[Codo]

When I learned bridge, one rule I was tought was, not to open 1 NT with two doubeltons in the majors. Simple because you will play 4 H/S in a 5-2 fit opposite a 5/5 major hand from responder. ´
Now I believe, that this is no big deal anymore, it simply does not happen often.

But I would treat 16 HCPs hand with 2245 as a strong twosuiter and bid my reverse without much fear. Maybe you need more strength in America for a reverse, in that case I would treat more hands as a strong NT as I would now.

There is a borderline for anybody, when he will open slightly offshape hands with 1 NT. To call bids which do not fit my personal line as ridicoulus or bad style is simply ridicoulus and bad style...

Espacially as noone has shown any proove for his opinion.

[Winstonm]

I open 1N with the hand shown. Bridge bidding to me is a language, and like all languages sometimes there is not an exact word to express what you mean so you come as close as you can. To me, semi-balanced with 15-17 says either no-trump or suit depending on the types of holdings in the doubletons and whether the overall hand type is more strongly suit-orientated or NT-orientated.

[Miron]

I would never open it 1NT. With 2-2 in majors I can't survive against 5-5 majors in partner's hand:
(playing smolen, similar in other methods)
1NT - p - 2♣ - p
2♦ - p - 3♠ - p
3NT - p - 4♥
The 5422 hand should be major+minor in the lengths. The same problem is with 54 on majors (a bit smaller).
1♣ with 2♣ rebid over major.

[SoTired]

This hand is a 1N opener. I used to never open 5422 with 1N. Now I open 1N almost all of them. That is the modern style. The exceptions where I won't open 1N with a 5422:
- 5-card major and 4-card minor
- both doubletons are weak
- 5=4=2=2
- 4=5=2=2 with 16+

[awm]

1NT for me too. There are some bad things that can happen:

(1) Partner transfers to a major and passes. But this is not always bad. There's a possibility of a ruff in opener's hand if opponents don't pull trumps fast enough, and the major suit will provide entries to the weaker hand. It's not uncommon for these hands to play better in 2M than they do in 1NT despite it being a 5-2. And planning to open/rebid a minor can easily land you in a seven-card fit as well.

(2) Partner is 5-5 in the majors and insists on a major suit. Then again, at least you have some filler honors for the majors. Again it is not totally clear that this hand will play better in 3NT than in 4M since entries in 3NT will be few and it may be hard to set up suits with no fit anywhere. Also 5-5 majors is infrequent, and the auction if you open/rebid a minor will be no picnic either opposite this hand...

(3) You can miss a minor-suit slam, but I don't think this hand is much better than a 5332 (5cm) for that really, especially with honors in the short suits. If you have good methods over 1NT you'll usually survive.

On the other hand, opening and rebidding clubs is not without its problems either:

(1) You could play a 5-1 club fit when partner passes, despite a much better spot in diamonds or a 5-2 major fit.

(2) You'll often play a 5-2 club fit instead of a 5-2 major fit (usually this is a lot worse because you have few entries to the weaker hand).

(3) You can miss a game when partner passes with 9-10 points figuring on poorly fitting hands with less than game values (expecting 11-14 with 6♣ from opener).

(4) You potentially wrong-side the notrump contract when partner finds a 2NT invite, and also may pinpoint the lead for the defense on the auction.

[toothbrush]

May be it is because I'm used to play dutch acol, but I would open this 1♣. I'm unable to find any rebidding problems (strong enough to reverse). Finding a minor game (without control ♠) or a minor slam seems much easier to me after opening 1♣.

If my partner would often open these hands with 1NT, I would think that he tries to avoid letting me play. If you have agreed that these hands are opened, I have no problem with it if you alert that it may be 5422.

I agree that it is a style issue.

[Free]

The hand is not even nearly strong enough for a reverse. HCP isn't everything (and 16 with a lost Q is still poor), and this loser-hand proves it again. If it would be strong enough for a reverse, I don't think anyone would open 1NT since this hand is about avoiding the biggest lie. Reversing is one of the worst lies imo, but I guess you are 'covered' by the very accurate HCP count...

[mikestar]

In the SAYC/2 over 1 context the problem is presented in, 1NT seems clear to me.

[FrancesHinden]

Free, on Jun 11 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

Some people even think a 5M332 distribution is not balanced. But give them a 5m332 and they think it is (do you get the logic?)...

Yes, I get the logic.
When you have a 5-card major, the chance that you want to play in your major suit fit is much greater than the chance you want to play in your minor-suit fit when you have a 5-card minor.

I'll explain why as well, if you like.

[Free]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 13 2006, 07:22 PM, said:

Free, on Jun 11 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

Some people even think a 5M332 distribution is not balanced.  But give them a 5m332 and they think it is (do you get the logic?)... 

Yes, I get the logic.
When you have a 5-card major, the chance that you want to play in your major suit fit is much greater than the chance you want to play in your minor-suit fit when you have a 5-card minor.

I'll explain why as well, if you like.

No need to explain why, since apparently you don't get the logic as well.

The main distribution is the same, yet 5m332 get a label 'balanced' but 5M332 does not. Has nothing to do with the method, the advantages,... It's about 'what is balanced and what is not'. 5332 seems not always to be balanced, there's no logic in that. Not opening 5M332's with 1NT (and why) has some logic, but this is completely irrelevant in this matter.

