[MickyB]

Really not sure about the logic of only downgrading at MPs or not downgrading when vul at IMPs. Just bid your hand, pard will be more aggressive vul at IMPs. Of course, if your teammates are the sort that will jump on any bad result then maybe you are best trying to keep the peace, but I would rather just find different teammates!

BTW, Binky evaluates this at about 16.3 points in terms of playing strength in NT. I seem to remember that I never got around to replying to a post asking me about Binky - you can find the evaluator here. The average Binky count for NT for a balanced 10 count is 3.07, 11 pts = 3.58, 12 pts = 4.09, I'm not sure quite how accurate extrapolating from these figures is but it seems unlikely to be too far off.

[MickyB]

Oh yes - Binky assumes that the contract is right-sided, as this is very unlikely to be the case here I suspect that this hand should be downgraded further.

[han]

I absolutey agree with Micky that fear of teammates should not be a reason to make a bid that you think is inferior. I'm wondering if Mikeh ever lets this influence his decisions, it is not clear what the smiley face meant.

[pigpenz]

Walddk, on Oct 20 2005, 05:51 AM, said:

No, I wouldn't downgrade it to 15-17. How often do you have 6 certain tricks when you open 1NT? Never. And furthermore, how often do you have 6 certain tricks when you open 1x and rebid 2NT over 1y? Almost never.

It's 18 to me, close between 18 and a good 18. I will downgrade it to 18 for two reasons.

1. Empty in 2 suits.
2. 3334.

I have nothing to be ashamed of if the auction goes

1♣ - 1♠
2NT

Roland

heck how often do you have six certaintricks when you open 2NT

[mikeh]

Hannie, on Oct 20 2005, 10:56 AM, said:

I absolutey agree with Micky that fear of teammates should not be a reason to make a bid that you think is inferior. I'm wondering if Mikeh ever lets this influence his decisions, it is not clear what the smiley face meant.

I was kidding.... you should make the bid you think is correct: I haven't played on a team on which my teammates second-guess me for many years: I only play with friends. I don't have any problem with discussing decisions that any of us make, in a constructive fashion, but I would not play twice on a team where there was frequent sniping.

But downgrading at mps is logical: mps rewards plus scores, whereas imps rewards big scores.

If I play 10 hands on which all except me reach game, and game makes 4 times: I get 4 zeros and 6 tops: in a tough field 60% is a good score.

If half the contracts make, I score 50%.

At imps, even if all of the contracts were nv, I am a net loser (assuming that all games fail by one trick and do not get doubles, etc) if half the contracts make. Allow them to be vulnerable, and I am a net loser even when only 4 of the contracts make.

So in a close situation, mps rewards aiming low and thus I would downgrade more frquently at mps than at imps: I would rarely downgrade at either.

[cherdano]

Mike, of course we all want to reach fewer games when playing MPs. I just think that responder is taking care of this already, and I don't need to adjust my opening bids accordingly. However if you upgrade your opening hands at IMPs more often, he bids game with any 8 points opposite 15-17 NT opening, and you accept all invites because it is IMPs, you might end up playing a little too many 21 hcp 3NT games

[P_Marlowe]

18 HCP.

I am dump, I know, but it is 18 count
and I will treat it as an 18 count.

Marlowe

[junyi_zhu]

cherdano, on Oct 20 2005, 10:15 AM, said:

I am wondering whether anyone would consider downgrading this to 1NT (15-17) opening:
♠852
♥AKQ
♦654
♣AKQ2

Arend

Oops, hand added.

this is a normal 18 to me. The shape isn't great, no tens, but the control is good.
You often make 4H if partner hold 6 hearts and a side suit aces, in which case, you won't bid it if you open 1NT. You have a pretty good chance in 4S as well if partner holds 6 baby spades and a side suit ace. For 3nt, you don't need much as well, all you need is some level of fit in C or H, when in H, you have a block problem, in that case, you want partner to hold magic CJ, side suit A and magic HJ to make 3nt. but your really have a good play in 3nt when partner holds C fit,
like SAKx Hxx Dxxxx Cxxxx, and partner won't move if you open 1NT. So all in all, it's really not an 1nt opener in my opinion. For this hand, it's usually easy to play, either go down early or claim early and everybody like easy hands:)

[cherdano]

junyi_zhu, on Oct 20 2005, 06:48 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 20 2005, 10:15 AM, said:

I am wondering whether anyone would consider downgrading this to 1NT (15-17) opening:
♠852
♥AKQ
♦654
♣AKQ2

Arend

Oops, hand added.

