[gerry]

This hand is shamelessly stolen from rec.games.bridge where it appeared in a different context. Your call as south?

1♥-(2♦)-?

---

[gerry]

100% for pass, i suppose Im not really surprised.
Having said that I have doubled with this hand in the past with some success- of course we play weak nt and 1♥ cannot be 5332 and <15 which helps a bit.

Ive been called a loony before and I suppose I will again.

[gerry]

Last comment i guess,

whenever i pass with this pard has KQxx Qxxxx AQx x and we get -90 instead of +140.

I know pard might bid to much or double domething cold, but it dosent seem to happen in practice.

BTW with Qxxx xx xx AT9xx is it still pass wtp?

Oh well I seem to be out on my own here, and I dont want to cry in the wilderness for too long

Thanks folks for voting

[jdonn]

Sorry - the vote for double was mine but I misclicked. I meant pass obv.

[han]

I was the 19th pass wtp.

[Free]

Nice objective poll

[pclayton]

What did the brain trust over at RGB say about this? Did it really spark some kind of debate?

[ArtK78]

gerry, on Mar 31 2008, 08:53 PM, said:

100% for pass, i suppose Im not really surprised.
Having said that I have doubled with this hand in the past with some success- of course we play weak nt and 1♥ cannot be 5332 and <15 which helps a bit.

Ive been called a loony before and I suppose I will again.

What relevance is it that you play a weak NT? A 1 of a major opening does not require 15 HCP in a weak NT system. Certainly:

xx
AKxxx
Kxx
Kxx

is a 1♥ opening bid.

I would go on to say that 1♥-1♠-1NT does not show a strong NT opening. What else would you rebid on the hand above?

As far as the original question posed in this thread is concerned, it is an obvious pass.

[pclayton]

ArtK78, on Apr 3 2008, 07:40 AM, said:

gerry, on Mar 31 2008, 08:53 PM, said:

100% for pass, i suppose Im not really surprised. 
Having said that I have doubled with this hand in the past with some success- of course we play weak nt and 1♥ cannot be 5332 and <15 which helps a bit. 

Ive been called a loony before and I suppose I will again.

What relevance is it that you play a weak NT? A 1 of a major opening does not require 15 HCP in a weak NT system. Certainly:

xx
AKxxx
Kxx
Kxx

is a 1♥ opening bid.

I would go on to say that 1♥-1♠-1NT does not show a strong NT opening. What else would you rebid on the hand above?

As far as the original question posed in this thread is concerned, it is an obvious pass.

1♥ - 1♠ - 1N does show a strong NT in a weak NT system. How else are you supposed to bid it? What difference does it make if the bidding starts 1m-1M-1N versus 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N?

With xx AKxxx Kxx Kxx I would either open 1N. If thats too vile, then I I would suggest a 2♣ rebid.

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Apr 3 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

1♥ - 1♠ - 1N does show a strong NT in a weak NT system. How else are you supposed to bid it? What difference does it make if the bidding starts 1m-1M-1N versus 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N?

With xx AKxxx Kxx Kxx I would either open 1N. If thats too vile, then I I would suggest a 2♣ rebid.

Old-fashioned weak NT-ers playing 4-card majors open 1H and rebid 2H showing the fifth heart.

Many slightly more modern weak NT-ers play 1H - 1S - 1NT as 12-17 (or 12-16).

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Apr 3 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 3 2008, 07:40 AM, said:

gerry, on Mar 31 2008, 08:53 PM, said:

100% for pass, i suppose Im not really surprised. 
Having said that I have doubled with this hand in the past with some success- of course we play weak nt and 1♥ cannot be 5332 and <15 which helps a bit.  

Ive been called a loony before and I suppose I will again.

What relevance is it that you play a weak NT? A 1 of a major opening does not require 15 HCP in a weak NT system. Certainly:

xx
AKxxx
Kxx
Kxx

is a 1♥ opening bid.

I would go on to say that 1♥-1♠-1NT does not show a strong NT opening. What else would you rebid on the hand above?

As far as the original question posed in this thread is concerned, it is an obvious pass.

