[mike777]

Wonderful bridge can still surprise me.

I opened 1nt with a 5 card major and my advanced partner from the middle east told me they have never, never seen a player open 1nt with a 5 card major and they have played for 5 years.

Wonderful bridge game.

1) The simpliest bridge bids after many years continue to confound me.
2) I just played a tg with all world class and expert players, except me. The game on hand after hand came down to basic bridge skills, not world class or expert, WOW. Every hand was winnable with basic bridge skills that 99% of us forum nonexperts have.

[1eyedjack]

mike777, on Jul 26 2005, 11:09 PM, said:

I opened 1nt with a 5 card major and my advanced partner from the middle east told me they have never, never seen a player open 1nt with a 5 card major and they have played for 5 years.

You might want to refer your partner to Andrew Robson's comment in The (London) Times on 19 July 2005:

Quote

It has become almost standard practice among top modern players to open 1NT with a five-card major when 5332 in the notrump range

http://images.thetim...,,214715,00.jpg

[mgtusi]

Hi all,


In France, your question is a sort of taboo one !
We have here a college of "Ayatollah's" which fight against they considere as an anatheme : opening a strong no-trump with a five card major.

In fact, it could be a good move and I don't see any reasons to prohibate a such action.
I think it is a partnership decision to say "never" or "sometimes".

They are afraid to miss the major game in a 5-3 fit ? Many conventions allow a perfect hand description, for instance :

1NT-2C
2x-2NT=GF relay for shortness (less than three)
3x = shortness (3C=S, 3D=H, 3H=4333, 3S=D,3NT=C)*

* a minor shortness imply the knowledge of the complete distribution :
four H and a club shortness imply 3442 ; no major and a D shortness imply 3352,...
On a major shortness, it's possible to relay again for the minor length : T, D, 44
1NT-2C-2S-2NT-3D(H shortness)-3H-3S=club length, so 4234.

Michel

[whereagles]

I used to be on the French side of the fence. But at some stage I leaped across and now open 1NT on just about anything... including some 5431s.. lol.

[mgtusi]

whereagles, on Jul 27 2005, 06:55 AM, said:

I used to be on the French side of the fence.

You mean Ayatollah french side...

[Al_U_Card]

In sayc, I would open any balanced hand in the right range with 1NT.

In more sophisticated 2/1 methods, I prefer to open the major suit as lots of ways to get to the 5-2+ fit exist and give optimum results.

[Kingjy1]

I prefer my partner to know my point range (15 to 17) over the fact that I have 5 major with 11 to 17 pts. Especially when playing imps where games are so important to bid.

Playing match points I would hesitate....because of the importance of all tricks.
besides I am a bit lazy and ! no trump put all the work on pr :-)

[Free]

In Belgium and the Netherlands, most people just open 1NT with any 5 card M, since most play 3♣ as puppet stayman so they won't miss that 5-3 fit People even look weird if you ask if they can still have a 5 card Major

[1eyedjack]

The primary risk (and it is a real one) in opening 1NT with a 5 card major is that responder may have a weakish distributional hand with a 4 card fit for that major, and game interest only opposite 5 card support. As 5 card support is intrinsically unlikely he may pass you out in 1NT, thereby missing game.

There are other risks, just as there are other compensating benefits. It would appear that among top modern players the compensating benefits are sufficient.

[pigpenz]

i tend to find that a majority of the times when i open one notrump with a five card major the opps tend to lead it on the opening lead

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

The primary risk (and it is a real one) in opening 1NT with a 5 card major is that responder may have a weakish distributional hand with a 4 card fit for that major, and game interest only opposite 5 card support. As 5 card support is intrinsically unlikely he may pass you out in 1NT, thereby missing game.

I think the bigger risk is in frequently missing superior partials on the 5-3/5-4 fits when responder is too weak to move over 1nt, or getting to 5-2 fit in one major rather than 5-3 in the other, than these rarer games. Sometimes opening 1nt will work out much better, sometimes it will be much worse. One might choose to use judgment on when to open 1nt, or one might construct a system that requires you to always open 1nt or never open 1nt, which affects how you can distribute the meanings of other bids, and thus your accuracy on other hands. There are no clear answers what the best approach is.

[luke warm]

Quote

...one might construct a system that requires you to always open 1nt or never open 1nt, which affects how you can distribute the meanings of other bids, and thus your accuracy on other hands. There are no clear answers what the best approach is.

true... there's a lot to be said for all opening bids describing your distribution and/or strength... it seems to me that it allows faster in/out

[1eyedjack]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 27 2005, 06:45 PM, said:

Quote

The primary risk (and it is a real one) in opening 1NT with a 5 card major is that responder may have a weakish distributional hand with a 4 card fit for that major, and game interest only opposite 5 card support. As 5 card support is intrinsically unlikely he may pass you out in 1NT, thereby missing game.

