[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Jun 25 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 24 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

If you don't downgrade a hand like this, you'll never downgrade.

! Partner bid the stiff queen, you have a 5 card suit, AK A, and we were even gifted with 9 9 9. Are we looking at the same hand?!?

I don't think we should award the ♠Q the same significance that we would if partner had opened 1♠. The 5-card diamond suit is not much of an asset since it's so poor. The 9's are good, but not good enough to offset the other things. Change one or two of the 9s to 10s and I'd open 1NT.

[P_Marlowe]

2D.

1NT is out, the shape is wrong and so is the point count,
I dont mind, if one thing does not match, but two is one
too much.

2H is out, although I play weak reverses, this hand is not
a reverse.

2C is out, it showes 4 cards, and it completely buries the
heart fit, maybe not in NA, where bidding the 4th suit is
natural most of the time, but for me the heart suit would be
lost.

2D just showes a 5 carder, can still be based on hands with
17HCP, and does not bury the heart suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[bill1157]

is there no one in favor of opening 1♥ with this hand except me?

Bill

[helene_t]

1NT is the cheapest rebid so you aren't overloading it by putting hands like this one into it. It may be worthwhile designing a checkback structure that allows opener to describe this hand.

I am OK with a 2♣ rebid or a 1NT opening. 2♦ is really awful IMHO.

[jdonn]

Apollo81, on Jun 25 2009, 09:03 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 25 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 24 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

If you don't downgrade a hand like this, you'll never downgrade.

! Partner bid the stiff queen, you have a 5 card suit, AK A, and we were even gifted with 9 9 9. Are we looking at the same hand?!?

I don't think we should award the ♠Q the same significance that we would if partner had opened 1♠. The 5-card diamond suit is not much of an asset since it's so poor. The 9's are good, but not good enough to offset the other things. Change one or two of the 9s to 10s and I'd open 1NT.

I'm just saying, open 1♦ then rebid 1NT if you want, but know that you are underbidding because you think it's the best option, don't go around thinking this hand should be downgraded. It shouldn't!

[jdonn]

bill1157, on Jun 25 2009, 09:19 AM, said:

is there no one in favor of opening 1♥ with this hand except me?

That is correct.

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Jun 25 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

Apollo81, on Jun 25 2009, 09:03 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 25 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 24 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

If you don't downgrade a hand like this, you'll never downgrade.

! Partner bid the stiff queen, you have a 5 card suit, AK A, and we were even gifted with 9 9 9. Are we looking at the same hand?!?

I don't think we should award the ♠Q the same significance that we would if partner had opened 1♠. The 5-card diamond suit is not much of an asset since it's so poor. The 9's are good, but not good enough to offset the other things. Change one or two of the 9s to 10s and I'd open 1NT.

I'm just saying, open 1♦ then rebid 1NT if you want, but know that you are underbidding because you think it's the best option, don't go around thinking this hand should be downgraded. It shouldn't!

Alright you win the semantics battle. If my 1NT rebid showed 13-15 I'd be happier than I am with it showing 12-14. I'm not opening 1NT because I fear declaring a poor 5-1 spade fit, fear partner forcing to game on good 9 counts (or bad 10 counts), etc.

[NickRW]

This is a good hand for playing inverted majors over 1D.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Jun 24 2009, 11:24 PM, said:

Phil, on Jun 24 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

If you don't downgrade a hand like this, you'll never downgrade.

! Partner bid the stiff queen, you have a 5 card suit, AK A, and we were even gifted with 9 9 9. Are we looking at the same hand?!?

I don't think a singleton Q in partner's suit is that great. It looks great opposite any AJ / KJ / JT holding but its value is very minor otherwise and still warrants a one point deduction.

999 is useful, but not overly so. Q9xxx needs some real help from pard too. The hand has no body to it otherwise. I know there are some (I think Lynn Deas has discussed this somewhere) that upgrade any 14 with a 5 card suit, but this isn't winning bridge in my experience.

[Jlall]

Phil, on Jun 25 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 24 2009, 11:24 PM, said:

Phil, on Jun 24 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

If you don't downgrade a hand like this, you'll never downgrade.

! Partner bid the stiff queen, you have a 5 card suit, AK A, and we were even gifted with 9 9 9. Are we looking at the same hand?!?

I don't think a singleton Q in partner's suit is that great. It looks great opposite any AJ / KJ / JT holding but its value is very minor otherwise and still warrants a one point deduction.

999 is useful, but not overly so. Q9xxx needs some real help from pard too. The hand has no body to it otherwise. I know there are some (I think Lynn Deas has discussed this somewhere) that upgrade any 14 with a 5 card suit, but this isn't winning bridge in my experience.

Jdonn is going nuts recently.

[Phil]

Jlall, on Jun 25 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

Jdonn is going nuts recently.

As long as youre not, we are good

[pirate22]

what is the problem pard has responded 1sp--rebid 2d(its not denying anything),thats why we have partners-rebidding 2cl, does that guarentee a diamond suit? and min values? also rebidding 1n/t limits the hand to 12-14 points,
i agree 2 diamonds also limits the hand(unable to truly reverse) be honest with ones partner regards

[manudude03]

I'm rebidding 1NT, these kind of hands never seem to pull their weight so I'll just call this a 14 count. I'm not rebidding 2♦, I do want to score positive (partner will often pass with less than 9 points and a stiff (or even void) in diamonds, when he has more, we're most likely making some number of nt. I don't voluntarily bid 3 card suits unless I have a lot of extras.