[awm]

It does seem as though the weak holding in a major makes the 1♣ opening better than the 1NT call, at least at IMPs based on Ben's statistics.

In any case I suspect that really bad players would never consider opening 1NT with this shape, so mandating a 1NT opening filters out some of the worst offenders. In general this should bias the sample so that 1NT appears "better" than it actually is.

Nonetheless 1♣ was the winner when opener holds xx in spades. Seems like a pretty strong argument to me... now what happens if the xx holding is hearts?

[mike777]

awm, on Aug 3 2006, 04:39 PM, said:

It does seem as though the weak holding in a major makes the 1♣ opening better than the 1NT call, at least at IMPs based on Ben's statistics.

In any case I suspect that really bad players would never consider opening 1NT with this shape, so mandating a 1NT opening filters out some of the worst offenders. In general this should bias the sample so that 1NT appears "better" than it actually is.

Nonetheless 1♣ was the winner when opener holds xx in spades. Seems like a pretty strong argument to me... now what happens if the xx holding is hearts?

I think saying one is a winner over the other is going too far.
1) Is this difference significant and material. These are not the same, the results may be significant but not material or vice versa.
2) Assuming it is what gain is there not measured from having your other auctions become more constructive? Example knowing 1 minor=3minor promises a stiff or void or that 1minor=2minor rebid is more often 11-13 and less often 14-16 etc....
3) opening one of a minor may be better but I do not think we have enough evidence yet.

[willow23]

Either/or ..Judgement is an improtant aspect of the game that one cannot escape..so open whatever feels right at the time..

You should take a poll to see which is most popular..

I would open 1nt on equal vulnerability...favuorable vulnerability I open 1nt..

Unfavourable vulnerability I open 1♣

But any opening is ok ...

[mike777]

Here is a hand in today's issue of Bridge Today Magazine.
The article is not about opening 1nt.
The article discusses 'not putting down a bad dummy"

Verona Women's Pairs Final, First session Board 14. None vul.
AK2....63.........J9......AQ9764
Q97....KQT82...Q52....T3


Shawn and Mildred bid:
1c=p=1h=x
2c!=p=2nt=p
3nt...


2c denied 3 hearts.

Shawn remembered the discussion and thought her hand of little use in 2c so bid 2nt on "those cards".

When I saw the hand I thought open a 14-16 nt and accept partner's invite .

[1eyedjack]

Ben

At the risk of thread drift, can you run a similar analysis for the benefit of those who play weak 1N openers (typically 12-14)? I realise it is moving a bit away from the OP, but I feel that the objection of a weak major doubleton becomes less significant when you are opening expecting it to be the opponents' hand.

[inquiry]

1eyedjack, on Aug 3 2006, 06:02 PM, said:

Ben

At the risk of thread drift, can you run a similar analysis for the benefit of those who play weak 1N openers (typically 12-14)? I realise it is moving a bit away from the OP, but I feel that the objection of a weak major doubleton becomes less significant when you are opening expecting it to be the opponents' hand.

Less than 2% of the hands with 12-14 and 6322 (two small spades, six card minor) are opened 1NT. Since almost everyone (26,000) open 1C or 1D, the result for those opening bids are, well average -0.02 imps for 1C, 0.04 imps for 1D, 50.12% for 1C, 49.98 for 1D.

Opening 1NT was only 447 times. The imp average was 0.04 and the mp was lower, at 47.25%. I don't think I would read much into this, maybe a larger study.

[1eyedjack]

Shame. Of those who opened 1C in the 15-17 range, we will never know what proportion did so because they judged the hand off-shape despite being in range for 1N (presumably the majority), and what proportion were forced to open 1C by reason of the 15-17 being out of range for 1N despite that they would have opened 1N had it been in range. Don't know if that information would be of use to anyone even if it were available.

[helene_t]

Absolutely 1NT. I have "funny NT-openings" on my profile and by that I don't mean this one, which I consider a perfectly normal 1NT.

No idea if it's "best". I just prefer to describe my hand as soon as possible and try to avoid the nebulous minor suit openings.

[FrancesHinden]

I open 1NT with a 5-card major very infrequently, but I open many 6322 hands 1NT if they are in range (about 14-16 HCP). Certainly this one would open 1NT.

(AKx xx Jx AQ109xx is a 1C opening for me, though the hand has to be about that extremely suit-orientated before I don't open it 1NT with that shape)

[Free]

I'd like to see an analyse about the 6 card suit quality instead of the short suit qualities. Imo to open NT on 6322's, you need a solid or semisolid suit. KQJTxx for example is way better than AQT8xx. Here you have KJT9xx, 2 holes, so I don't like it. 1♣ for me.
I think it works better with a good suit because you can use the suit in your NT contracts. With a broken suit, you may well be better off trying to ruff some in the short hand if possible. And whenever opponents intervene, you can just bid your minor without much problems.

