[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 7 2006, 08:13 AM, said:

Standard practice (and this is supposed to be a forum for standard bidding) is that the re-opening 1NT shows 18-19 balanced, or at least similar playing strength.

I agree entirely. Any poster who claims that they play the 1N reopening otherwise, and that this different treatment, represents another form of 'standard' is being oxymoronic.

Standard is a consensus understanding: I do not care how qualified an individual may be at the game: if his or her use of a bid is contrary to the consensus of what 'standard' is, then it is not standard.

BTW, in my experience, at the table, the vast majority of bridge players lack a firm grasp of standard. Thus the community within which the consensus should be taken is primarily, but not exclusively, the expert community.

Indeed, one of the hallmarks of the expert is a firm grasp of bidding theory, which almost always rests upon an understanding of standard usage.

This is not to say that standard is to be judged by what experts actually play: the vast majority of experts have developed their own idiosyncratic usages for many sequences... altho anything other than 18-19 balanced seems unlikely here, for any pair, unless they would have already shown that hand by a different opening bid.

[arrows]

1NT, roughly showing 19 HCP.

1. It's the most descriptive bid. I always prefer descriptive ones to speculative ones.

2. Suppose LHO is not insane, looking for a penalty double is against the odds. the
expectation is opps have 7 cards in spades, so if you can beat 1S by 2 tricks, you
making 3NT. It's highly unlikely you can beat 1S by 3 tricks.

3. Given your spade holding, partner probably does not have a comfortable pass
even when it's the right choice. IMO, put parnter on test too often is not a good
idea.

4. Defend with too much value concentrated in one hand, you are going to be
tortured.

5. Position-wise, RHO is the last one to say after a penalty pass, he might run to 2C
or 2H. Then it would be much harder to make an informed decision because
you didn't bid the descriptive 1NT.

6. Worst case, suppose LHO IS insane, and you could have beaten 1S a million, you
still have the field protection, because you are not in nuthouse and no one
else would overcall 1S.

[hrothgar]

I like double

If partner can convert, I'll be overjoyed
If partner bids 2♥, I'll table a good dummy
If partner bids 2♦, I'll be thrilled

If partner bids 2♣, I'll wish that I had bid 1NT (which does not show a 14 count)

[awm]

This hand is an interesting advantage for those who routinely open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors.

Why so? Suppose we go with the majority and decide to double. If partner bids a five-card suit we're pretty happy to be in a playable spot. But what if partner has some distribution like 3334 or 4234? This seems to put partner to a guess which minor to bid, and the hand will likely play much better in the 5-3 diamond fit. If you normally open 1♦ with 4-4 minors, partner will not know what to do here and will probably bid 2♣. This we must pass as partner could be weak with 5-6 clubs, and we play the 4-3 fit. But opening 1♣ with 4-4 minors, the 1♦ opening will not include four clubs unless also including five or more diamonds. This makes it relatively easy for partner to prefer diamonds with 3-4 in the minors, reaching the best fit.

Of course, opening 1♣ with 4-4 minors puts partner to the guess when you balancing-double a 1♠ overcall of 1♣, so this is not clear evidence that one style is actually "better".... just that it works better on this particular hand.

[jdeegan]

inquiry, on Sep 7 2006, 03:53 PM, said:

But, even though penalty pass is unlikely, this doesn't mean other bids are better. For example, 1NT really should have a spade stopper. Why? Because if your partner was stuck for a bid with 7 hcp and only clubs, he might leap to 3NT. Even with 6 he is likely to raise to 2NT, and without a stopper that is too high. Either of those could be ugly on a hand where there is no earthly reason to distort your bidding. You have great support for the unbid suits (honors to three cards in each), a roughing value (doubleton spade) and extra values. And should partner discover some diamond cards, a raise would be welcomed there too. Your have a takeout double shaped hand, use it.

I think I said RHO in my last post when I should have said LHO. However, the problem on this hand (given that a penalty pass by partner is 'unlikely' or 'very unlikely') is whether to lie about our points or our spade stop. This thread has taught me one thing: for most, A REOPENING 1NT ADVERTISES A BALANCED 18-19 HCP - not a lesser hand.

The actual problem hand with the actual auction presented was played 24 times in a recent BBO tourney. The actions were:

Pass -1
Dbl. - 12
1NT - 3
2D - 6
3C - 1
3D - 1

My partner reopened with 2♦, a bad bid imo without a six bagger, which almost misled me into a potentially mediocre bid of 3♦. I passed specifically because partner did not reopen with a double, so probably had 2 or 3 spades or else short hearts. We ended up defending 2♠ down four for an 82% board.

