[jillybean]

---

15-17 nt

We have 2 diametrical opinions here.

Q4 is worthless, I'm passing.

Q4 opposite a 1nt opening may have value, AQxxx is solid. This is a clear cut invitation, anything else is masterminding.

[DavidKok]

I'll bite, but I'll also keep it brief. I tried to promise myself not to get involved with discussions on methods over 1NT this year, with limited success so far.

Whichever way you lean, the decision will not be clear cut. I can make a decent case for pass, inviting and even for blasting game. Personally I lean towards blasting game if we play 15-17 and it is IMPs, but either of the two other options can be a winner on this hand. The Q4 is not a problem, facing a balanced hand having values in short suits isn't much of a risk. This makes me hesitant to pass. The lack of intermediates in diamonds, i.e. T98, makes me hesitant to blast game. And the fact that partner will have no way to properly evaluate their diamond holding if I invite with 2NT makes me hesitant to invite - honestly I think an invite here is worst of both worlds. So when in doubt, bid game.
At MPs I would probably pass this, when playing a 14-16 NT I would pass this, if partner is known to upgrade aggressively I'm not sure what I'd do. It is going to be close either way.

Edit: thinking about it some more, with a conservative partner playing MPs 15-17 I'd probably invite. I am not at all convinced it is best long term, but it's very close either way and has the cheeky upside of saving me a discussion

[Douglas43]

Bidding looks normal at teams. Pass at pairs might work, especially because it's game-all and a balancing opponent might go for 200, but if it fails, be ready to apologise. If we are one of the stronger pairs though, take whatever you think is the normal action.

[P_Marlowe]

At MP, passing is ok, maybe even percentage, this is something a simulation can quantify.
25HCP only give you a 40% chance of making 3NT, if I remember right, and this means, 3NT
will go down more than 50%, and the same is true for 2NT.

At IMPs I would invite.

If you regular upgrade, this would favor passing, ... even at IMPs, but I would not do it.
How do I explain the missed making game, even if the game was rotten.

[johnu]

A quick simulation shows that 3NT is only successful ~28% versus a 15-17 NT. Opposite 16-17 HCP which would accept an invitation, this only goes up to 37%. Since there's also a chance that 2NT goes down opposite the most likely 15 HCP opener, it seems that passing has a lot of potential, especially at MP where 50% is the standard.

Now some people don't like simulations for the obvious reasons. There have been a couple of studies where double dummy simulations give a good approximation of actual table results. Obviously, opening leads are not double dummy in practice, but declarer doesn't play double dummy either, and defenders are usually just following suit more often than not. So the net result is that in general, double dummy is a good approximation. If something better comes along, I'm all for it.

[pilowsky]

Assuming a 24 board MP game, I would pass on early boards, but my appetite for risk would go up if we were on a marginal result towards the end of the tourney.

[johnu]

 P_Marlowe, on 2024-February-02, 13:51, said:

How do I explain the missed making game, even if the game was rotten.

I would say, "Making game was lucky".

[Gilithin]

We have 8 HCP. That Qx is not worthless but it's not worth a full 2 either. Against that, the 5th diamond is worth almost an extra half a point. But the intermediates are poor. Overall I would consider this a slight downgrade, somewhere around a decent 7. Assuming a modern SNT approach of 14+-17 with heavy invites/light accepts, I think this is a clear Pass at MP. At Game All IMPs it is closer and I might be influenced by external factors like the quality of the opponents, partner's NT declarer skills, state of the match, etc. I suspect a sim will tell me we are not quite making 9 tricks often enough DD but with typical club level defence, it would probably be a good bet, since we only need to make 4 times out of 10 at these colours. In summary: with my regular partner, who is typically better in NT play than our usual type of opponents, I'll probably invite; with a pick-up partner or in a tournament with stronger opponents, I'll Pass.

[mw64ahw]

 Gilithin, on 2024-February-03, 00:04, said:

We have 8 HCP. That Qx is not worthless but it's not worth a full 2 either. Against that, the 5th diamond is worth almost an extra half a point. But the intermediates are poor. Overall I would consider this a slight downgrade, somewhere around a decent 7. Assuming a modern SNT approach of 14+-17 with heavy invites/light accepts, I think this is a clear Pass at MP. At Game All IMPs it is closer and I might be influenced by external factors like the quality of the opponents, partner's NT declarer skills, state of the match, etc. I suspect a sim will tell me we are not quite making 9 tricks often enough DD but with typical club level defence, it would probably be a good bet, since we only need to make 4 times out of 10 at these colours. In summary: with my regular partner, who is typically better in NT play than our usual type of opponents, I'll probably invite; with a pick-up partner or in a tournament with stronger opponents, I'll Pass.

I could also add to this my own level of concentration. Much harder when I've had a tough day.

[jillybean]

Thanks for replies. Similar to some of my other problems, it's not actually about finding the "correct" answer but more about partnership harmony.
I like having discussions about these calls that could go either way, however some partners, typically with more experience, are adamant that their way is the only way.
Fortunately, these tend to be BBO partners, quickly disposed of and replaced with one of the other 10,000 virtual players. (that sounds awful I know!)

[helene_t]

I don't see this kind of problems as related to masterminding. As partner of the nt opener you are captain so you are not expected to exercise discipline, only to use judgement.