Just a few days ago I had a 6322 with AKJTxx in ♦. I decided to open 1NT, found partner with 5♦ support and we ended up in 3♦ after a contested auction (RHO intervened 2♣ showing both Majors, I could easily bid 2♦,...) for a top score. Opponents had play for 4M and our side sometimes played 5♦-2!

[Chamaco]

Lot has been said about this.

One of the issue of opening 1C is having a suitable rebid without worrying of responder passing when there are chances to bid game.

I think this depends from the system/agreements we are playing, and especially the policy of the 1m openers.

Some systems approaches are based on very solid 1m openers: in such systems, a 1m/2m rebid guarantees more or less the playing strength in the example hand.


Some others like to open 1m on the light side, and in such cases, the 2m rebid is more likely to be problematic (unless they have the agreement - quite reasonable IMO - that such a handtype is allowed to jump rebid 3m).


The second issue is:
Should the 1NT opening be descriptive (e.g. help responder to figure out what we have, usually scattered values, empty suits, tenaces, etc etc) OR should it be a trash can to clean the rest of the system ?

Quite frankly, I don't know what works best about this second issue :-)

[pclayton]

Free, on Aug 4 2006, 12:51 AM, said:

I'd like to see an analyse about the 6 card suit quality instead of the short suit qualities. Imo to open NT on 6322's, you need a solid or semisolid suit. KQJTxx for example is way better than AQT8xx. Here you have KJT9xx, 2 holes, so I don't like it. 1♣ for me.
I think it works better with a good suit because you can use the suit in your NT contracts. With a broken suit, you may well be better off trying to ruff some in the short hand if possible. And whenever opponents intervene, you can just bid your minor without much problems.

Just a few days ago I had a 6322 with AKJTxx in ♦. I decided to open 1NT, found partner with 5♦ support and we ended up in 3♦ after a contested auction (RHO intervened 2♣ showing both Majors, I could easily bid 2♦,...) for a top score. Opponents had play for 4M and our side sometimes played 5♦-2!

I was thinking along the same lines. The weaker the minor, the more I want to play in the minor. I realize this may run counter to the 'strong doubleton' appeal of opening 1N on a 2236.

[mike777]

Well we have not even touched on the 2-2-4-5 or 2=4=2=5 1nt openers or the 2=2=2=7 ones yet

Stoppers who needs Stinking Stoppers

[P_Marlowe]

1C, followed by 2C, sometimes you hold max. values
for your bidding.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Winstonm]

In my views, the determining factor should be in trick-taking potential of the honors held - in other words, what do I need to emphasize to my partner? With AQ, Ax, xx, KQJxxx, I want my partner to know that the Ax of clubs gives us a lot of tricks, so I'd rather rebid 3C with this hand and try to get to 3N from his side if he holds xxx, xxx, Kxxxx, Ax; however, with Kx, AQ, Jx, AJ10xxx I'd open 1N.

[barmar]

pclayton, on Aug 4 2006, 11:52 AM, said:

I was thinking along the same lines. The weaker the minor, the more I want to play in the minor. I realize this may run counter to the 'strong doubleton' appeal of opening 1N on a 2236.

Perhaps the more solid the minor, the less important it is that both doubletons include high honors. This is basically a low-level relative of Gambling 3NT -- if the opponents don't find the right opening lead, you may be able to run 9 tricks in your 3 good suits.

[mike777]

Meckstroth opened a 14-16 nt without a major suit stopper.
Board 124 Bermuda Bowl 2005

Vul vs NV

KQ82....85....Q7......AQJ95

[awm]

mike777, on Aug 7 2006, 03:57 PM, said:

Meckstroth opened a 14-16 nt without a major suit stopper.
Board 124 Bermuda Bowl 2005

Vul vs NV

KQ82....85....Q7......AQJ95

Sometimes it's important to consider other systemic constraints here. The decision is often different in a precision-style system than in a natural system. On the hand in question, Meckstroth's options are:

(1) Open 2♣. This carries substantial risk of losing the 4-4 spade fit because partner will pass a lot of hands over it that would bid over a standard american 1♣. Some precision players these days play that 2♣ promises a six-card suit anyway, which he obviously doesn't have.

(2) Open 1♦. This means he's opening his Q7 suit, which may not turn out so well if partner decides to raise. Note that he's not going to be able to show his clubs in that auction most of the time because early club rebids probably imply holding both minors. Also, if partner forces to game he will end up showing a "balanced hand" anyway (otherwise he implies an actual diamond suit) and partner will expect an 11-13 range for that.

(3) Open 1NT, what he actually did. I think this is clearly the "least of evils." But it doesn't follow that if he had a natural and non-forcing 1♣ opening available that 1NT would be the best bid.