[PassedOut]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

I would rather declare 3NT on an auction that totally hides my shape than have partner declare on an auction that completely reveals both our shapes.

Actually I agree with this, and the frequency of straight 1NT - 3NT auctions is an advantage for the weak notrump, in my opinion. I do not (did not, anyway) consider myself a fanatic about right-siding notrump contracts, but I gather that many good players these days open 1NT with hands I would not have considered. I've also observed that tendency with some strong partnerships on vugraph. (Other strong partnerships seem stricter about the shape requirements than I am.)

I wish I had a way to quantify the gains and losses for each strategy. If there is no difference, of course, it would indeed be better to open 1NT on offshape hands to further restrict suit rebids.

Anyway, it's very helpful for players to provide their thinking on these matters. On defense against notrump these days, I definitely have more possible declarer hands to consider.

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Apr 12 2008, 10:33 AM, said:

I wish I had a way to quantify the gains and losses for each strategy. If there is no difference, of course, it would indeed be better to open 1NT on offshape hands to further restrict suit rebids.

I think the best way is to track prevailing expert opinion over time.

You make a very good point in your second sentence. If just weighing the concerns of rightsiding vs hiding your hand, and if you could judge these to have equal weight here, then 1NT would still be better.

[cherdano]

zasanya, on Apr 9 2008, 07:49 AM, said:

Cascade, on Apr 9 2008, 05:24 AM, said:

I open 1NT but I have no real objection to 1♦.

I am intrigued by this sort of response.If you prefer 1NT then there must be a good reason, so you must have some objection to 1♦.Surely you would not bid 1NT on some occasions and 1♦ on others?
Is 1NT bid with 5-4-2-2 shape alertable?If it is not alerted and if a defender notices a dbltn in declarer's hand and misdefends on the assumption that declarer can't have another dbltn does he get any redress?

No, he should have asked about their style with 2452 hands.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Apr 12 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

Yes if it becomes competitive than better to have mentioned diamonds. But two points about that. One is that the same argument applies if you hold Qxx Jxx AKQx Jxx too. The other is that 1NT will often prevent it from become competitive when 1♦ would have allowed the spade bid in.

And thirdly sometimes you will get to bid the diamonds in a competitive auction anyway.

[benlessard]

Opening a weak nt with this is really disgusting for me. It might make sense to open a strong Nt as a tactical bid, but a weak nt ? Yurk

[mike777]

I assume we have agreed what 1nt means......if opening.....
I bid the system agreed bid.....

If playing with no discussion
I think 1d is clear


for the thousand time on bbo......I bid whatever we agree is a one or two bid....see my 20 pages on what an opening bid means.....

If no agreement I do my best.....
If partner thinks my 1d here is terrible, given no detailed agreements...ok...my error

Heck with zero agreements I pass in first or second seat.