[whereagles]

Open teams trials, all experts.

NV vs V, BUTLER scoring.

♠ 9843
♥ AQ8
♦ J75
♣ Q53

You are dealer and have a 9-11 1NT opener available, with lots of runouts in case of opps doubling. Do you use it or do you downgrade to 8 hcp and pass?

[jdonn]

8 is way too risky to open 1NT but 9 is completely safe.

[gwnn]

OK I'd say that if someone doesn't open 1NT on this one then 9-11 is poor disclosure.

[whereagles]

gwnn, on Mar 25 2008, 05:12 PM, said:

OK I'd say that if someone doesn't open 1NT on this one then 9-11 is poor disclosure.

Why? It's an awful 9 hcp, with flat shape, scattered honors and placement in short suits. I'd say downgrade is perfectly valid judgement.

[gwnn]

It's got an ace and doesn't have Qx or QJ, I think it's far from awful.

[whereagles]

See? That's why I posted it. Our judgement is pretty different

[cherdano]

I would open, but then again I wouldn't agree to play a min-NT.

[jdonn]

Anyway my first sarcastic post did try to make my point. Why would you ever downgrade a 9 count at this vul out of a 9-11 notrump? For one thing when you are playing this treatment you have already thrown safety out the window. But my main point is, the weaker your hand the more random stray honors you will have, I mean probably almost every balanced 9 count has Qx(x) or Jx(x) in it, you can't just downgrade for that every time.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Mar 25 2008, 05:33 PM, said:

probably almost every balanced 9 count has Qx(x) or Jx(x) in it, you can't just downgrade for that every time.

But you can downgrade if you have a couple of suits like that, and flat shape.

[jtfanclub]

whereagles, on Mar 25 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 25 2008, 05:33 PM, said:

probably almost every balanced 9 count has Qx(x) or Jx(x) in it, you can't just downgrade for that every time.

But you can downgrade if you have a couple of suits like that, and flat shape.

So you would rather open a 1NT with a good suit and good shape, say....

xx
xxx
AKQxx
xxx

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Mar 25 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 25 2008, 05:33 PM, said:

probably almost every balanced 9 count has Qx(x) or Jx(x) in it, you can't just downgrade for that every time.

But you can downgrade if you have a couple of suits like that, and flat shape.

Do you want everyone's opinions, or do you want to immediately argue with everyone who doesn't downgrade? foo, I mean whereagles

[whereagles]

jtfanclub, on Mar 25 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

So you would rather open a 1NT with a good suit and good shape, say....

xx
xxx
AKQxx
xxx

No. That one opens 2♦

But would prefer 1NT with, say...

xx
Axx
Kxxxx
Qxx

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Mar 25 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

Do you want everyone's opinions, or do you want to immediately argue with everyone who doesn't downgrade?

I'm not arguing, I'm discussing . By the way, I'm not saying you SHOULD downgrade. I'm just saying you COULD downgrade. Big difference.

[hrothgar]

In my mind, this is an absolutely miserable 9 count.

1. You have a 4=3=3=3 shape.
2. You have (significantly) more queens and jacks than aces and kings
3. You don't have any 10s, one 9, a couple 8s

If there were EVER a hand that should downgrade, this has to be it

I'm going to pass. I don't feel at all bad about it.

(BTW If always found it interesting that many folks are much more likely to upgrade rather than downgrade)

[FrancesHinden]

If I'm playing 9-11 mini, then this is a 9-11 mini. It's the right vulnerability, and the right position. The whole point of the method is to open a mini as often as you possibly can.

[han]

cherdano, on Mar 25 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

I would open, but then again I wouldn't agree to play a min-NT.

Why not? Do you think it is that bad NV against V?

[hrothgar]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 25 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

If I'm playing 9-11 mini, then this is a 9-11 mini. It's the right vulnerability, and the right position. The whole point of the method is to open a mini as often as you possibly can.

I'm not entirely comfortable with this line of reasoning: It seems to conflate two separate and distinct issues

Issue 1: How wide should our range be if we decide to play a mini NT? Many people would argue that a mini NT is a potent weapon. If we do decide that we want to play a mini NT - and therefore go to a bunch of effort trying to sort out the rest of our NT ladder - lets make sure that we have a fairly wide ranging 1NT opening.

In my mind, you're making an argument to play an 8+ to 12- NT or some such...

Issue 2: Are we Walruses or do we allow judgement? Alternatively, are all nine counts created equal?

In my mind, the question at hand is issue 2:

We have agreed to some NT range which (for better or worse) we are describing as 9-11. I am completely comfortable applying judge and upgrading an exception 8 count to a 9-11 NT. In a similar vein, I suspect that there are a number of great 11 counts that I would consider too strong for a 9-11 NT.

However, I also believe that there are going to be some 9 counts that are too weak.

[jdonn]

Richard I'm not sure where you got your point about the size of the range from what Frances had typed. It seems to me Frances was reasonably making the point that if you have chosen a range of 9-11 you have probably placed a high priority on the frequency of your 1NT opening (at the expense of safety). On that basis it would pretty much never make sense to downgrade out of that particular range.

I also think in your first post you embellish a bit just how bad of a 9 count this is when you make it sound like the world's worst. Below average, sure, but give me this over QJ KQJ xxxx xxxx please.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Mar 25 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

OK I'd say that if someone doesn't open 1NT on this one then 9-11 is poor disclosure.

LOL I would say the opposite but we have had this discussion before. BTW Richard said what I have to say about this.