1♥ - 1♠ - 1N does show a strong NT in a weak NT system. How else are you supposed to bid it? What difference does it make if the bidding starts 1m-1M-1N versus 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N?

With xx AKxxx Kxx Kxx I would either open 1N. If thats too vile, then I I would suggest a 2♣ rebid.

Phil, it may be that some weak notrumpers use this treatment, but as someone who plays in a fairly serious partnership with 11-14 1N in 1st and second, I can assure you that we don't: 1♥ 1♠ 1N is a minimum balanced hand oriented to hearts.

Now, that is because we have the agreement that we rarely open 1N with a 5 card major.. it has to be a weak suit.

I am a frequent 5 card major strong 1N opener, but, when you havve 15-17 hcp, you will usually have a lot of stuff outside the major, making notrump reasonable. When you hold 11-14 (well, I would upgrade a lot of 14s with a 5 card suit), if you have a decent major suit, the rest of your hand is probably not well suited for 1N.

So I think that many, if not most, weak notrumpers, in a std context in NA, would play the rebid as 5332 minimum, not as 'strong'. Now, this causes problems with the 15-16 range, but maybe that is why KS used an artificial 2♣ rebid? Otherwise, one has the 'solution' suggested by Frances... a wide-range 1N rebid

[gerry]

pclayton, on Apr 3 2008, 09:14 AM, said:

What did the brain trust over at RGB say about this? Did it really spark some kind of debate?

The discussion at RGB was about how the auction developed after partner reopened with a double.

It continued pass-2♠-3♦-p-p-?

[gerry]

mikeh, on Apr 3 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

So I think that many, if not most, weak notrumpers, in a std context in NA, would play the rebid as 5332 minimum, not as 'strong'. Now, this causes problems with the 15-16 range, but maybe that is why KS used an artificial 2♣ rebid? Otherwise, one has the 'solution' suggested by Frances... a wide-range 1N rebid

FWIW in new zealand people are increasingly opening xx AKxxx Kxx Kxx with 1nt routinely (cascade- back me up here ). The relevance is that after 1♥-2♦-X pard has either a spade fit, a club fit, six hearts or 4+♦ (Yuck), pard can even bid 2♠ with 35(14)

[jdonn]

gerry, on Apr 5 2008, 10:58 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 3 2008, 09:14 AM, said:

What did the brain trust over at RGB say about this? Did it really spark some kind of debate?

The discussion at RGB was about how the auction developed after partner reopened with a double.

It continued pass-2♠-3♦-p-p-?

Is that really a debate too? Seems like 3♠ wtp to me.

[pclayton]

gerry, on Apr 5 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 3 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

So I think that many, if not most, weak notrumpers, in a std context in NA, would play the rebid as 5332 minimum, not as 'strong'. Now, this causes problems with the 15-16 range, but maybe that is why KS used an artificial 2♣ rebid? Otherwise, one has the 'solution' suggested by Frances... a wide-range 1N rebid

FWIW in new zealand people are increasingly opening xx AKxxx Kxx Kxx with 1nt routinely (cascade- back me up here ). The relevance is that after 1♥-2♦-X pard has either a spade fit, a club fit, six hearts or 4+♦ (Yuck), pard can even bid 2♠ with 35(14)

All of my weak NT is based on Klinger, so its possible he mentions 1♥ -1♠ - 1N as 15-17 in one of his books. I have little experience in ACOL and only a little more in K/S.

I can't stand Frances' solution of a 12-16/17 rebid. This seems unplayable to me.

[zasanya]

pclayton, on Apr 6 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

gerry, on Apr 5 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 3 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

So I think that many, if not most, weak notrumpers, in a std context in NA, would play the rebid as 5332 minimum, not as 'strong'. Now, this causes problems with the 15-16 range, but maybe that is why KS used an artificial 2♣ rebid? Otherwise, one has the 'solution' suggested by Frances... a wide-range 1N rebid

FWIW in new zealand people are increasingly opening xx AKxxx Kxx Kxx with 1nt routinely (cascade- back me up here ). The relevance is that after 1♥-2♦-X pard has either a spade fit, a club fit, six hearts or 4+♦ (Yuck), pard can even bid 2♠ with 35(14)

All of my weak NT is based on Klinger, so its possible he mentions 1♥ -1♠ - 1N as 15-17 in one of his books. I have little experience in ACOL and only a little more in K/S.

