[Mbodell]

Partner and I disagreed on this hand so wanted to get extra judgment from the forums. The context is 6 board swiss teams if that matters.

Scoring: IMP

1nt (15-17) - P - ??

---

[mohitz]

more aggressive than what i prefer, but not the worst bid ever

[Little Kid]

3NT for me. Would accept on decent 16-counts so this is not quite good enough for 4NT. If you only accept on nice 17-counts or primed 16-counts then I suppose I would invite.

[Fluffy]

jackless 15 count with the right queens, slam is possible, but only in a minor.

If you have a way to know if partner has a 4 card minor use it, start with 2♣ and bid something forcing next, ideal auction:

1NT-2♣
2♥-2♠
3♣-4♣

[the hog]

This is a 3NT bid. As Fluffy said, slam in a minor MIGHT be possible, but is more likely to fail.

[effervesce]

Agree with fluffy - a slam needs a minor fit and maximum, fitting hand.
If I had a way of determining a minor suit fit, and a mild slam try, I'd bid that.
Without such methods, I think 3NT is much better than 4NT - there's not that many hands you want to be in slam.

[rogerclee]

4S is an infinitely better bid than 4N.

[hotShot]

I don't like your choices, because while 6NT seems far away 6m could be makable. With your side's combined 30-32 HCP and balanced hands there is not much chance for LHO to enter the auction.

[655321]

I don't know why 4NT is described as aggressive, it just seems like a bad bid to me.

[kenrexford]

1NT-2NT(relay)
3♣-3♥(3244, 14+ HCP)

That's what one partner and I play. Kinda cool for this hand.

[mikegill]

I actually play 4♠ shows a balanced hand that's inv to 6m but not to 6N, mostly because of a complete lack of another use for this bid. This easily qualifies, but if not playing that I would certainly just bid 3n.

[Apollo81]

Agree with Mike and Roger -- it's nice to have a system bid that shows a hand too weak to invite 6NT but strong enough to make 6m a good contract if opener has a fitting hand with a minor.

[whereagles]

there's a statistical study in John Boederer's "Thinking about imps" book where he concludes that NT slam on 4432s can often be made on 32 hcp counts. In light of that, 4NT is an ok bid.

But honestly, either you have methods to find a 44 minor slam or you're probably better off bidding 3NT.

[hanp]

Agree with 4NT just being bad bridge.

[jjbrr]

3NT for me.

It's better to be plus 490 than minus 50

[ArtK78]

mikegill, on Mar 17 2010, 08:18 AM, said:

I actually play 4♠ shows a balanced hand that's inv to 6m but not to 6N, mostly because of a complete lack of another use for this bid. This easily qualifies, but if not playing that I would certainly just bid 3n.

There is another use for the 4♠ bid. Whether it is better or worse than your use is a matter of opinion.

In situations where 4NT is a quantitative raise and 4♠ is an otherwise undefined call, one can differentiate between a strong invitation (one that should be accepted unless partner is a dead minimum) and a weak invitation (one that should be accepted only if partner is a full maximum). 4♠ is the weaker invite, and 4NT is the stronger invite. So, for example, in the simplest case, opposite a 15-17 1NT opening, responder, with 16 HCP and an otherwise unremarkable hand would bid 4♠ requesting a 6NT bid if partner had the full 17 HCP maximum; but with 17 HCP and an otherwise unremarkable hand he would bid 4NT requesting a 6NT bid unless partner had a minimum 15 HCP.

I don't recall specifically where I found this notion. It may have been from the Granovetter's now defunct Bridge Today magazine.

[goobers]

2nt. When the variables are the same, you simply add the coefficients together.

[vuroth]

goobers, on Mar 17 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

2nt. When the variables are the same, you simply add the coefficients together.

Tsk tsk. hehe....

3NT for me, but what do I know? (That said, the treatment fro 4♠ makes sense to me....)

[straube]

kenrexford, on Mar 17 2010, 08:06 AM, said:

1NT-2NT(relay)
3♣-3♥(3244, 14+ HCP)

That's what one partner and I play. Kinda cool for this hand.

That's not a good use for that sequence. It is much too specific in terms of pattern and pt count.

[kenrexford]

straube, on Mar 17 2010, 01:39 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 17 2010, 08:06 AM, said:

1NT-2NT(relay)
3♣-3♥(3244, 14+ HCP)

That's what one partner and I play.  Kinda cool for this hand.

That's not a good use for that sequence. It is much too specific in terms of pattern and pt count.

I'm not sure how you know this.

I mean, in general, overly specific meanings are a bad idea if you cannot cover other equally occurring hand patterns.

But, if you have a boatload of different options to handle a boatload of different patterns, how is that a bad thing simply because of the specificity?

I mean, would it be a bad thing to play a 1NT opening as showing 15-17 HCP simply because you limit the call to a 3-point range? Would it be bad to then have a 2♠ rebid after Stayman show 4-5 spades and 2-3 hearts simply because there are so many other patterns that need to be covered? Would it be bad for a 3♠ call after Responder in that sequence sets spades as trumps to show a spade control simply because there are three other suits, of which you have said nothing yet about their controls or lack thereof? Would it be bad to have a 5♠ response to 4NT then show two key cards plus the spade Queen simply because you might have a number of other holdings?

In other words, you cannot know whether this use for this sequence is "too specific" unless you also know what other options are systemically available.