[Liversidge]

I am a novice and this is my first post. My partner and I play a Weak No Trump and I had to open on this hand. I bid one diamond. My partner said I should have told a little lie and bid 1NT. What is the right bid?

---

[Endymion77]

I don't play weak NT but I think you can downgrade this hand. I certainly might open it 1♦ playing strong NT. It's got the worst possible shape, AKQ spades don't have their full value (AKQx is much better) and the spots are bad (if diamonds were 1098x or clubs were J10x, the hand is significantly better).

[MrAce]

Hi there, welcome to forums

I think your pd meant to say that this hand is worth 14 hcp due to shape (3343). I do not think it is as clear as your pd thinks it is. First of all i do not know the weak NT range you use.But i assume it is 12-14.

-3343 is not a good shape, true.
-Not holding a 4 card major reduces the chance of available game contracts. (not sure if this was MP or IMP scoring)
-Your longest suit is your weakest suit, which is not good.
-Hcps, except ♣ J are supporting each other which is the only good thing.

People usually like to upgrade NT hands and there are a lot of people who thinks you should never downgrade. There are other who says if you can upgrade you should also downgrade. I am not a big fan of downgrading NT ranges, and i almost never do it. But if there is a hand that i would downgrade, it could be this one. So i think your pd has a point.

[Cyberyeti]

I play a weak no trump, and am happy with either action.

The sort of question to ask is "do I think I'm making game opposite a balanced hand that won't invite".

So how do I fancy my chances opposite a good 10 or really poor 11 ?

Without getting a simulation done, I would suggest that it's pretty close. The shape and long suit are poor, the actual honours themselves are quite nice, touching honours are good and you have lots.

[NickRW]

Hmm... I've played all sorts of NT ranges over the years with all sorts of ideas about up and downgrades. To me, playing a straight 12-14 this is right on the cusp of being downgraded. I wouldn't argue either way. I've sometimes played an ever so slightly stronger range - basically a decent 12 up to a bad 15. If playing that, then I would definitely include this as a bad 15 and open 1NT.

Nick

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-22, 10:23, said:

I play a weak no trump, and am happy with either action.

I play weak notrump and don't downgrade. You and your partner may disagree and that is fine, but I recommend that you get some more experience under your belt before embarking on this kind of thing.

[Liversidge]

Wow! What a great board. Thanks!

[lamford]

MrAce, on 2014-January-22, 10:12, said:

-3343 is not a good shape, true.

I cannot agree, nor more importantly does dburn, the coach to the England team. He advised me some years ago that (4333) was the best shape for opening 1NT, and a simulation opposite a range of game-going hands confirmed that this shape made the most tricks in no-trumps. I would downgrade for different reasons however, as the four-card suit is so weak, as you point out. The Kaplan-Rubens evaluator gives this as 13.2 HCP, so I have to bow to its superior opinion.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2014-January-22, 11:46, said:

...... nor more importantly does dburn, the coach to the England team. He advised me some years ago that (4333) was the best shape for opening 1NT, and a simulation opposite a range of game-going hands confirmed that this shape made the most tricks in no-trumps.

If the question were whether 4333 usually does better in NT than in suit play, the answer would be obvious. That isn't the question here. OP wants opinions on the evaluation ---if it fits better into his supposed 12-14 or not.

I am sure dburn meant that the flat shape makes more tricks in no-trumps than in suit contracts, not that it takes the most tricks of all other shapes when in Notrump.

You open 1D here, if it is your choice, because you believe it evaluates to a 15-point NT hand, not because you are particularly interested in a Diamond contract.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-January-22, 12:23, said:

I am sure dburn meant that the flat shape makes more tricks in no-trumps than in suit contracts, not that it takes the most tricks of all other shapes when in Notrump.

If I recall correctly, he said that with so many cards in all four suits they would combine well with whatever values partner had. But I think that partner had to have values, ie this applies when considering a game or, especially, slam invitation. I will ask him to clarify.

[Vampyr]

Duplicate

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-22, 12:30, said:

If I recall correctly, he said that with so many cards in all four suits they would combine well with whatever values partner had. But I think that partner had to have values, ie this applies when considering a game or, especially, slam invitation. I will ask him to clarify.

Hmm. From some online treatise on the subject, it seems your recollection is correct. It translates to not downgrading a priori the NT potential of a hand which is 4x3. There might be other reasons to downgrade the given hand, but I probably wouldn't have.

[MrAce]

lamford, on 2014-January-22, 11:46, said:

I cannot agree, nor more importantly does dburn, the coach to the England team. He advised me some years ago that (4333) was the best shape for opening 1NT, and a simulation opposite a range of game-going hands confirmed that this shape made the most tricks in no-trumps. I would downgrade for different reasons however, as the four-card suit is so weak, as you point out. The Kaplan-Rubens evaluator gives this as 13.2 HCP, so I have to bow to its superior opinion.

I take your word for it and i have mad respect for Mr Burn. I will not challenge his claim of course. Perhaps it is time for me to reconsider the way i look 4333 hands

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-January-22, 12:57, said:

Hmm. From some online treatise on the subject, it seems your recollection is correct. It translates to not downgrading a priori the NT potential of a hand which is 4x3. There might be other reasons to downgrade the given hand, but I probably wouldn't have.

Can you provide a link?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-22, 13:13, said:

Can you provide a link?

http://bridgeruminat....wordpress.com/ That is one. I just Yahoo'd "best shape for notrump"

That link seems on target with this discussion...the relevance of 4x3 and the other possible shapes when deciding before knowing anything about partner's hand what value to show for notrump.

[NickRW]

MrAce, on 2014-January-22, 13:03, said:

I take your word for it and i have mad respect for Mr Burn. I will not challenge his claim of course.

I would. The effect of 4333 shape versus 4432 in NT is small, but the sims I've done never the less do show that 4333 is worse than 4432 to the tune of about 0.25hcp (and about 0.5hcp worse than 5332).

What is fair to say about 4333 is that it is hugely worse that both 4432 and 5332 in a suit contract (to the tune of at least 1 full hcp). Therefore, relatively speaking, 4333 is better at NT (than it is at suit play).

Nick

[mcphee]

I played weak NT for years and would not downgrade this hand. Playing against wk nt and a minor on this hand I would not be at all unhappy if my LHO o/c a major (which I doubt). Basically this leave them the C suit into the 2 level when the opening hand could easily be a strong NT, not sure I would be delighted if pard made a neg dble of 2C, but that issue is yet to be faced.

[PhilKing]

MrAce, on 2014-January-22, 13:03, said:

I take your word for it and i have mad respect for Mr Burn. I will not challenge his claim of course. Perhaps it is time for me to reconsider the way i look 4333 hands

Or prehaps DD simulations give a false impression of a hands of a hand's practical worth.

[broze]

aguahombre, on 2014-January-22, 13:37, said:

I just Yahoo'd "best shape for notrump"

Ok, I'll bite - "Yahoo'd"?

[MrAce]

broze, on 2014-January-23, 10:31, said:

Ok, I'll bite - "Yahoo'd"?

He made a search in yahoo search engine i guess. What else can it be ?