My hand:

J972
A32
753
1092

Over a 1NT reopen, I have an easy pass for a good score.

[mikeh]

At the risk of impairing my credibility by posting my choice of 1N after seeing the hands, it would indeed have been my choice at the table.

True, possession of a real ♠ stopper would be nice, but we have several indications that Qx will be as useful as Qxx... a holding with which at least 90% of experts would reopen 1N.

1stly, there are a number of hands on which a stopper is as good as it sounds: LHO, on opening lead with, say, AKJxx or AK10xx is going to lead low most of the time: with AKJ10x, and a sure entry, we may regret our choice when he leads a top honour and gets a proper count signal, but maybe we can still make 7 of the last 8 tricks .

2ndly, RHO did not raise. This is by no means determinative, but it increases the chance that partner has some modest length...Jxx is all we need to translate our Qx into a stopper. His actual holding of Jxxx is by no means a surprise

3rdly, in either case, the odds are high that the hand will play better with us as declarer than partner. If LHO holds AK109x, and a lead comes through our Qx, we have one stopper. Played by me, if LHO leads the 10, we have 2 stoppers. Or Give partner Kxx or Axx: once again, the hand plays better from my side than from his.

Add to these factors the reality that 1N is a very accurate description of our hand type (other than the possible stopper-flaw) and we see that 1N is less of a distortion and conveys more reliable information to partner than does double.

[cherdano]

I chose double like the majority, but with less conviction than the rest of you. Why are you so happy if partner bids, say, 2♥? Yeah we will make it, but are you not worried about missing game? I could have a lot less for a double reopening, while 1N will get us to game if we belong there.

Arend

[whereagles]

Well, I think that requiring 18-19 for a 1NT here is being too restrictive.

[Codo]

whereagles, on Sep 8 2006, 06:43 PM, said:

Well, I think that requiring 18-19 for a 1NT here is being too restrictive.

no

[Winstonm]

Although at first I considered this an automatic double due to the shortness in spades allowing a 4/3 fit to be tapped in the correct hand, I am beginning to see a fairly sound reason to bid 1N.

First, double is amibiguous and doesn't show nearly this much hand. If partner bids 2C or 2H there isn't much we can do but guess.

However, partner could have passed a decent 7-8 count with no convenient bid, and by announcing our 18-19 strength with 1N we still leave 3N in play if partner has some useful hand such as Axx, xxx, Kxx, xxxx.

So I am going to go with 1N, although that is not the bid I would have made at the table, perhaps now if it comes up I will make that bid.

[kenberg]

Another second thoughts person. I voted for double, started writing up why, found my reasons less convincing than I thought they were when I voted, and so let it be. I'm glad to see 1N turns out to be the winner here, and I think the logic expressed by those supporting that call is pursuasive. Of course it could end up looking silly, but that wouldn't be a first for me. At least you get your strength announced, jxx in parter's hand is a stopper, and players with akjtx have been known to lead the jack. Or a side suit.

Nice hand.

[SoTired]

i can't remember what I voted, but the discussion has convinced me that 1N is better than X.

Another reason (Maybe this is somewhere in the discussion and I missed it) is Qx produces a double stopper when we are declarer and partner holds Axx or Kxx, but only a single stopper when partner declares. So it is always advantageous when holding Qx in LHO's suit to try to be declarer at NT.

[mr1303]

Hmm, surely if the auction goes:

1D (1S) P P
X P

and I hold:

J972
A32
753
1092


I bid 1NT, and I get the same result?

[ochinko]

mr1303, on Sep 10 2006, 12:52 AM, said:

Hmm, surely if the auction goes:

1D (1S) P P
X P

and I hold:

J972
A32
753
1092


I bid 1NT, and I get the same result?

I am not sure the result will be the same. I prefer a lead from their stronger hand that participated in the bidding.

[jdeegan]

Codo, on Sep 8 2006, 07:07 PM, said:

whereagles, on Sep 8 2006, 06:43 PM, said:

Well, I think that requiring 18-19 for a 1NT here is being too restrictive.

no

My thought was that a reopening 1NT 'advertises' not 'requires' an 18-19 HCP balanced hand because in the majority of cases that's what it will have. What it really says is 'my hand is too good to pass even though I have length and cards in the opponents' suit'.

K72
K10
AQ972
1054

is an easy pass, imo.

K72
K10
AQ973
Q54

is also a pass, I think.

K976
AK10
AQ952
9

I would happily reopen with 1NT with only 16 HCP. NT ranges in balancing position are typically around 5 (even 6) HCP vs. 3 HCP for openers.