[luis]

hrothgar, on May 4 2006, 09:39 PM, said:

luis, on May 5 2006, 12:14 AM, said:

I thought 1♣ and 2♣ would be almost universal because you don't need a special agreement to do that. Note that Fred who refuses to open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ has the special agreement that a 2♣ rebid shows 6 cards or a good 5 count and can't be as heavy as this hand. But that is a special agreement or is it not?

Luis:

Please note that Fred and I agree that a 1NT opening is the smallest lie. If you find Fred and I agreeing about bidding, I'd hardly consider this a rare/special agreement.

Ok that I understand but if this ever happened or if you have discussed then the 1NT bid becomes alertable and you have to disclose this kind of hand as an option right?
While if you open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ you don't have to alert "Clubs may not be 6th" is that correct?
Then what is natural and or standard and what is not in the US?

I'm way confused LOL.

[luis]

1eyedjack, on May 4 2006, 09:41 PM, said:

luis, on May 4 2006, 10:28 PM, said:

Well let's say you then have 12-14 and the same shape
1-4-3-5
Playing weak NT do you open 1NT or do you open 1♣ ? And what do you do over 1♠? Aren't the problems symmetric?

Sorry I thought I had addressed this point.

Playing weak 1NT I open 1C with 1-4-3-5 and 12-14, intending to rebid 2C over 1S.

This is symmetrical with the strong NT openers who open 1C and rebid 2C with the same shape and 15-17 points, in as much as both methods distort the Club holding, but with the exception that the weak NT style hand has NOT distorted the overall playing strength of the hand when rebidding 2C. That a-symmetry is the key to my suggestion that the problem illustrates a benefit of the weak NT.

Agreed, and that may be why 1♣ followed by 2♣ should be the "natural" bid when playing strong NT without special agreements. But of course each others mileage may vary.

Luis

[fred]

jdonn, on May 4 2006, 08:32 PM, said:

Except for some of the 1♣ 2♣ group who seem to think this hand is not misdescribed by that sequence, everyone pretty much admits nothing fits this hand and it's simply a matter of deciding which misdescription to choose. My question is, why is 1♥ promising five so much more sacred of a description to avoid violating than 1NT without a (small!) singleton, or meeting the minimum values for a reverse, or any of the others? Most people immediately write off 1♥ essentially because "I don't have five hearts, end of story", but don't object as strongly to all the other "lies". Why is that?

1NT describes the strength of the hand and comes close to describing its distribution.

1C then 2H describes the distribution of the hand and comes close to describing its strength.

The way I play, 1C then 2C is wrong on both distribution and strength.

1D or 1H openings are immediately wrong on distribution, could easily lead to a situation where you have to further misdescribe your distribution, and will often lead to auctions in which you can never express your strength.

Telling the "smallest lie" is not the end of the story. How the choice you make will work in practice is really what matters. Here are some reasons why 1NT might work well:

- When a spade lead is the killer against 3NT the opps will often not find it because a Stayman or transfer auction will reveal that the dummy has 4 or 5 spades.

- When a spade is led against notrump, the 10 of spades may end up pulling some weight. It does not have to be a "small" card. You may even end up right-siding the contract (if partner has QJxx or KJx for example).

- If partner has a 6-card suit and a good hand you will probably end up in 4S, but that is OK because you have a good hand for spades (the 10 of spades is not a "small" card in this context either).

- Ditto for when partner has a weak hand with 5 spades (and signs off in 2S via a transfer). That doesn't have to be the end of the world and it could be a home run.

- If the opponents belong in spades then 1NT will make it harder for them to know that.

- As long as you don't become the dummy, there is a reasonable chance that the opponents will have trouble counting the hand (because they won't expect you to have a singleton). They could easily make a "mistake" as a result.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

1eyedjack, on May 4 2006, 04:41 PM, said:

Sorry I thought I had addressed this point.

Playing weak 1NT I open 1C with 1-4-3-5 and 12-14, intending to rebid 2C over 1S.

This is symmetrical with the strong NT openers who open 1C and rebid 2C with the same shape and 15-17 points, in as much as both methods distort the Club holding, but with the exception that the weak NT style hand has NOT distorted the overall playing strength of the hand when rebidding 2C.  That a-symmetry is the key to my suggestion that the problem illustrates a benefit of the weak NT.

I understand the point but it's still not symmetrical, because 'most' of the 15-17 hands that are 1435 (lets say all the 17s and 75% of the 16s) would reverse to 2♥, even if they consider it a stretch. So with that shape and a weak hand playing a weak notrump, you are always stuck with a 2♣ bid. With that shape and 15-17 playing a strong notrump, you are only sometimes stuck with a 2♣ bid.

[fred]

hrothgar, on May 4 2006, 09:39 PM, said:

luis, on May 5 2006, 12:14 AM, said:

I thought 1♣ and 2♣ would be almost universal because you don't need a special agreement to do that. Note that Fred who refuses to open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ has the special agreement that a 2♣ rebid shows 6 cards or a good 5 count and can't be as heavy as this hand. But that is a special agreement or is it not?

