[EricK]

kenrexford, on Aug 13 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

IMO, this hand is closer to a 2♣ opening, followed by 2NT (22-24) than a 1♦ opening, followed by a jump to 2NT, especially at IMP's.

2NT as the opening seems right on target, especially if forced to describe this bid as "20-21." If electing to be forced to describe this opening as "21-22," I'd still open 2NT.

I am guessing, but I'd venture a small wager that 2NT loses to 5D as the only making game fewer times than we score up +150 or +180 when I open 1♦ and rebid 2NT.

What about the times we get to 6♦ because we opened 1♦?

[Free]

pclayton, on Aug 13 2006, 06:23 PM, said:

If 2N is 21-22 (stone age) ~snip~

Fantunes play 21-22...

[pbleighton]

"Fantunes play 21-22... "

And Fantunes play good, old-fashioned sound openers, none of this reckless modern stuff

Peter

[kenrexford]

The likely distributional 6♦ slam would be something like Responder holding x-KJxx-xxxx-Kxxx. Stronger hands will be less a problem if 2NT is opened.

With that hand, the alternative auction is 1♦-P-1♥-P-2NT, if somehow the opponents forget about bidding spades. With this auction, we know little more about slam prospects and are probably less likely to sniff a slam than if 2NT is opened.

Sure, I picked a specific hand to illustrate the point. But, I would venture that diamonds are not better handled toward slam with the alternative route.

[neilkaz]

Playing typical 2/1 or SAYC a 2NT opener shows 20-21 HCP.

I really try not to upgrade strong opening hands, but this one has more trick taking potential than many scattered 20 HCP hands so that is a plus for upgrading to 2NT. A minus is the wide open spade suit.

All things considered, I lean towards upgrading to 2NT, and especially if playing some decent methods to find minor suit slams after opening 2NT.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Aug 14 2006, 01:44 AM, said:

The likely distributional 6♦ slam would be something like Responder holding x-KJxx-xxxx-Kxxx.  Stronger hands will be less a problem if 2NT is opened.

With that hand, the alternative auction is 1♦-P-1♥-P-2NT, if somehow the opponents forget about bidding spades.  With this auction, we know little more about slam prospects and are probably less likely to sniff a slam than if 2NT is opened.

Sure, I picked a specific hand to illustrate the point.  But, I would venture that diamonds are not better handled toward slam with the alternative route.

Seems to me that the fear of missing a diamond slam is an argument for not opening 2NT with strong balanced hands. It really doesn't seem relevant to the decision to open 2NT with this particular balanced hand.

Case in point: Change your hand to

♠ Q8
♥ AQ6
♦ AKQT5
♣ AT6

Which clearly is 20-21 balanced....

How do you find the Diamond slam after opening 2NT on hand two but not find it on the original one.

[kenrexford]

Perhaps this justifies an answer to what 2NT-P-3NT should mean if 3♠ would have been a relay to 3NT. Namely, a mild slam try in case Opener holds a long, semi-solid diamond suit, a good heart fragment, and the Ace of clubs. LOL

[sfbp]

Quick search with BRBR reveals the much-vaunted 3NT showing long minor is NOT agreed, not even close to majority. The vast majority of rebidders had 19-21 balanced

It may vary as a function of dataset (player pool) but judging from Ritong's post in the other thread, I would bet not.

Stephen

[HeartA]

pbleighton, on Aug 13 2006, 09:38 AM, said:

jb - why is it first not good enough for a 2NT opening, and then too good for a jump to 2NT? I don't understand.

Peter

I have the same question, too.

Either opening 2NT or 1D and then 2NT is OK with me. I prefer 2NT though.

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Aug 14 2006, 12:29 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Aug 14 2006, 01:44 AM, said:

The likely distributional 6♦ slam would be something like Responder holding x-KJxx-xxxx-Kxxx.  Stronger hands will be less a problem if 2NT is opened.

With that hand, the alternative auction is 1♦-P-1♥-P-2NT, if somehow the opponents forget about bidding spades.  With this auction, we know little more about slam prospects and are probably less likely to sniff a slam than if 2NT is opened.

Sure, I picked a specific hand to illustrate the point.  But, I would venture that diamonds are not better handled toward slam with the alternative route.

Seems to me that the fear of missing a diamond slam is an argument for not opening 2NT with strong balanced hands. It really doesn't seem relevant to the decision to open 2NT with this particular balanced hand.

Case in point: Change your hand to

♠ Q8
♥ AQ6
♦ AKQT5
♣ AT6

Which clearly is 20-21 balanced....

How do you find the Diamond slam after opening 2NT on hand two but not find it on the original one.

One is trying to balance a lot of things here: Getting to a good game, getting to the best game, staying out of bad games, getting to good slams etc etc.

Each bid helps or hinders each one of these to some degree. Obviously the weaker the hand is, the less chance there is of missing a good game by opening 1♦, so maybe the few extra slams you get to are enough to compensate for missing those games. But if the hand is stronger, then missing game becomes much more likely, but maybe the slam does not become that much more likely (I really do not have an accurate "feel" for the respective numbers in this case). But if that is the case then you gain by opening the stronger hand 2NT to reach those games, and also gain by opening the weaker hand 1♦ because of the slams.