[thepossum]

---

5 card majors and strong NT available. Forgot you have 2NT if you feel like exaggerating by a point

Sorry, you are dealer - all vulnerable

[TylerE]

2NT seems obvious

[morecharac]

thepossum, on 2021-December-17, 18:36, said:

---

5 card majors and strong NT available. Forgot you have 2NT if you feel like exaggerating by a point

Sorry, you are dealer - all vulnerable

With the teacher I had, it would be 1♣ followed by 2NT every time. Unless she was bidding it, of course.

With experience, 1♣ and probably 4M over a 1M response, 2NT over 1♦, muttered imprecations over pass if playing online.

[johnu]

2NT = 5.1
1♠ = 5
1♥ = 5
1NT = 5
1♦ = 5
2♣ = 5
3♦ = 4
3NT = 4
4♥ = 2
4♠ = 2
4NT = 2

Other opening bids are either a 10 or a 0.

[paulg]

This is not a hand to upgrade to two no trump: the ♦J is not pulling any weight and, if partner cannot bid over 1♣, what are we missing?

As Fred Gitelman once said, our bidding systems over two no trump are not very sophisticated, as there is very little room, so there should be no rush to upgrade to it.

[DavidKok]

1♣, intending to rebid 2NT (over 1♦) or 4M (over 1M) is standard. Whether to bid 2NT or 3NT over 1NT is partnership agreement, but I expect 3NT to be standard in inexperienced partnerships.
For what it's worth, there are several bidding systems that would treat this hand differently to avoid jumping so much with hands that have this much to say.

[akwoo]

1♣ is obvious and would be strange only to someone who isn't used to 5 card majors.

Over here, where 5 card majors are the norm, beginners are taught to open 1♣ on 3 card suits.

[mikeh]

Bidding 2N is greedy, masterminding, and simply bad bridge, unless your system explicitly describes 2N as including normal 19 counts

I suspect that I upgrade into and out of notrump ranges more than most readers/posters do (our WBF CC announces this tendency, although it’s pretty standard in expert circles) but I’m a firm believer in partnership bridge. Fortunately I play with very good players who know how to evaluate beyond adding hcp. So if we open 2N with 19, it’s because the hand evaluates to 20 or more.

We have no 10’s. Make this AK10x AJ10x Jx AQ10 and this would be an easy 2N.

Give me a chunky 5 card minor, say AK10 AJ9 A108xx Kx and I’d waffle but might well upgrade.

But a 4432 19 count with no tens? Not to mention a suit in which we have shortness and no stopper?

2N is, imo, an attempt to grab dummy. Good players don’t grab dummy…unless playing pro with a client interested only in winning and not in learning how to play well.

This is the world’s easiest 1C, although it’s also a great advertisement for a forcing club method😀

[Cyberyeti]

We play good 19-21 2N and I'm not sure I upgrade, certainly not if playing 20-22. 1♣ by your methods

[pescetom]

I agree that it is not even a candidate for upgrade to 20-21.
Change two of 8 9 9 to T and it would be for me.

[thepossum]

Thx for all the comments
It was fairly brutal and pass scored very well

I will post the full hand a bit later

[thepossum]

Here is the sad story from my table. Please don't critique the actual play too much. I wasn't motivated to care at all

---

Double dummy major part scores are available, only found by one table
A few people managed to scrounge 1NT or 1NT+1
Pass was an excellent score

And the rest of us were rather sad

Its around a minus 1 or 2 hand

Since it was primarily a bidding question, what is the best approach. 1NT for me in the absence of 4 card majors
Would not some responders see problems and try for a major fit?

Put it down as just an unlucky one I guess

[pescetom]

thepossum, on 2021-December-18, 16:10, said:

Here is the sad story from my table.

The irony here is that the few remaining 4-card major players would still have played 1♣, at least in my club

[smerriman]

thepossum, on 2021-December-18, 16:10, said:

Here is the sad story from my table. Please don't critique the actual play too much. I wasn't motivated to care at all

The point of duplicate is that you should always care. 1♣ is a completely normal contract, and you should be aiming to beat everyone else in the same situation.

If others get to different contracts because of poor bidding, there's nothing you can do about them.

[mikeh]

It’s also important to remember that bridge is a game of percentages. Good bidding sometimes leads to poor results. Bad bidding sometimes leads to good results, and so on. That’s actually a good thing: if bad bridge always got punished, nobody would play the game…it’d be too tough.

So when one ends up in a hopeless spot, such as 1C, try your best, since many others will be in the same or worse spots, but don’t give up on your methods.

Now, if this hand convinced you to consider a forcing club, good for you. Assuming silent opps, you’d reach 1N after 1C 1D 1N, assuming 1N was 17-19 (many big clobbers play 1N as 14-16, leaving 1C then 1N as 17-19j. Of course, such a fundamental change is a very big partnership undertaking and no one bad result should warrant that step.

[Cyberyeti]

We'd play 1♥ playing 4M but 1♣ is a totally normal contract playing 5M

[DavidKok]

We'd play 1NT playing 5M and full Dutch Doubleton, which is pretty nice. But playing for the highest number of tricks in 1♣ seems like a standard result.

[thepossum]

smerriman, on 2021-December-18, 16:27, said:

The point of duplicate is that you should always care. 1♣ is a completely normal contract, and you should be aiming to beat everyone else in the same situation.

If others get to different contracts because of poor bidding, there's nothing you can do about them.

It was a freebie bot tourney with no points on offer - but I always play for pride

I cared enough to find that all my finesses were wrong side

[thepossum]

Note. I just put the hand through QPlus Demo mode and EW rescue you into 2D