Luis:

Please note that Fred and I agree that a 1NT opening is the smallest lie.
If you find Fred and I agreeing about bidding, I'd hardly consider this a rare/special agreement.

But it is a rare a special occasion

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Fred I really like your post (not referring to the one where you and Richard are metaphorically hugging, though that brought a warm glow to my heart as well). 1NT was actually my choice to begin with, but you have really convinced me it's right instead of my previous 'as good as all the bad bids' feeling. I guess it becomes tougher still if the spade ten is the deuce...

fwiw, my only particular feeling to add at this point is that I think the hand is much more understrength for a reverse than others do, and I in fact consider myself a light reverser. 16 is below range to begin with in the strictest sense, and considering that AKQ and Q2222 are not exactly desirable holdings, not to mention a singleton in partner's bid suit, I think even calling this hand worth 15 is pretty generous. If I did open 1♣ I would rebid 1NT, which I don't think is nearly as severe an underbid as it appears.

For the full story, I held the hand in bidding practices (supposedly practicing reverses), and decided to experiment a little with 1♥, though even at the time I didn't really feel it was the correct bid (I mind it a lot less than others do though, lots of good things can happen too.) It worked very well, I caught partner with AKQxxxx ATxx xx -, and though I suppose you could find a grand after any start, 1♥ was certainly not a bad beginning toward that end.

[Free]

I wonder if ♦Q would be ♦J, if people would still open 1NT. And what about ♣Q being ♣K...

It's a hand which is slightly too light for a reverse, most importantly because the strength is in the wrong suits. However, I just don't like 1NT with a singleton Major because I haven't had many good experiences doing that

I'm planning to reverse anyway. It's a matter of prefference: lying about strength or shape. I don't like to lie about shape

1♣

[pclayton]

1N could work out well. But I find myself playing a 5-1 fit more times than I like. I'd like 1N a little more, if my rounded queens were an Ace. I would like as many entries as possible to the close hand to score pard's trumps, and I'd like my stiff spade to be an honor. But I think 1N is the best bid in practice.

Re: 1♥, as much as I like opening good 4 card majors, this probably won't work out well. If pard has 3 card support, there's a good chance they have the spades and we are getting outbid anyway. And this hand becomes a problem if I can't handle the tap in spades. A 4-2 fit is a very real possibility on this hand.

I'm not a big hand of lite reverses and with more than 1/2 my points in a short suit, this isn't my idea of a reverse. But the sequence that really makes me ill is 1♣-1♠-2♣. I hate making bids with 2 flaws, and a 2♣ rebid completely misdesribes. I can easily see 2♣-3, when our ♥ fit gets buried (especially not playing Reverse Flannery).

1♦-1♠-2♣ is a sensible start and a pretty good description of this hand is ...2♦-2♥. I think we'll generally land on our feet after this start.

No matter what I do, I hope I have an understanding partner. AT MP's, I'll try 1N, but at teams, I think I'll opt for 1♦.

[Free]

For the 1♦ bidders: what do you plan on bidding when partner responds 1♠?

[mike777]

Free, on May 4 2006, 06:52 PM, said:

For the 1♦ bidders: what do you plan on bidding when partner responds 1♠?

they are rebidding 2clubs and are used to doing this all the time with 4D and 5clubs and 16 hcp so they will not feel that it is a stretch with 3-5. Well OK they do feel this is a stretch and a one in a million hand and hope they get away with it.

[Double !]

jdonn, on May 4 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

and considering that AKQ and Q2222 are not exactly desirable holdings, not to mention a singleton in partner's bid suit, I think even calling this hand worth 15 is pretty generous. If I did open 1♣ I would rebid 1NT, which I don't think is nearly as severe an underbid as it appears.

I thought that, perhaps, I was the only one to whom the possibility of opening 1C and rebidding 1NT, seemingly a gross underbid, was even a thought (not necessarily a consideration).

I was torn between opening 1C and 1NT. I do not consider this hand worth a reverse, and I am stuck for a rebid should I open 1 heart and partner raise on 3-card support.

I elected to open 1 club with the intent of rebidding 1NT should partner respond 1 spade, fully aware that this is a lie about my high card points. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see a rebid problem if partner makes any other response. But, in my humble opinion, I feel that this hand is a flawed 16 with less than half of my high cards in my long suits, and I suspect that the partnership might often need a little extra combined in terms of high cards than usual unless partner has extra shape or good club cards in order to have enough tricks for any game or for the opps to not have enough quick cashing tricks to defeat game. If partner responds 1S and I rebid 1NT, P will now be bidding hearts if P has 4+ hearts, so the fit isn't missed. I would prefer to not rebid 2 clubs with this hands: I prefer this to show a 6 card suit or at least not Q empty 5th. In addition, should the opps start to bid spades, I am good enough to throw in a competitive double both in terms of strength and shape.