I would either invite or bid 3nt, depending on circumstances. At my local club most would not be in game opposite a balaced 16 so in that field i would invite at MP but bid 3nt at IMPs.

[jillybean]

When a partner is adamantly dictating how a hand should be bid, in this case, pass, I call this masterminding.

[Cyberyeti]

May also depend on your tendency to upgrade good 17s. If partner simply looks at the point count and opens a 17 with a 5 card suit and good intermediates 1N, game is much more likely than if they upgrade those.

[pilowsky]

 jillybean, on 2024-February-04, 09:17, said:

When a partner is adamantly dictating how a hand should be bid, in this case, pass, I call this masterminding.

Can you expand on this concept a bit further?

[johnu]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-February-04, 10:56, said:

May also depend on your tendency to upgrade good 17s. If partner simply looks at the point count and opens a 17 with a 5 card suit and good intermediates 1N, game is much more likely than if they upgrade those.

If responder invites to 2NT which is all this hand is worth at best, IMO, then you will get to 3NT opposite a very good 17.

On the other hand, if you blast to 3NT and partner has a tendency to upgrade 14 counts, then your percentages will drop a lot. Even 2NT is not a sure thing, and inviting and declining to end up in 2NT is not ideal since elementary bridge odds say that opener will be at 15 almost as often as having 16 or 17, and more often if 14 is frequently upgraded.

My double dummy results in post #5 don't include any upgrading, or downgrading, just HCP.

[jillybean]

 pilowsky, on 2024-February-04, 13:56, said:

Can you expand on this concept a bit further?

Playing here with a partner who is adamant that this hand is a pass opposite a 15-17 1nt, and expects me to pass holding such a hand. You may call this
bidding judgement but I find such partners try to control, direct, mastermind other auctions. I'm always open to hearing partner's approach and reasons to make a certain
hand evaluation, and find partners who start "You must..." tend to mastermind.

[smerriman]

I would define masterminding as someone that intentionally makes a bid they know is not the majority opinion, because they believe they know better / don't trust their partner being able to continue the auction accurately / want to declare instead of be dummy / other reasons.

Saying they're right and refusing to be open to alternatives is just.. well, there are a lot of adjectives you could use but very common in the BBO main bridge club.

[mycroft]

This is just opinion. You may have noticed I have opinions :-) but it's not "math" and it's not "experience has shown".

I am, I think, aggressive (compared to club players, probably not bracket 1) over NT. My opinion is that 9s that aren't 8s don't bother inviting against 15-17. So my invitations are 8ish, poor 9.

Is this enough? Maybe. I wouldn't say "Yes, absolutely"; I wouldn't be upset if partner did invite.

But I also am of the opinion that invitations over 1NT should be rare, especially at matchpoints. +120 scores just as well in 1NT as 2NT; +150 frequently scores well even if it loses to +400/+600, especially if it required top-level play to make that ninth trick. And +90, or +120, beats -50/-100, whether it is bad breaks, minimums, good defence, or almost-top-level play. And the defence plays better when they know what contract they're defending, whether it's "clearly a minimum 3NT" or "2NT is a convention, not a contract" - even if it's just that little extra care on the opening lead, or "do we have to try for +90 for a good score?"

So, I am by and large a "pass or bash" responder (oddly enough, less so opposite a weak NT, but then again, my set of invitations playing Keri are different from those in a Stayman/Transfer system).

Is this worth an invitation? Maybe. I wouldn't say "No, never"; I wouldn't be upset if partner didn't invite - again, especially at matchpoints.

As far as partner goes, yes, responder to NT is captain, but opener has to play it. And if partner is uncomfortable playing thin games (or thin 2NTs) and is even likelier to go down in them if "I told partner not to do this to me", then you'll score better if you hope for +120 rather than +400, or +90 rather than "120 or bust". You might not score *well*, but you will score *better*.

I think Simon said something like "if you're playing with (a weaker player) who says 'I have my bids', if you're going to play the hand, do whatever you like. But if you have to put down dummy, be very sound - have your bid. Anything else degrades partner's trust and confidence, and he will play worse than he always does."

Your partner doesn't think this is an invitation - fine. Don't make it. Partner won't make game when she goes anyway, even if she could; and it's embarrassing to be -1 in 2NT. And take advantage of the fact that when partner invites, she's got the goods, you can accept on any hand that doesn't scream "no". It might not be the best strategy, but there's nothing actually wrong with "invite heavy, accept light" over "invite light, accept heavy".

This one might be "I'm not going to compromise on this one, partner", but it's "partnership harmony" and "style discussion" more than "masterminding".

[jillybean]

This was IMP


Mycroft - agree, if I'm playing with a weaker player, sure.

[Cyberyeti]

 johnu, on 2024-February-04, 18:33, said:

If responder invites to 2NT which is all this hand is worth at best, IMO, then you will get to 3NT opposite a very good 17.

On the other hand, if you blast to 3NT and partner has a tendency to upgrade 14 counts, then your percentages will drop a lot. Even 2NT is not a sure thing, and inviting and declining to end up in 2NT is not ideal since elementary bridge odds say that opener will be at 15 almost as often as having 16 or 17, and more often if 14 is frequently upgraded.

My double dummy results in post #5 don't include any upgrading, or downgrading, just HCP.

I was thinking that if opener upgrades all good 17s then pass is probably sensible as you'll rarely make game.