[jillybean]

3rd seat V vs. N, uncontested auction

K875, K, AJT9, AKQ4

1♦:1♥ ?

edited: the hand was opened 1♦, not 1♣

[Foxx]

First of all, that's actually 20 points.

In that light, I would open 2NT.

If you forced me to open 1 of a minor with this hand, I would open 1♦ and jump-shift to 3♣.

Finally, if you forced me to open 1♣ with this hand, I would now jump-shift to 2♠.

[Hanoi5]

2NT rebid, though I agree that opening 2NT is far from bad. 2♠ if you want to be more 'accurate'.

[mike777]

2nt now given OP


prefer to open 2nt.

[mikeh]

While the idea of opening 2N with a stiff is not something to be encouraged, the reality is that this distortion is very modest.....claim you put a small diamond in the heart suit and all is well.

As against that, consider that you have a real problem on your second call, after 1♦, should partner make any call other than pass. Say he bids 1♠, superficially a call that should fill your heart with warm fuzzy feelings......until you try to figure out how to describe this hand now (I'd vote for a heart splinter). And if he bids anything else....and surely we knew 1♥ was likely...ugh. 2N is a big underbid....and implies 2-3 hearts, so contains the same distortion as an original 2N compounded by showing only 18-19 hcp.

3N shows a different type of hand, and you can kiss spades goodbye for ever.

2S shows another different hand type and the notion of doing it with 12 hcp outside of the 2 suits makes me feel very queasy.

This game often requires that we take a call that doesn't fit the systemic description we'd give it. Whenever that happens, we should make our choices based on:

1) which call creates the least distortion, not merely when we make it but in likely developments?
2) if we have two apparently equal calls, in terms of distortion, which is the lowest call...since preservation of bidding space maximizes our chances of clarifying the situation or of learning useful info from partner

Here, 2N isn't the cheapest initial distortion but it still gets the nod because the first factor is the prime driver here, and 2N wins over all other calls precisely because of the problems we face on round 2 after a 1♦ call.

[MrAce]

I would also open this 2NT Kathryn.

Having opened 1♦ i would bid 2♠ now, unless we play a style where 1♠ would be forcing.

I don't understand the 3♣ bid, both 2♠ and 3♣ has flaws due to lack of 5th card in ♦ suit, both shows same strength, but 3♣ takes me to 3 level while 2♠ is more economic, and i thought trying to find a major fit is our priority always even if we ignore the space economy. Am i missing something ?

[aguahombre]

MrAce, on 2011-July-25, 18:17, said:

I would also open this 2NT Kathryn.

Having opened 1♦ i would bid 2♠ now, unless we play a style where 1♠ would be forcing.

I don't understand the 3♣ bid, both 2♠ and 3♣ has flaws due to lack of 5th card in ♦ suit, both shows same strength, but 3♣ takes me to 3 level while 2♠ is more economic, and i thought trying to find a major fit is our priority always even if we ignore the space economy. Am i missing something ?

You are not missing anything with any part of that post....including reference to a style where 1♠ is forcing. That style will get badmouthed by the judgers here, but you just mentioned it, didn't recommend it. Let them take their shots at me. I recommend it.

[cherdano]

I would open 2NT, but I wouldn't object to opening 1♣ with the plan of rebidding 2♠ over 1♥. If we open a minor, I think it should clearly be clubs - most likely we can only show one minor suit in the auction, and obviously we would rather show clubs than diamonds.

[the hog]

I would prefer to open this 2NT also, and prefer 1C to 1D. I would now bid 1S which we play as forcing. If you don't have this agreement, I would now bid 2S.

[1eyedjack]

I dislike playing a system that requires that I open 2N with a 20 count.
I feel mostly uncomfortable about my prospects when it gets passed out in 2N.
I feel at an advantage if both opener and responder manage to get a suit bid in before reaching 2N.
If I have a game on it is rare for 1m to be passed out.

If my system requires that I open 2N on a balanced 20 count then this hand still barely qualifies. Not so much because it is off-shape but because a singleton honour is usually overvalued. That may be what the OP was referring to in the thread title.

All that said, provided that your partnership agrees how this hand should be bid I would not expect much bad to happen if you bid it in accordance with that agreement, whether opening 2N or opening 1m and rebidding 1S or 2S or 2N.

The only sequence suggested above with which I really disagree is the suggestion for opening 1D and rebidding 3C.

[Mbodell]

A lot of people bid 3nt with this hand. Sometimes that means running (opening bid) and stoppers outside, other times it means a 20 count weak in the suit you (responder) bid. On opening lead strongly consider a heart.