I can't stand Frances' solution of a 12-16/17 rebid. This seems unplayable to me.

In the book on Acol I refer to, Klinger suggests 15-18 range for openers 1NT rebid .The NT rebid of 12-16 is favoured by many.Responder relays with 2♣ to find out about range.Why do you think its not playable?Could you give some problem hands?
I am especially interested because I favour 15-18 rebid whereas my senior Partner prefers 12-16 rebid.I would love to show him why it is unplayable.

[gwnn]

zasanya, on Apr 6 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 6 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

gerry, on Apr 5 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 3 2008, 12:03 PM, said:

So I think that many, if not most, weak notrumpers, in a std context in NA, would play the rebid as 5332 minimum, not as 'strong'. Now, this causes problems with the 15-16 range, but maybe that is why KS used an artificial 2♣ rebid? Otherwise, one has the 'solution' suggested by Frances... a wide-range 1N rebid

FWIW in new zealand people are increasingly opening xx AKxxx Kxx Kxx with 1nt routinely (cascade- back me up here ). The relevance is that after 1♥-2♦-X pard has either a spade fit, a club fit, six hearts or 4+♦ (Yuck), pard can even bid 2♠ with 35(14)

All of my weak NT is based on Klinger, so its possible he mentions 1♥ -1♠ - 1N as 15-17 in one of his books. I have little experience in ACOL and only a little more in K/S.

I can't stand Frances' solution of a 12-16/17 rebid. This seems unplayable to me.

In the book on Acol I refer to, Klinger suggests 15-18 range for openers 1NT rebid .The NT rebid of 12-16 is favoured by many.Responder relays with 2♣ to find out about range.Why do you think its not playable?Could you give some problem hands?
I am especially interested because I favour 15-18 rebid whereas my senior Partner prefers 12-16 rebid.I would love to show him why it is unplayable.

you'll play lots of 2NT contracts with 22 hcp between the hands. much much more often than the field. if you don't invite with bad 10 counts then you'll play 1NT with the field making 3NT. if you don't open on bad 12 counts then the hand will be passed out often when it's your hand etc etc etc etc

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Apr 6 2008, 06:06 AM, said:

I can't stand Frances' solution of a 12-16/17 rebid. This seems unplayable to me.

It's not the best part of the system, but it's certainly not unplayable. You get to play 2M in a 5-2 fit sometimes rather than 1NT, but then so do the people who invent a 2C rebid (while they sometimes get to play in 2C when it's right, they also get to play in a 3-3 or 4-3 club fit rather than a 5-2 spade fit). And on a horrible misfit you get to play in 1NT or 2D.

(we play 1H - 1S - 1NT - 2C -
2D = 12-13
2H = 14-15 without 3 spades
2S = 14-15 with 3 spades
2NT = 16/17 FG

over 2D responder can pass or sign off in 2M, so the only horrible hands are where responder is 4-1 in the majors and feels he needs to look for game)

You do need to be playing either 5-card majors, or 1H being either 5 cards or 4-4 in the majors, otherwise you really do get a bit stuck.

[Cascade]

15-17 seems to be the standard range in Australia and New Zealand from what I have seen.

I have played the wide-ranging 12-16 rebid and it works better than you might imagine with a Crowhurst 2♣ response to determine range and distribution.

We open all hands within range and very approximately balanced 1NT so that definitely includes the 5-3-3-2 hands with a five-card major. Sure sometimes you lose something with the 1NT opening but you gain when you open 1Major on many auctions.

We also use a 4-point rebid range when not vulnerable 1st and 2nd so that we can accommodate our super-weak 10-13 1NT opening. Again there are compromises here.

In both of these last two situations 4-point ranges and five-card majors obviously in isolation it would be better to have a tighter definition for the 1NT rebid or opening but it is not a matter of one bid but the system as a whole.