of "misinforming partner" as you put it, because it would fall within the required definition as by prior agreement.

If the opponents end in 3N I would be highly surprised if it makes on a major suit lead. They would need to have 9 tricks in the majors, one of which might be conceded to them on the opening lead, but I would expect them to have had some attempt at locating major suit fits in that scenario, which could alert partner to the dangers of leading one of them.

In any case I don't share your pessimism at the prospect of a minor suit lead. I don't know if you have noticed, but passive leads against NT contracts have been growing in popularity over recent years. GIB robot would routinely lead a minor if he hopes to find partner's suit rather try to set up his own entryless hand.

In answer to your opening question, a weak 1NT has both constructive and pre-emptive properties, just as a weak 2 suit opener might opposite a non-passed hand. The two priorities do not necessarily conflict.

[jdgalt]

Liversidge, on 2014-August-29, 01:10, said:

---

Last night, playing with the 'big guys' at our club, I opened 1♦ and rebid them, which was passed. We made, some pairs did likewise. Nobody bid 1NT (we play the weak NT).
One of the best players at our club said he would have opened 1NT, which was cold when we looked at the cards. I said I had two doubletons, but he pointed out that I had practically 6 tricks off the top without any help from partner once I got the lead, and if partner had nothing we would have stolen the contract. Was he right, or was it 20:20 hindsight? (No other pair bid 1NT.)

I would have started with 1D but rebid 2C over either major. What was partner's response, btw?

I agree with the other posters that opening 1NT here is masterminding, and will drive partners away.

[bdegrande]

I have no problem opening 1NT with this shape, but the hand is FAR too good for a weak NT, with a great five card 2 aces, and 2 doubletons. I would open this hand 1NT playing a 15-17 NT. Playing 12-14 NT, I would open 1D and rebid 1NT over 1M.

[fromageGB]

1eyedjack, on 2014-August-30, 06:45, said:

In answer to your opening question, a weak 1NT has both constructive and pre-emptive properties, just as a weak 2 suit opener might opposite a non-passed hand. The two priorities do not necessarily conflict.

The choice is yours when you decide what system to play. If you think pre-empting your opponents is worth pre-empting your partner, you choose to play a weak NT. If you think sound partnership discussion to determine the best contract is the way to play, at the expense of giving opponents an easier ride, then you play strong NT. (Because a weak NT hand is far more frequent.) Playing strong NT against a club field of weak no-trumpers, you see this clearly. Many a time you play in the 2M contract that others cannot find, and occasionally your opponents can get to a contract that others don't.

So the answer to damitail's question is that it is a personal philosophical choice, and you need a partner with the same preferences !

[wank]

your chum is on crack