[Phil]

2N. This seems like a lesser lie than 1♦--> 2N or 1♦--> 3♣.

[aguahombre]

I think people's preference for opening the hand 1C instead of 1D is interesting. Many of the same people preach opening 1D with balanced hands containing 4-4 minors, and now open 1C when it is sort of unbalanced. For a lot of us, opening 1D and rebidding 1S at least guarantees 4 diamonds, while opening 1C and rebidding 1S doesn't guarantee 4 clubs.

The idea of a rebid which makes it burdensome on the system to ever discover a 4-4 spade fit is interesting, also.

4x1 hands are hard enough to bid and usually awkward to play. Upgrading them or creating distortions of expected shape seem to add more misery.

[MrAce]

1eyedjack, on 2011-July-25, 22:09, said:

I dislike playing a system that requires that I open 2N with a 20 count.
I feel mostly uncomfortable about my prospects when it gets passed out in 2N.
I feel at an advantage if both opener and responder manage to get a suit bid in before reaching 2N.
If I have a game on it is rare for 1m to be passed out.

If my system requires that I open 2N on a balanced 20 count then this hand still barely qualifies. Not so much because it is off-shape but because a singleton honour is usually overvalued. That may be what the OP was referring to in the thread title.

All that said, provided that your partnership agrees how this hand should be bid I would not expect much bad to happen if you bid it in accordance with that agreement, whether opening 2N or opening 1m and rebidding 1S or 2S or 2N.

The only sequence suggested above with which I really disagree is the suggestion for opening 1D and rebidding 3C.

Nobody lost much by playing 2 NT and going down when a better partscore was available. Too many imps exchange in simple 3 NT or 4M contracts due to either wrongsiding it or giving too much info to defenders on their way to game.

Of course 2 NT has its own flaws, even when opened without a stiff. #1 Slam killer bid for example. But we have to also consider the comfort that it gives all of us, knowing that pd can not have this hand when open 1 minor.

[1eyedjack]

MrAce, on 2011-July-26, 00:52, said:

Nobody lost much by playing 2 NT and going down when a better partscore was available. Too many imps exchange in simple 3 NT or 4M contracts due to either wrongsiding it or giving too much info to defenders on their way to game.

Of course 2 NT has its own flaws, even when opened without a stiff. #1 Slam killer bid for example. But we have to also consider the comfort that it gives all of us, knowing that pd can not have this hand when open 1 minor.

We can agree to differ on the relative priorities here. One further point that I failed to mention is that opening 2NT on a possible 3-point spread of values adds further discomfort in the lack of space to invite game. We all seem to agree (I hope) that the ability to invite opposite a 3-point range 1NT opener is a valuable resource. And yet it is one that we appear content to forego when opening 2NT. If I had to choose between denying myself the ability to open 2N on one or other of a 20 count or on a 22 count I would rather forego the 20 count.

To some extent this makes the 2NT rebid a wider range in order to get the opener to be a narrower range, but the likelihood of responder having a borderline pass is I think less.

I don't suggest that any one of these factors in isolation is sufficient to make 2N a bad opener on the hand. But they all add up.

[Cyberyeti]

I open 1♦ and rebid 1♠, but then my partner won't pass this unless he didn't really have a response and 1♠ will play better than 1♦.

Playing standard-ish methods, you have a problem, in the UK, some people solved it by putting strong 4441s into the multi 2♦ that is much more commonly played here.

I think because of the singleton K (which would cause communication issues in NT), I'd open 1♦ and rebid 2N, treating it as 18-19. The minor suit honours are nice, but I think you're going to need a 7 count opposite to make game most of the time unless partner has 4 spades. Also if partner does have ♥AQJxx and out, 4♥ may be the only making game so I want to keep it in the picture.

[Zelandakh]

I would open 1C and rebid 2NT over 1H. As the Yeti says there are various gadgets you can use to handle strong 3-suiters which are often difficult to manage in natural systems. I personally think it is better to use 2C - any - 2NT as a 3-suiter and to put the corresponding balanced hand into the multi than the reverse.

[pooltuna]

this is in my HCP range for 2NT so clump me with the other 2NT openers.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies, here is the full hand.

---

Making 5 of course.

[daveharty]

jillybean, on 2011-July-26, 08:01, said:

Thanks for the replies, here is the full hand.

---

Making 5 of course.

Even if you don't play a style where 1S is forcing, the North hand shouldn't be passing. Game is still a lively possibility opposite many South hands that aren't worth a jump shift.