[han]

655321, on Jul 5 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

Prefer a 2NT opening.

Me too.

[han]

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

To all you non-3C bidders, I give you partner's hand:

Jxxxx
Qxxxx
x
xx

Here in Wisconsin we don't bid 1H with 5-5 in the majors.

[skjaeran]

han, on Jul 6 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

To all you non-3C bidders, I give you partner's hand:

Jxxxx
Qxxxx
x
xx

Here in Wisconsin we don't bid 1H with 5-5 in the majors.

Us playing transfer responses to 1♣ do....

I agree with those opening this hand 2NT. Some call it sick, but my experience tell me that it's better than the alternatives (actually it would be 2♣....2NT for me).

I won't rebid 3NT - that show a different hand IMO. I think it's close between 2NT and 3♣, but I really don't know which is better. Anyway, I'd not face this problem.

[han]

skaeran, on Jul 6 2008, 05:39 AM, said:

Us playing transfer responses to 1♣ do....

Yes yes.

[kenrexford]

Obvious (LOL) 2NT opening for many of us.

[nige1]

Scoring: IMP

Most commentators agree that the hand on the left is an automatic 2N opener. An intriguing follow-up question:

How do you describe a 2N opener on your system card? Presumably not 20-22 HCP flat

---

[Codo]

Its a marginal 2 NT opener (20-22) or a quite heavy 1 Club 1 Heart 2 NT bid.

Any other call sucks for me.

[Impact]

So - perhaps 2NT opening on values but then you wonder why 2NT is a "slam-killer" or you cannot get to 6C sensibly...sure argue game before slam but short of rubber bridge tactics, to open 2NT on such hands is to decide bidding is not a partnership game!

Sure we would like the CJ or T9, but life is less than perfect...

If your agreement is that for any hand too good for a jump rebid of your minor you jump to 3NT (over a simple response), then you do so....where you draw the line on your jump rebid is a matter for your system design too...

As far as I am concerned this is a pretty decent 18+HCP and a very decent suit: argue as you will but opposite xx you have a good prospect of only 1 loser, and partner is going to have a lot of difficulty "guessing" that merely from your opening.
THis does not mean that you have a great system - it simply means that you are bidding within the dictates of your system...

Sure we can all redesign a system to improve it eg cheapest jump-shift has multi-meanings with pivots etc but to the extent that we are asked to express a judgement call within a specified stated system , 3NT it must be.

regards

[kenrexford]

Impact, on Jul 7 2008, 01:44 AM, said:

So - perhaps 2NT opening on values but then you wonder why 2NT is a "slam-killer" or you cannot get to 6C sensibly...sure argue game before slam but short of rubber bridge tactics, to open 2NT on such hands is to decide bidding is not a partnership game!

Not sure I follow.

If 2NT as an opening shows a balanced hand with about 20-21 in playing strength, and if this 18-count has that much playing strength, and if partner will expect this possibility, then making an opening call that describes a group of possible hands wherein this is included does seem to be "partnership" bidding.

In contrast, opening 1♣ is very likely leading to the "what now?" problem that we are currently discussing. The solution of making an opening bid that cannot be faulted definitionally, but knowing that your most likely next bid will absolutely be a distortion, is actually less "partnership" than opening 2NT. You are going to show a solid trick source that you do not have to avoid showing a hand that fits within the expectations of a 2NT opening.

Granted, if you operate under a principle that "HCP" is in caps for a reason, then a 2NT opening is a gross distortion. But, some of us look at other guages, such that "15-17" means (on rare occasion) 13-18; 20-21 might mean 17-22, etc. If you evaluation tool is not tied so strongly to HCP ranges, but you must describe them in HCP ranges, you end up with these "ranges" to describe hands that you feel to be roughly equal as to what you are describing to partner.