[MickyB]

Scoring: IMP

1♦-(3♠)-P-(P)

What's your call playing standard methods, and how close is it?

We were actually playing 1♦ as (17)18-19 balanced or natural and unbalanced, which allows partner to act a little more aggressively than if we could have a weak no-trump. Does this change your answer?

---

[Fluffy]

I think its a double regardless, but 3NT is also an option given the unlikellyhood of partner having penalty pass here.

[hanp]

Maybe I'm missing something but don't we have a balanced 16-count? Kx and A10 also seem excellent holdings for opening 1NT.

[MickyB]

You've got pretty nice methods having opened this 1♦, so that is what I did.

1D:1S, 1NT = 5D4H, now pard has 2C bad preference or 2D good preference

1D:1NT, you can rebid 2C as 14-16 unbalanced without four clubs

plus you are better placed in competition than playing standard methods.


In short, if you consider AJ9x Kx AT9xx AT to be a WTP 14+ to 17- 1NT opening playing standard methods, I probably won't persuade you to open the actual hand 1♦, but if you consider the 4252 to be close then it definitely feels right to open 1♦ playing our methods.

[wclass___]

Pass. Not close.

[aguahombre]

MickyB, on Sep 29 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

You've got pretty nice methods having opened this 1♦, so that is what I did.

Agree with Hanp about opening 1NT. You describe your balanced 1D openings as (17) 18-19. That means your upgrades are with good 17's.

But you like your follow-ups so much you want to lower the standard even more in order to use the toys. My opinion of doing this is probably of only mild interest, since I am not one of the great theorists. It has to be rough on partner, though.

[2Macchiato]

Just do something sensible. 3N is not sensible. Double emphasises your heart / diamond holding (you have to cope with the awkward 4 ♣ response.

I'd bear in mind that 3 ♠ is liable to be weak and gives you a problem. Obviously you can solve this with Pass (timid), 3N (risky), Double (noting that partner had an opportunity to bid already) - that's pretty much it (unless you fancy 4 ♥ !)

I'd be inclined to Double.

[MickyB]

aguahombre, on Sep 29 2010, 06:48 PM, said:

MickyB, on Sep 29 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

You've got pretty nice methods having opened this 1♦, so that is what I did.

Agree with Hanp about opening 1NT. You describe your balanced 1D openings as (17) 18-19. That means your upgrades are with good 17's.

But you like your follow-ups so much you want to lower the standard even more in order to use the toys. My opinion of doing this is probably of only mild interest, since I am not one of the great theorists. It has to be rough on partner, though.

I wasn't intending to upgrade it, I was intending to treat it as an unbalanced hand.

[nige1]

MickyB, on Sep 29 2010, 09:35 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♦ (3♠) _P (_P)
??
What's your call playing standard methods, and how close is it?
We were actually playing 1♦ as (17)18-19 balanced or natural and unbalanced, which allows partner to act a little more aggressively than if we could have a weak no-trump. Does this change your answer?

---

IMO

• Normal methods: open 1N = 10, 1♦ = 5.
  
• MickyB methods: open 1N = 10, 1♦ = 9.
  (In either case you have nearly half your HCP in your short suits).
  
• Now: 3N = 10, _X = 7, _P = 6.
  3N may make but If it is the wrong guess, it is hard to double and may even be a good sacrifice against 3♠.
  Double is fine if partner can pass for penalties. Otherwise it makes 3N harder to reach and may wrong-side the contract. Normally, after your double, partner will play a level higher with the lead though your ♠ Kx. This may matter if opponents double. Another consideration is that, if partner has 4+ ♥, then he does not have a good hand because he did not double 3♠.

[655321]

As the auction went, I would pass. I don't like double, and I would want to be stronger/have some immediate tricks to bid 3NT.

But I don't like the 1♦ opening at all, even with the methods to show 45 in the red suits after a 1♦ opening. I don't want to show an unbalanced 45 hand of indeterminate strength, I want to show a balanced 15-17.

[quiddity]

I would also prefer to open the hand 1NT. I don't understand doubling; isn't partner expected to act with 10+? We have 16 pts, 3 of which are of highly questionable value - I don't see any reason to think we have a game here.

[JLOGIC]

I consider this an easy pass.

Also, I would open 1N.

[MickyB]

Interesting. So, playing standard methods, what's the smallest change you would need to make to the honour structure of AJ9x Kx AT9xx AT in order to make it a 1D opening?

[the hog]

Yes, I would open 1NT and this is not a close decision.
Pass is pretty obvious now.
Fluffy, were you serious with 3NT? From where are your tricks coming?

[CamHenry]

I'm passing, but I have some sympathy for double. Anything else seems rather unilateral.

[hanp]

MickyB, on Sep 29 2010, 09:05 PM, said:

Interesting. So, playing standard methods, what's the smallest change you would need to make to the honour structure of AJ9x Kx AT9xx AT in order to make it a 1D opening?

I would open this hand 1NT. I could open 1D and rebid 1S but then I'd be guessing if partner bids 1NT, which might well be wrongsided already. With the Jx AQ10x AKJ10x Jx I posted recently I liked my partner's 1D opening. For me the dividing line for the 2-4-5-2 shape lies closer to the second hand, and for a 4-2-5-2 it lies closer to the first.

Maybe you have the perfect constructive methods for opening 1D with this kind of hand. But a very simple auction such as 1D - (2C) can be very tough for semi-balanced 16-counts. In fact, the auction you posted is very difficult, while it would not have been difficult had we opened 1NT.

[Fluffy]

The_Hog, on Sep 30 2010, 03:22 AM, said:

Fluffy, were you serious with 3NT? From where are your tricks coming?

I didn't bother to count points, read we had 18-19 if balanced and assumed we had that

[OleBerg]

3NT

[CSGibson]

MickyB, on Sep 29 2010, 07:05 PM, said:

Interesting. So, playing standard methods, what's the smallest change you would need to make to the honour structure of AJ9x Kx AT9xx AT in order to make it a 1D opening?

Smallest change would be any that makes this unbalanced instead of semi-balanced, like moving the T of clubs to the suit with the Kx. Even then, I'd consider opening 1N.

[junyi_zhu]

Fluffy, on Sep 29 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

I think its a double regardless, but 3NT is also an option given the unlikellyhood of partner having penalty pass here.

I feel 3NT is an underbid. This hand looks too slamish.