this is a normal 18 to me. The shape isn't great, no tens, but the control is good.
You often make 4H if partner hold 6 hearts and a side suit aces, in which case, you won't bid it if you open 1NT. You have a pretty good chance in 4S as well if partner holds 6 baby spades and a side suit ace. For 3nt, you don't need much as well, all you need is some level of fit in C or H, when in H, you have a block problem, in that case, you want partner to hold magic CJ, side suit A and magic HJ to make 3nt. but your really have a good play in 3nt when partner holds C fit,
like SAKx Hxx Dxxxx Cxxxx, and partner won't move if you open 1NT. So all in all, it's really not an 1nt opener in my opinion. For this hand, it's usually easy to play, either go down early or claim early and everybody like easy hands:)

I am exactly not convinced by your arguments. Your constructions need the magic 6-7 hcp to make 3NT. My partners usually need 8 hcp to hold 6 magic among them.
If partner transfers into hearts, I would feel better if I can systematically superaccept with this hand. But again, you need magic 6 "points" (and game is still not cold due to the almost automatic trump promotion if they lead the right pointed suit).

Arend

[han]

This is too subtle for me, what does it mean that you are exactly not convinced?

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Oct 20 2005, 11:44 PM, said:

This is too subtle for me, what does it mean that you are exactly not convinced?

That I need to treat this as 18-19. If my partner needs 6 magic hcp, he needs actually 8 hcp, and we get to game after I open 1NT.

Edit: Oops, only now I saw my grammar error -- I meant to say "I was not exactly convinced" by the arguments. Which is probably just bad English for "not convinced".

[luke warm]

i voted '18'... i have a very good source of tricks, especially given the 3334 shape.. i'd open 1C then bid 2NT, at imps for sure and probably at mps as well

[Rebound]

I am curious to know the results of a simulation. However, I would still wonder, should it favor a downgrade, whether it properly values the trick-taking power of the hand.

A couple of quacks in the unbid suits in partner's hand is almost enough for game. When I first saw the hand I felt 1♣ was automatic, but the arguments for downgrading now have me sitting on the fence.

[Al_U_Card]

While I accept that AKQ tight is a "bad" holding and 4333 is a "bad" shape, this is in the context of they "only" provide 3 tricks and the shape cannot supply length tricks. I think that the presence of 2 AKQ for a total of 6 honor tricks and obvious contribution to at least one of pards suits means that overall it is a hand that must not be devalued for any reason......

[Chamaco]

I think that AKQ count more than 9 hcp, and 4333 leads to deevaluation, so the 2 issues more or less cancel each other.

I think that with the concentration of values in 2 suits only, a case *might* be done to treat is as 2 suiter, opening 1C and reversing in hearts.

[han]

Chamaco, on Oct 21 2005, 01:39 PM, said:

I think that with the concentration of values in 2 suits only, a case *might* be done to treat is as 2 suiter, opening 1C and reversing in hearts.

Please!

Remember that there might be children who read this forum.

[Chamaco]

Hannie, on Oct 21 2005, 06:46 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Oct 21 2005, 01:39 PM, said:

I think that with the concentration of values in 2 suits only, a case *might* be done to treat is as 2 suiter, opening 1C and reversing in hearts.

Please!

Remember that there might be children who read this forum.

I do not think children should learn to downgrade specifically this hand to 15-17 1NT :-)

Wanna create a censorship committee ?

I think that the type of values (AKQ clustered), no good intermediates, and the 2-suit concentration of honors make the hand suit oriented, if we do find a Moysian, it may well play better than in NT.
Soimetimes we may end in the 33 fit, s**t happens, sometimes we avoid playng NT with the tenaces led through in dummy

[Free]

I'd consider it a 1NT opener. Downgrading for the 4333 shape, and 2 open suits. Ok, you have lots of tricks, but opponents are on the lead... I voted "17".

[cherdano]

As I am sure everyone here is subscribed to The Bridge World (if you are not, you should) maybe some have recognized the hand. The rebid problem at matchpoints after 1♣-(1♦)-X (double promising at least 4 cards in both majors) was given as a MSC problem for this October.
50% of the panel voted for 2♦ (which is a game force in BWS), but the only convincing point given by its supporters was that partner could be 5-4 in the majors. Instead, almost everyone who seemed to have thought more about the problem and constructed hands for partner voted for 2♥ or even 1♥. It looks like game needs a lot (or magic cards). Who am I to judge but to me it seems like the majority got this wrong.
Only one comment mentioned opening the hand 1 NT instead, although it seemed like the most sensible option to me. I see I get at least a substantial minority support here.