[hrothgar]

foo, on May 24 2007, 10:49 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 24 2007, 01:07 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 24 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

Change the hand slightly to

♠ KQ94 ♥ KQT8 ♦ K ♣ A962

and I would argue that that the 1NT opening is near mandatory.

I can't think of anything nicer to say about that argument than that it would be completely ludicrous.

Richard has a non-mainstream view about bids involving hands that are 44 in the Majors...

I should be more careful before I post...

In retrospect, this hand has more than reasonable rebids if I open 1♣. (The Aces and Kings mean that I can make a jump rebid over 1M). I would probably still open 1N, but thats me...

[the hog]

jdonn, on May 25 2007, 01:07 AM, said:

hrothgar, on May 24 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

Change the hand slightly to

♠ KQ94
♥ KQT8
♦ K
♣ A962

and I would argue that that the 1NT opening is near mandatory.

I can't think of anything nicer to say about that argument than that it would be completely ludicrous.

Ludicrous is a very strong term, and it also depends to whom you are talking. I personally know of a very strong pair - both have been internationals, and still play in strong events os eg Yeh Bros, who WOULD think this is a mandatory 1NT opening.

[jillybean]

I am surprised my crummy 1nt is still getting all this attention and thanks for all the input with respect to what a 1nt should and should not look like.
The reason for this post was to settle a spat between a player and me as the TD, I got lucky and made what should have been an impossible contract, I never did consider it a good bid. I hope that my 1nt’s are improving but no doubt, I will still make bad ones and I do like some flexibility in my bidding.