[aguahombre]

OleBerg, on Mar 13 2010, 04:03 AM, said:

Both opening 1♦ and bidding 2NT now seems obvious to me.

As we didn't open 1NT partner will now we have an intermidiate unbalanced hand.

Those are my sentiments. Get over the failure to open 1NT (Too late to correct that). You are now inviting game with a 2NT bid, opposite a partner whose 1NT response after an overcall is probably not a joke.

Partner has gained information he might not have had if you had opened 1NT. This information includes the likelihood that you have extra diamond length and things about the opponents' holdings.

[jjbrr]

Ya Clee's example hand is just extraneous info and doesn't serve much purpose in the theoretical world. It seems to me to be pretty arbitrary. But getting away from the theoretical world and into the practical world I reciprocate everyone's feelings when they say it's hard to describe this hand in this auction. I think the subset of hands that find a slam after this auction after a 1♦ opening is ridiculously small compared to those that get to slam after a 1NT opening that the gains from 1♦ are definitely negligible in the context of better game bidding, which I think 1NT is better suited for.

I think Clee is the first to say I'm old school about 1NT openers in terms of unbalanced/semibalanced hands, but I think this is a clear 1NT opener.

[gnasher]

MarkDean, on Mar 14 2010, 07:12 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Mar 13 2010, 12:17 PM, said:

AKxx Qx Kxx Axxx

1D-1S
2D-2H
2N-3D
3N-?

I am confused by your example. Is the other hand supposed to be the one in the OP? Why did he not show 3 spades over 2H? Why did he bid 3NT over 3D?

No, it was an example of a hand where slam is makeable opposite this opening, and (in Roger's view) we may not get there after a 1♦ opening.

Quote

And how do you think the auction would go with this hand opposite a 1NT opener?  It is not clear to me that you would get to slam, and certainly not to 6D opposite some similar hands where that is better than nt (like Kx AJxx KJx Axxx).

With both example hands, if you had nothing more sophisticated than Stayman available, it would go

1NT-2♣
2♦-4NT
6♦

In my partnerships, responder would show a balanced slam try at a lower level, opener would should five or six diamonds, responder would agree the suit, and either player would drive slam.

Quote

Anyhow, I agree we are not going to get to all slams either way, I just think it is clear that opening 1D will get to some good slams that will be missed opening 1NT

If it's so clear, I expect it will be easy for you to provide an example or two.

[Phil]

Add me to the 1N bidders. It seems the likely range when I have a 6 card minor is running 13(+) to about 16(-) so this hand easily qualifies.

1N frequently gets us on the bullet train to 3N and the defense will usually be in the dark.

Agree with Clee about this - try it, you'll like it.

[MarkDean]

Quote

No, it was an example of a hand where slam is makeable opposite this opening, and (in Roger's view) we may not get there after a 1♦ opening.

So there were two hands (OP and Roger's) and an auction...were those two hands supposed to have had the auction proposed by Roger? Because they do not match in my mind.

Quote

With both example hands, if you had nothing more sophisticated than Stayman available, it would go

1NT-2♣
2♦-4NT
6♦

In my partnerships, responder would show a balanced slam try at a lower level, opener would should five or six diamonds, responder would agree the suit, and either player would drive slam.

It is quite possible you are getting to slam off two aces with your unsophisticated auction: opener knows he has just one ace and the partnership has around 30 HCP. However, I will concede that a pair with better agreements can avoid this.

Quote

If it's so clear, I expect it will be easy for you to provide an example or two.

A small modification to the hand I put in the previous post should do: Kx Axxx Kxxx Axx.