[jocdelevat]

Scoring: IMP

---

Scoring: IMP

---

I played in a tourney with an advanced player (had a 6 ACBL #) and he told me that with 3 aces balance hands even if the range right not good to open 1nt. He played very well during the whole tourney imo however I never heard
this theory before.

[jtfanclub]

I could believe on the first hand that you're better off opening 1♦. Seems better suited for suit play. Not that there's anything wrong with 1NT, of course.

The second hand looks unbiddible to me if you don't open it 1NT. It goes 1♣-1♥...1NT? You're even worse of than if you'd opened 1NT. 2♥? Gross.

[han]

Fully agree with Justin, except that you cannot trust me.

[Elianna]

Jlall, on Mar 5 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

Please dont listen to anyone who says not to open 1N with either hand they are not experts and they have crackpot theories.

Or they're old.

Or old fashioned.

[cjames]

1N on both every time

[gwnn]

You don't have a rebid afterwards (for example, you bid 1♣ on the second, what do you bid after 1♥?). It would be nice if you had 1NT as "15-17 no trumpy" and 1SA "15-17 suit ability" but that's not how bridge works so just use 1NT as "15-17 balanced, anywhere from 0 to 4 aces".

BTW I agree with Han that you should not trust him.

[jtfanclub]

Elianna, on Mar 6 2008, 12:30 AM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 5 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

Please dont listen to anyone who says not to open 1N with either hand they are not experts and they have crackpot theories.

Or they're old.

Or old fashioned.

I wonder if there's a good way to simulate the first one?

I don't think there's anything wrong with opening 1NT with the first one.
But it would not surprise me if you're better off opening it 1♦.

You've got a small doubleton.
Your hand is suit oriented (quick tricks).
You have no rebid issues.

Is it old fashioned? Sure. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.

The second hand has to be opened 1NT. It's fine to open the first hand 1NT too.

[vuroth]

Lots of aces = lots of tenaces = want to declare in NT?

I open 1NT on both, but honestly, I'm not certain that I see where the advice giver is even coming from.

V

[pclayton]

Some players have strange theories about bidding. Most are little old men with poor hygiene who have have dirty apartments and keep 10 years of newspapers in a stack in their living room.

Don't listen to them, lest you become one of them!

[Walddk]

jocdelevat, on Mar 6 2008, 07:11 AM, said:

I played in a tourney with an advanced player (had a 6 ACBL #) and he told me that with 3 aces balance hands even if the range right not good to open 1nt.

Sheer nonsense. If you don't open 1NT when you have 15-17 and are balanced, you can never convince partner that you have that hand. It's as simple as that.

Roland

[hrothgar]

jocdelevat, on Mar 6 2008, 08:11 AM, said:

I played in a tourney with an advanced player (had a 6 ACBL #) and he told me that with 3 aces balance hands even if the range right not good to open 1nt. He played very well during the whole tourney imo however I never heard
this theory before.

For what its worth, I've heard similar sentiments expressed on a number of occasions. I suspect that this line of thought has its root in a couple different sources:

1. Taking a good idea too far.

Most people on this forum probably agree that different hand evaluations schemes are better suited for suit contracts than no trump (and vice versa). As a simple example, the K+R scheme is much more accurate than simple 4-3-2-1 HCPs for suit contracts. However, the 4-3-2-1 scheme scores very well when evaluating NT contracts.

In general, Aces and Kings are better for suit contracts than NT.

Some players might extend this line of thinking and strain to avoid opening 1NT with a hand that seemed particular appropriate for suit play. (Aces and Spaces or some such)

2. General reticence towards opening 1NT

Back in the day before Stayman and Transfers filtered down to hoi polloi constructive bidding over NT openings sucked. Opening 1NT was somewhat akin to shootiing yourself in the head. Folks recognized this and seemed to actively search out new and better reasons to avoid 1NT openings.

Now a days people seem to invest enormous amounts of time in their response structures over NT openings. This often strikes me as one of the most elaborate parts of people's system.

For what its worth, I did play arround and tried following this advice for a bit... I recall some truly miserable results. I'm not at all fond of this style

Your milage may vary.

[Cascade]

1NT always.

People who expound this theory remember the rare occasion where partner had nothing and they won three tricks and forget or didnt appreciate all of the much more frequent times when those aces helped to build tricks.

[jdonn]

I give not opening 1NT a 1/10 on the first, and a -5/10 on the second.

[matmat]

heh.... open something else if your NT range is 16-18... or are these worth upgrades?

[jillybean]

Beware of free advice on BBO! I fall prey to it too often.
This is a great place to check theories and you will soon know who is worth listening to and who is not.

[jtfanclub]

I said in my original reply, and I said in my second reply, I don't have any problem opening the first hand 1NT. I still don't. I haven't recommended one diamond for the first hand, and I don't know or claim that it's better.

The old style would be to open it one diamond, and later show a 15 count with club shortness.
I am quite convinced that that's not what the stars are doing these days.

[Walddk]

jtfanclub, on Mar 6 2008, 10:33 PM, said:

The old style would be to open it one diamond, and later show a 15 count with club shortness.
I am quite convinced that that's not what the stars are doing these days.

You are quite right (last sentence). By the way, how did they show a 15 count with short clubs in the old days? Furthermore, since when is a doubleton known as "short" in this context?

Roland