[kfgauss]

Free, on Jun 13 2006, 09:16 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 13 2006, 07:22 PM, said:

Free, on Jun 11 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

Some people even think a 5M332 distribution is not balanced.  But give them a 5m332 and they think it is (do you get the logic?)... 

Yes, I get the logic.
When you have a 5-card major, the chance that you want to play in your major suit fit is much greater than the chance you want to play in your minor-suit fit when you have a 5-card minor.

I'll explain why as well, if you like.

No need to explain why, since apparently you don't get the logic as well.

The main distribution is the same, yet 5m332 get a label 'balanced' but 5M332 does not. Has nothing to do with the method, the advantages,... It's about 'what is balanced and what is not'. 5332 seems not always to be balanced, there's no logic in that. Not opening 5M332's with 1NT (and why) has some logic, but this is completely irrelevant in this matter.

This appears to be a silly point about semantics. Certainly one could define a term which depended on the ordered distribution as opposed to the unordered distribution. There's even some bridge logic why you'd want such a term to exist.

Andy

[Limey_p]

I like to play garbage stayman - responder can take out with a weak hand with 4-4 in the majors. So a hand like this without a 3-card major shouldn't open 1NT. I am a 1♣ opener.

1NT is more attractive if opening in fourth seat, since pard is less likley to need to run to a major.

AP

[jchiu]

1NT. WTP?

Sure, you occasionally run into trouble with Garbage Stayman, but this is a matter of freqency. No other bid has a smaller frequency of substantial detriments (like partner floating 2♣ when you are in fact cold for 3N, or carrying to 3N when you can't make much, or giving a detrimental false preference). Playing two-way garbage stayman (see post in another thread) where partner is encouraged to pass 2♦ with four diamonds, or (43)=4=2 shape, this problem becomes even less noticable.

[han]

Free, on Jun 13 2006, 04:16 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 13 2006, 07:22 PM, said:

Free, on Jun 11 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

Some people even think a 5M332 distribution is not balanced.  But give them a 5m332 and they think it is (do you get the logic?)... 

Yes, I get the logic.
When you have a 5-card major, the chance that you want to play in your major suit fit is much greater than the chance you want to play in your minor-suit fit when you have a 5-card minor.

I'll explain why as well, if you like.

No need to explain why, since apparently you don't get the logic as well.

The main distribution is the same, yet 5m332 get a label 'balanced' but 5M332 does not. Has nothing to do with the method, the advantages,... It's about 'what is balanced and what is not'. 5332 seems not always to be balanced, there's no logic in that. Not opening 5M332's with 1NT (and why) has some logic, but this is completely irrelevant in this matter.

While you are talking about language, Frances is talking about bridge. I find the latter more interesting.

[Free]

Hannie, on Jun 16 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

While you are talking about language, Frances is talking about bridge. I find the latter more interesting.

Guess what, you're talking about your personal interests - boooooooring - while I'm still talking about 'bridge language'...

If people misinterprete one little part of my previous on topic post, then I think I have a right to defend myself. In the context of people saying what's balanced and what's not, this was bloody relevant. Any response to a retorical question is a pure waste of time, as is any continuation in this ridiculous debate. Get a life!

[keylime]

Once again, I wonder why we must open 1NT on this type of offshape hand. That Q-x of spades isn't carrying full weight. Furthermore I want to TABLE this hand, not declare it.

[hrothgar]

Interesting hand...

I consider this hand right on the cusp between a 1♦ opening (intending to rebid 2♣ over 1m) and a 1NT opening.

I'd probably upgrade the hand to 1NT, however, I don't have a strong objection to a 1♦ opening.

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Jun 18 2006, 04:35 PM, said:

Interesting hand...

I consider this hand right on the cusp between a 1♦ opening (intending to rebid 2♣ over 1m) and a 1NT opening.

I'd probably upgrade the hand to 1NT, however, I don't have a strong objection to a 1♦ opening.

Upgrade? Are you looking at the same hand? The hand given in this thread is

♠Q4 ♥A9 ♦KT87 ♣AK943

which is plenty strong enough for a 1NT opening. Maybe you are referring to the hand in Helene's thread,

♠Ax ♥xx ♦Axxxx ♣AQxx ?

[hrothgar]

david_c, on Jun 18 2006, 07:23 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 18 2006, 04:35 PM, said:

Interesting hand...

I consider this hand right on the cusp between a 1♦ opening (intending to rebid 2♣ over 1m) and a 1NT opening.

I'd probably upgrade the hand to 1NT, however, I don't have a strong objection to a 1♦ opening.

Upgrade? Are you looking at the same hand? The hand given in this thread is

♠Q4 ♥A9 ♦KT87 ♣AK943

which is plenty strong enough for a 1NT opening. Maybe you are referring to the hand in Helene's thread,

♠Ax ♥xx ♦Axxxx ♣AQxx ?

Thanks for the catch...

You're completely correct. I confused the two hands.
WAY too many threads floating arround in my head right now

[1eyedjack]

I think there is much to be said for opening 1N with 5422 shape when the 4 card suit is red and the 5 card suit is lower ranking. The reason has less to do with whether or not 5422 falls within a definition of balanced than it has to do with my aversion to rebidding a 5 card suit if it can be avoided (ie after 1S response) when a 1N rebid would mis-state the strength of the hand.

Whether it might also be tactically beneficial to open 1NT on other 5422 hands is another matter. The argument is perhaps less compelling, but it may be on balance the more compelling option even so.