I thought that my rationale for handling this particular type of hand was reasonable until I read Fred's compelling rationale for opening 1NT. Now I am not so sure, especially regarding his point about the opps potentially misjudging the 1NT opener's hand.

Great hand for posting and discussing.

DHL

[whereagles]

fred, on May 4 2006, 07:15 PM, said:

For me 1C then 2C shows a 6-card suit. I have rebid 2C with 5 before, but I would never do that with a suit like Qxxxx.

Why is it that in the US/Canada people dislike rebidding a suit on 5 cards? I can think of one reason, namely, to make

1♣ 1M
2♣ 2M

mildly invitational, since with a weakish hand with 5-6 in the major you just pass 2♣ because it's a 6 card. Is this it?

As an aside, in Europe the solution to an invitational hand with a major would more likely be

1♣ 1M
2♣ 2♦ <-- 3rd suit, artificial 1-round forcing, inv+

That allows for 2♣ to be bid on 5 cards if the hand is not strong enough to reverse.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on May 5 2006, 04:18 AM, said:

fred, on May 4 2006, 07:15 PM, said:

For me 1C then 2C shows a 6-card suit. I have rebid 2C with 5 before, but I would never do that with a suit like Qxxxx.

Why is it that in the US/Canada people dislike rebidding a suit on 5 cards? I can think of one reason, namely, to make

1♣ 1M
2♣ 2M

mildly invitational, since with a weakish hand with 5-6 in the major you just pass 2♣ because it's a 6 card. Is this it?

As an aside, in Europe the solution to an invitational hand with a major would more likely be

1♣ 1M
2♣ 2♦ <-- 3rd suit, artificial 1-round forcing, inv+

That allows for 2♣ to be bid on 5 cards if the hand is not strong enough to reverse.

Because 5-1 fits are not very fun. Especially when the 5 is Qxxxx and the 1 is in a weak hand. It also makes life a lot easier on responder. Take 1♣ p 1♠ p 2♣ p ?

KQTxx
xxx
Qxx
xx

Easy pass if partner showed 6 clubs. Frankly I don't know what to do if partner may just have 5 clubs, especially bad ones, but either pass or 2♠ could certainly be wrong.

Axxx
xxx
Kxxx
Kx

Easy 3♣ bid, and the auction should go smoothly from here. If partner could have 5 clubs, again I don't know what I'm supposed to do. 2NT on xxx of hearts? Yuck. Raise? Hope partner doesn't have Qxxxx

I don't even consider the reason you state, for me 1♣ 1♠ 2♣ 2♠ is still a minimum hand, just with good spades. I suppose some disagree with that, but I think my way is considered standard. I think.

[whereagles]

I see. It's just trading one problem for the other, in the end.

[mikeh]

whereagles, on May 5 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

I see. It's just trading one problem for the other, in the end.

which is a perfect description of designing any bidding method or choosing any treatment or convention.....

[Echognome]

Yep. Trading one problem for another is quite apt. Strong clubbers could say 1♣ wtp? Of course they have an interesting problem over 1♣ - 1♦, but not so much of a problem over 1♣ - 1♠ (as the GF eases the situation).

[pclayton]

Echognome, on May 5 2006, 08:26 AM, said:

Yep. Trading one problem for another is quite apt. Strong clubbers could say 1♣ wtp? Of course they have an interesting problem over 1♣ - 1♦, but not so much of a problem over 1♣ - 1♠ (as the GF eases the situation).

No problem whatsoever. 1♥; forcing - either natural, canape or a big balanced hand.

[Echognome]

pclayton, on May 5 2006, 04:29 PM, said:

Echognome, on May 5 2006, 08:26 AM, said:

Yep.  Trading one problem for another is quite apt.  Strong clubbers could say 1♣ wtp?  Of course they have an interesting problem over 1♣ - 1♦, but not so much of a problem over 1♣ - 1♠ (as the GF eases the situation).

No problem whatsoever. 1♥; forcing - either natural, canape or a big balanced hand.

Laugh. Of course depending on your methods.

1♥ for me would be artificial 19+, so that's out.

I would have to bite the bullet and bid 2♣ and a 2♠ bid over that means it will be hard to find any ♥ fit. I guess I would bid 2NT and hope that either partner can bid 3♥ or that we're not already too high.

[jdonn]

Echognome, on May 5 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

Yep. Trading one problem for another is quite apt. Strong clubbers could say 1♣ wtp? Of course they have an interesting problem over 1♣ - 1♦, but not so much of a problem over 1♣ - 1♠ (as the GF eases the situation).

I wouldn't open it 1♣ playing a strong club. Maybe a 15+ club, but no way a 16+ one. I'm not saying this solves all problems, but 1♦ then 2♣ is known to be bid on this shape the way I play, so it's nothing too unusual.

I still think this hand is really worth about 14.5 or so