I think the bigger risk is in frequently missing superior partials on the 5-3/5-4 fits when responder is too weak to move over 1nt, or getting to 5-2 fit in one major rather than 5-3 in the other, than these rarer games. Sometimes opening 1nt will work out much better, sometimes it will be much worse. One might choose to use judgment on when to open 1nt, or one might construct a system that requires you to always open 1nt or never open 1nt, which affects how you can distribute the meanings of other bids, and thus your accuracy on other hands. There are no clear answers what the best approach is.

As to the relative weight of the critical hands you may be right. There is more at stake on the game hands, but they are certainly less frequent. The game hands probably assume a greater importance in an IMP game than an MP game. Also which major suit may make a difference. Sometimes I do not mind buying the contract in 1NT with a 9 card Heart fit and insufficient for game, when the opponents also have a 9 card fit, possibly in a suit outranking mine.

I guess we can theorise all we like about good hands and bad hands for the method, and their relative importance, but the statement that there are no clear answers is perhaps at odds with the overwhelming migration of top players (or so I am led to understand) in favour of opening 1N on these hands.

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jul 26 2005, 11:09 PM, said:

2) I just played a tg with all world class and expert players, except me.  The game on hand after hand came down to basic bridge skills, not world class or expert, WOW. Every hand was winnable with basic bridge skills that 99% of us forum nonexperts have.

[QUOTE]

The reality is that none of the really esoteric plays arise with sufficient frequency as to be likely to affect the outcome of any but the longest of matches. The great players win consistently because they reduce their error-rate, not because they pull of a trump squeeze on one hand followed by a compound squeeze on the next.

They are aided, of course, by the ability to recognize and implement advanced technique. But few of them ever suddenly worked such plays out at the table: they had read of them, studied them and then recognized the possibility.

So learn to focus and, in the meantime, throw out that sexy, new bidding method and spend your study time on cardplay... look for old Reese books or, esp for defence, old Kelsey books.

[Double !]

[quote name='mikeh' date='Jul 27 2005, 07:11 PM'] [quote name='mike777' date='Jul 26 2005, 11:09 PM']
So learn to focus and, in the meantime, throw out that sexy, new bidding method and spend your study time on cardplay... look for old Reese books or, esp for defence, old Kelsey books. [/quote]
Agree
How many recent books really surpass Reese's "Master Play" or Kelsey's "Killing Defense"? The latter has at least two full chapters emphasizing counting (to 13, if you must), and drawing inferences from counting. There is one small part in Master Play where Reese presents the concept of upside-down inferences that is worth noting. Marvelous books.

[whereagles]

The 1NT opening has such a narrow range that it can withstand a "beating" (off-center shapes) and STILL be very precise.

[kenberg]

pigpenz, on Jul 27 2005, 04:30 PM, said:

i tend to find that a majority of the times when i open one notrump with a five card major the opps tend to lead it on the opening lead

Exactly that happened in a recent vugraph presentation. Both sides played 3NT from the same side. One side had begun with a heart opening bid, and they went down. The other side opened 1NT, received a heart opening lead, and made.

Of course that's what happened on one hand. It's hopeless arguing this issue. Even looking methodically at many results can be misleading since how you handle this has reverberations in other aspects of bidding.

It is safe to say that someone who has never heard of anyone doing such a thing, as stated in the first post, has either had a very sheltered life or has not been paying attention. Goren opened 1NT on suitable hands having a five card major even though he opened other hands in a major with only four cards. Whether it is wise or not, 1NT with a five card major has a very long history.

ken

[ArcLight]

>2) I just played a tg with all world class and expert players, except me. The game on hand after hand came down to basic bridge skills, not world class or expert, WOW. Every hand was winnable with basic bridge skills that 99% of us forum nonexperts have.

You mean you didn't have any Shifting Entry Squeezes and the team that won wasn't the one with the most complex system?


> So learn to focus and, in the meantime, throw out that sexy, new bidding method and spend your study time on cardplay... look for old Reese books or, esp for defence, old Kelsey books.

Whoa! Are you actually trying to say that counting and card play are more important than using the new inverted magentized polarized upside down Meckwell cue bids on hands where you have 3 kings and the opponents open 1 Diamond?


What I like about Mike Lawrence's Conventions and 2/1 software is he gives ratings to conventions. Part of the rating is based on frequency. So having a score of conventions that each get used once a year may benefit you little.

[Double !]

ArcLight, on Jul 29 2005, 11:17 AM, said:

> So learn to focus and, in the meantime, throw out that sexy, new bidding method and spend your study time on cardplay... look for old Reese books or, esp for defence, old Kelsey books.

Whoa!  Are you actually trying to say that counting and card play are more important than using the new inverted magentized polarized upside down Meckwell cue bids on hands where you have 3 kings and the opponents open 1 Diamond?

That's a big 10-4, good buddie. (2 blasts of the horn from the 18-wheeler!)
Give that man an "A". (or a cigar, or a frosty one: his choice)
i.e.: agree completely