BBO Discussion Forums: Basic question - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Basic question

#1 User is offline   655321 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,502
  • Joined: 2007-December-22

Posted 2009-October-19, 18:01

1 - (Pass) - 1 - (1)

How strong is 1NT?

I have always played this as weak NT strength. Recently I was talking with a friend who knows more about bidding theory than I do, and he said it shows 18-19.
That's impossible. No one can give more than one hundred percent. By definition that is the most anyone can give.

#2 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,010
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2009-October-19, 18:08

one of the thread searchers :) should track down the topic where everybody agreed that this is 13-14 with a nice double stop. I don't remember if there was controversy on whether it could contain 3card support.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin

#3 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2009-October-19, 18:18

I think, not knowing who either you or your friend are, and based on your 1553 posts and your friend's 1 post through you, I am in a position to safely declare that he does not know more about bidding theory than you do.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.

#4 User is offline   Jlall 

  • Follower of 655321
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,293
  • Joined: 2008-December-05
  • Interests:drinking, women, bridge...what else?

Posted 2009-October-19, 18:43

Playing it shows 18-19 is really superior imo. Or at least showing an unbalanced hand with like 16 if you want, like 6 diamonds and spades stopped. Anything but double stopper with maximum weak NT!

That said double stopper with max weak NT is pretty standard.

#5 User is offline   andy_h 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,962
  • Joined: 2007-September-14
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:The Universe, Traveling, Squash, and Scandinavia.

Posted 2009-October-19, 19:35

I've played both ways and I really do like 1NT as 18-19 and passing with all weak NT's (exception of support X). I don't know how good the gain/losses are, but you get 2NT available for 15/6+ 4 support which puts some strain off the 2 cue bid. It does mean you do lose the 'race to 1NT' though that hasn't happened to me (yet).
- Andy -

We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.

#6 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2009-October-22, 10:13

"Standard" is to show a decent weak NT
This is more useful NV at matchpoints than at other forms of scoring.

I now play it as about a good 13 to a bad 17, often unbalanced, as that's the hand type that is difficult to show (e.g. 4153). Weak NTs pass (unless they support double).

I know that 18-19 is useful, but I never get dealt 18-19 on this auction.

By comparison, I play 1C P {1 red transfer response} P 1NT as 18-20, but if RHO overcalls I change to this lighter range.

#7 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,396
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2009-October-22, 13:56

I say this too often, but on my fields I have never ever had 18-19 on this auction :/

#8 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • editor/contributor

Posted 2009-October-22, 15:46

In the August of 2003 BW magazine, there is an article entitled "Sandwiches with Condiments."

Ken Eichenbaum and I had played bridge on Friday night. After the game, we started drinking and talking. At 4:00 in the afternoon, the next day, we fell asleep for a half hour or so and then woke up to play bridge on Saturday night.

Somewhere in the middle of all this, while trashed, we decided to devise a complicated set of agreements defining exactly what you should hold for the three options of a support double, a pass, a raise, and a 1NT call, in this auction, different for each of the four vulnerabilities -- favorable, unfavorable, equal but white, and equal but red.

It was sick, but BW bought it, or at least the part we could make out from drunken notes later.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.

Share this topic:

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users