[helene_t]

Close, with Shogi I would pass, with anyone here in Lancaster I would open but then again people here open the most horrible crap.

[NickRW]

Personally I would not open this. I play shapely openings light - but balanced stuff conservative.

Nick

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jun 1 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

I open, but only if playing a method in which my rebid, over 1 red, is systemically 1N: I will not open if partner insists on bidding strictly up the line.

Of course, we weak notrumpers are all asking: wtp?

If you play strong 1NT, then you open this 1♣. WTP?

[OleBerg]

JLOL, on Jun 1 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

I hate opening this and would not.

Also I have heard this "I never pass a 12 count" rule a lot, is that just conceding that you can't evaluate hands that well or something?

Partly that, partly I hate to pass.

But honestly; if I am in a situation e´where I am averse to any swing, I might pass 12 lousy in 3.rd or fourth, red.

[NickRW]

I think this thread is silly and of no great help to someone reading it who wants to understand whether they should or should not open hands of this type. Mostly it consists of "yes I would" and "no I wouldn't" comments with insufficient reasoning to help anyone (I was guilty too). Harald possibly came closest to saying something sensible when he said it is a style issue - but that doesn't define what "style" is.

If you open a weak (or mini) NT and consider this opening to confer tactical advantage to your side, then you probably think this hand is OK to open - I won't necessarily agree with that - but I won't argue with it either. The merits of a weak or mini NT as a tactical weapon is discussed and argued about elsewhere.

If however you play "standard" or even use a weak NT and consider this opening to be primarily constructive, then you have to seriously ask yourself "how low do we go" with respect to weak openers. This is a fairly crucial question as sometimes 12 counts oppposite another 12 provide quite reasonable play for 3NT, and other times they do not.

By far the best published answer (for balanced hands) to this question IMO is Thomas Andrew's page here. I guess most forum regulars have read it, but the casual reader may not have.

Briefly he suggests using the regular 4321 count, but adjusting it down a fifth of point for each K or Q and upgrading two fifths for a ten. (To which I might add that subtracting a fifth for 4333 shape and adding a fifth for a 5332 is no bad tweak).

He also identified that, on this basis, 24.2 points is probably good for a 50% shot at 3NT (and 23.8 gives you a 40% shot which is useful to know for vulnerable games in long running team matches).

On that basis you need to open 12.2 hands (or 12.0 vul in long team matches). There is no constructive reason for opening less.

This hand is 11.8 (or 11.6 with my suggested tweak). Therefore I suggest, for those that like constructive openers, this hand isn't an example. If you like tactical openers - or have a system that allows weak openers - then probably it is.

Nick

[kenrexford]

All right, I'll bite. Here's my reason for opening:

The modern trend of many of us is to open lighter strong notrumps, with "14+" being the norm. The secondary benefit to that is that 1minor...1NT has a lower high-end and thus allows for a lower low-end. Rather than, say, a "good 12 to 14," you now expect a "good 11 to a bad 14." If this 12-count is a "good 11," then it counts.

The traditional HCP count is 12. The 10 adds a half-point to 12.5, because it is joined by an honor. Many drop -1 for the 4-3-3-3 shape, reducing to 11.5. The control count is 3, and the LTC analysis would be 3X3.333=10; 11.5-10=1.5; 1.5,2; hence, no adjustment. About expectancy. Slightly low, though. The body, however, is reasonable, with some interesting and possibly-useful pips. I have two quicks, which is slightly below-par.

Not quite an answer yet. Close.

At this point, I consider what the opening is. If the opening was a slightly higher 1♦, I would dislike this. But, a 1♣ opening allows partner more range for a 1NT response (8-11 or so), which helps. As a result, my general take, and I have read stuff on this as well, is that a 1♣ opening can be shadier than a 1♦ opening.

Another issue for me -- planning. I have an easy 1NT rebid over anything at the one-level except 1♠, and I can raise that. I have an easy pass of 1NT. I am not concerned about partner raising clubs too much, because that's where my Q10 combo is (with xxx or Jxx in clubs, I'd be more concerned), and I have three sure covers for a club contract. With 3 cards in every suit, and a major, I can handle most predicted competitive auctions without too much grief.

Finally, I have decent defense. Should partner double something, I have two quicks, but I also have great defensive holdings. Jack-third and Q10x are great for defense, as they bottle up suits for Declarer.

So, I see no reason to not open 1♣. I'm rather surprised more do not, as this seemed like a WTP to me.

[jdonn]

NickRW, on Jun 2 2009, 08:28 AM, said:

I think this thread is silly and of no great help to someone reading it who wants to understand whether they should or should not open hands of this type.

Sorry not all of us count points in decimals??

[dake50]

1NT: 10-12 bal

[gnasher]

NickRW, on Jun 2 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

He also identified that, on this basis, 24.2 points is probably good for a 50% shot at 3NT (and 23.8 gives you a 40% shot which is useful to know for vulnerable games in long running team matches).

On that basis you need to open 12.2 hands (or 12.0 vul in long team matches).  There is no constructive reason for opening less.

The constructive reasons for opening 1NT aren't limited to reaching good 3NT contracts. Other constructive reasons for opening 1NT include reaching a good 1NT contract, reaching a good suit partscore, reaching a good suit game, and reaching a good slam. Any of these might be facilitated by a lower notrump range.

Even if the only constructive purpose in opening 1NT were to reach 3NT when it's right, it's a complete non sequitur to say "The strength required for 3NT is x, so the minimum for 1NT should be x/2".

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-June-02, 10:03

[helene_t]

gnasher, on Jun 2 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

Even if the only constructive purpose in opening 1NT were to reach 3NT when it's right, it's a complete non sequitur to say "The strength required for 3NT is x, so the minimum for 1NT should be x/2".

