Help
).Not that I object to 2♣, but 1NT certainly is a good bid.
Opener rebid
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2011-July-16, 05:20
Ron, 1NT is a very accurate bid w.r.t. strength and shape, whereas 2♣ is a slight distrotion on shape and somewhat ambigous on strength. Stoppers are not a big deal on this hand because it's just a 1 level contract and if pard wants to go further, he can cue 2♠ (to which you can now bid 3♣ showing your 4-4 with no spade stop to 100% accuracy ).
Not that I object to 2♣, but 1NT certainly is a good bid.
).Not that I object to 2♣, but 1NT certainly is a good bid.
#22
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 91
- Joined: 2008-July-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
Posted 2011-July-16, 06:57
This were the 4 hands :
And this is the story behind it :
I was west and decided my hand was too good to bid 3♦ on 2♣ : the 5th ♦ and the ♠K10x is a very good holding facing east 2(3) expected spades (no ♠ support from north).
On 3♣, altough 5♦ is clearly a (pretty huge) overbid (p played it for 1 down), it never crossed my mind p's distribution could hv been based on a 44 minors. (Give p a below perfect minimum and 5♦ has some play xx x Kxxxx Axxxx)
I'm definitely on Han's argument side, I also think this topic could refer partly to this old debate :
Giving priority to shape/range or honnors/stoppers location?
IMO, at low levels, shape/range should have the edge.
Tx for the good comments made.
And this is the story behind it :
I was west and decided my hand was too good to bid 3♦ on 2♣ : the 5th ♦ and the ♠K10x is a very good holding facing east 2(3) expected spades (no ♠ support from north).
On 3♣, altough 5♦ is clearly a (pretty huge) overbid (p played it for 1 down), it never crossed my mind p's distribution could hv been based on a 44 minors. (Give p a below perfect minimum and 5♦ has some play xx x Kxxxx Axxxx)
I'm definitely on Han's argument side, I also think this topic could refer partly to this old debate :
Giving priority to shape/range or honnors/stoppers location?
IMO, at low levels, shape/range should have the edge.
Tx for the good comments made.
#23
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2011-July-16, 16:10
Valardent, on 2011-July-16, 06:57, said:
Giving priority to shape/range or honnors/stoppers location?
Always. Shape and strength are way, WAAAY more important that tertiary factors like controls or stoppers. I keep telling this but people don't believe me.
Think of it like this: I open 1NT showing one of
a. stoppers in all suits
b. 15-17 and a balanced hand
In the first case you have no clue what opener has, except that he has some scattered values. In the second case responder can often place the contract at his 1st bid. The reason? Case b. conveys important information whereas case a. conveys next to nothing important...
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-March-07
- Gender:Male
- Location:Laos
- Interests:Wagner and Bridge
Posted 2011-July-16, 19:09
whereagles, on 2011-July-16, 05:20, said:
Ron, 1NT is a very accurate bid w.r.t. strength and shape, whereas 2♣ is a slight distrotion on shape and somewhat ambigous on strength. Stoppers are not a big deal on this hand because it's just a 1 level contract and if pard wants to go further, he can cue 2♠ (to which you can now bid 3♣ showing your 4-4 with no spade stop to 100% accuracy ).
Not that I object to 2♣, but 1NT certainly is a good bid.
).Not that I object to 2♣, but 1NT certainly is a good bid.
Nuno, I don't object to 1NT either. I think 2C is better though. What I do object to is the sarcastic attitude of Han, who has become increasingly objectionable. He is extremely arrogant but in my view has very little to be arrogant about.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
#25
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,056
- Joined: 2007-November-19
- Location:Pacific Time
Posted 2011-July-16, 21:08
whereagles, on 2011-July-16, 05:20, said:
Ron, 1NT is a very accurate bid w.r.t. strength and shape, whereas 2♣ is a slight distrotion on shape and somewhat ambigous on strength. Stoppers are not a big deal on this hand because it's just a 1 level contract and if pard wants to go further, he can cue 2♠ (to which you can now bid 3♣ showing your 4-4 with no spade stop to 100% accuracy ).
Not that I object to 2♣, but 1NT certainly is a good bid.
).Not that I object to 2♣, but 1NT certainly is a good bid.
Why is 2C a distortion on shape? In SAYC it is standard/in the book, and in other systems at least in US, it is just a hair short of standard to open 1D with 4-4 minors where the hand is out of range for a NT opening.
#26
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2011-July-17, 02:49
the hog, on 2011-July-16, 19:09, said:
Nuno, I don't object to 1NT either. I think 2C is better though. What I do object to is the sarcastic attitude of Han, who has become increasingly objectionable. He is extremely arrogant but in my view has very little to be arrogant about.
Nah.. he's a normal person. You're just not used to deal with dutchies
#27
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2011-July-17, 02:54
peachy, on 2011-July-16, 21:08, said:
Why is 2C a distortion on shape? In SAYC it is standard/in the book, and in other systems at least in US, it is just a hair short of standard to open 1D with 4-4 minors where the hand is out of range for a NT opening.
Well, if LHO hadn't bid it would have gone
1♦ 1♥
1NT
Bidding 2♣ here would show a 54 in the minors. Obviously, the situation is different if LHO overcalls, but you would still like to have a 54 to bid 2♣. If you bid 2♣ with the actual hand and LHO bids say 2♠ now, pard might bid 3♦ on 3 cards...