The optimal minimum for 1NT might actually be a little higher, depending on how effectively we can bid hands that are too strong for a 1NT opening.

But assuming we must play the same 1NT range in all seats, and assuming the only objective is to reach good notrump games, I think it must be correct that the minimum can't be less than x/2.

Oh well, if we factor in the possibility that opps preempt after we fail to open our x/2-epsilon hands so p can't make an intelligent decision with his x/2+epsilon, it gets complicated.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jun 2 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 2 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

He also identified that, on this basis, 24.2 points is probably good for a 50% shot at 3NT (and 23.8 gives you a 40% shot which is useful to know for vulnerable games in long running team matches).

On that basis you need to open 12.2 hands (or 12.0 vul in long team matches).  There is no constructive reason for opening less.

The constructive reasons for opening 1NT aren't limited to reaching good 3NT contracts. Other constructive reasons for opening 1NT include reaching a good 1NT contract, reaching a good suit partscore, reaching a good suit game, and reaching a good slam. Any of these might be facilitated by a lower notrump range.

Even if the only constructive purpose in opening 1NT were to reach 3NT when it's right, it's a complete non sequitur to say "The strength required for 3NT is x, so the minimum for 1NT should be x/2".

Agree completely, and in fact there are several other flaws in his argument that you quoted. I noticed the following:

- He seems to believe you need anything more than x/2 to open, when his own argument would suggest you need exactly x/2.

- Why go through all that science and then say opening with a certain strength is right in "long team matches" with absolutely no definition of what that means? How long is long?

- His game odds, as people often do, ignores possibilities of overtricks, undertricks, and being doubled.

[akhare]

1N -- the raison d'etat for playing 10-12 NT at this vul ...

[gnasher]

helene_t, on Jun 2 2009, 05:09 PM, said:

But assuming we must play the same 1NT range in all seats, and assuming the only objective is to reach good notrump games, I think it must be correct that the minimum can't be less than x/2.

Yes, but why must we play the same notrump range in all seats? It might be equally effective to play 1NT as starting at 2x/5 in first seat, and 3x/5 in third seat.

[hanp]

I would much rather see who opens this hand and who doesn't, than read a long post about hand evaluation. This is the A/E forum after all. I think if you do want to write a book about this hand, mention vulnerability at least once.

But in the end it all boils down to partnership style. I know Arend would open this too.

[NickRW]

gnasher, on Jun 2 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

The constructive reasons for opening 1NT aren't limited to reaching good 3NT contracts.  Other constructive reasons for opening 1NT include reaching a good 1NT contract, reaching a good suit partscore, reaching a good suit game, and reaching a good slam.  Any of these might be facilitated by a lower notrump range.

Perhaps

Quote

Even if the only constructive purpose in opening 1NT were to reach 3NT when it's right, it's a complete non sequitur to say "The strength required for 3NT is x, so the minimum for 1NT should be x/2".

But that is the biggest load of illogic I've heard in a long time.

Nick

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Jun 2 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Sorry not all of us count points in decimals??

Of course you don't - not consciously anyway. But you are making value judgements about hand quality that amounts to something similar. And for people who haven't learnt such value judgement, having some sort of numerical yard stick is worth it. Supposedly the standard of bridge changed out all proportion when today's hand valuation methods came into vogue - probably the people who were the experts then tended to say, "sorry, I don't counter in integers" or some such.

Nick

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Jun 2 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

- He seems to believe you need anything more than x/2 to open, when his own argument would suggest you need exactly x/2.

24.2/2 is 12.1 - but that system doesn't doesn't work in tenths. Surely you can think of a better counter argument than talk about tenths when you yourself don't count in decimals at all!

Quote

- Why go through all that science and then say opening with a certain strength is right in "long team matches" with absolutely no definition of what that means? How long is long?

It wasn't an in depth discussion about the odds required for game in teams matches - duh.

If you want to discuss that I suggest you start your own thread.

Quote

- His game odds, as people often do, ignores possibilities of overtricks, undertricks, and being doubled.

And your position has more science or logic because....?

Nick

[cyc0002002]

23 zar point
pass

[hanp]

NickRW, on Jun 2 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

Quote

Even if the only constructive purpose in opening 1NT were to reach 3NT when it's right, it's a complete non sequitur to say "The strength required for 3NT is x, so the minimum for 1NT should be x/2".

But that is the biggest load of illogic I've heard in a long time.

There is nothing illogical about it. The problem of finding 3NT when we have 24 HCP (rounded down for my benefit) cannot be solved without further specifying our goals and knowing what other openings bids are used for. For example, if we open 1C in first seat with 16+ points and open 1D with all 13-15 hands that do not contain a 5-card major then it may well be optimal (for the constructive purpose of finding 3NT when we have 24 pts but staying at the 1-level when we have less) to open 1NT with 11-12. That might very well be better than passing those 11-counts and inviting after partner opens.

So gnasher's statement is completely correct, the last part of your sentence doesn't follow directly from the first part and if there is anybody who uses ill logic is then it is you.

Of course, the first part of gnasher's post (which you dismissed with "perhaps") was much more important. Finding out whether we have 24 points is not nearly the only purpose of opening a hand. Filling pages with formulas to prove that opening this hand is losing bridge is a useless exercise. Whether you open this hand depends greatly on partnership style and the system you use. Vulnerability is also relevant.

It is no coincidence that those who spend their time with computer models trying to find the optimal evaluation method tend to be poor bridge players.

[hanp]

cyc0002002, on Jun 2 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

23 zar point
pass

Doesn't even Zar himself warn against using Zar-count for balanced hands? Doing so seems completely idiotic. It would mean that you should pass even if you add another queen.