[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Mar 22 2007, 10:24 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 22 2007, 10:17 PM, said:

Jlall, on Mar 22 2007, 10:12 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 22 2007, 09:32 PM, said:

If 1♣-P-2NT could be 11 HCP's, and a good 11 expected (maybe 11+ to 13?),

Most people don't pass as dealer with 13...

I'm not sure I follow. My concern was with the 2NT call perhaps being 11. I'm of the school where I rarely pass as dealer with 11. 22-point 2NT contracts are not so fun.

Perhaps you are agreeing with me by the comment that most people won't pass as dealer with 13. As I would expect a 1♣ opening by dealer to show about 11 to a bad 14 if balanced, then most 13-counts classify as maximums and hence would raise the 2NT call and "not pass" as you suggest.

he was pointing out that requiring 13 hcp for the 2N bid here was a little limiting, because the 2N bidder had passed originally. Thus, unless he was Mike777, the odds are pretty good that 2N did not show 13.

That's even worse then. (I missed the initial pass.)

A third-seat 1♣ opening could easily be something like xxx-xxx-xxx-AKJx, at least as I like. If this thinking is used, then this strongly stands for why you would prefer 1♦ to 2NT (or 1NT over 2NT, for that matter).

This brings up an interesting point. To my thinking, assuming that a minor opening in third-seat can be lead-directional and quite light, it seems that a jump to 2NT is nearly impossible if it merely shows a balanced hand. Any hand worthy of such a jump would have been opened, and even then I'd be wary of punishing partner for a lead-director opening.

The only logical conclusion for me, then, is that P-P-1♣-P-2NT should be fit-showing, with an expectation of 5332 pattern (five clubs). With 5332 and an 11-count, I'd open. So, 2NT should be 9-10 HCP's with five-card support and balanced, a constructive raise of sorts.

2NT as "almost an opener" and simply balanced is way outside my way of thinking. With some 4333 hand and 10-11, I'm bidding a simple 1NT, planning to bid 2NT only if partner bids again (thereby giving room for the 15-16 count I need).

[Fluffy]

I like every bid except 3NT and last pass

3NT is too weak, when hand is good.

pass is lack of confidence on this partnership, 3♥ set ♦ as trumps, so 5♣ is a cuebid.

[HeartA]

Usually I dislike 2N response, though I can accept it.

3H is surely cuebid, but not clear about which minor to support. After pd's 3S, 3NT is a terrible call, I would say. In my opinion, Eaest's bids become worse and worse: The worst bid is 5C (should be 4D), the second worst is 3NT, followed by 3H (ambiguous, prefer 4D), and 2NT (I personally don't respond 2NT with one exception: 3=3=3=4 over 1D opening).

[zasanya]

whereagles, on Mar 23 2007, 08:05 AM, said:

zasanya, on Mar 23 2007, 02:30 AM, said:

1♣-1♦-3♦ .Responder should take charge here with cue bids or minorwood.

Responder shouldn't take charge because he is far weaker than opener.

Opener has defined his strength .It is responders turn to show his extras especially ♣ support. He knows hands fit well and have at least 29 points so why shouldnt he take control?
Cannot understand the aversion to bid natural 1♦ showing 6+ hcp 4+ cards.Why not allow opener to describe his hand keeping the bidding space? Surely Nt can be bid later?

[kenberg]

Maybe over the 3N W should bid 4D? Reason: After 1C-2N I assume that 3C is passable (shape, too little value for 3N?). Therefore E has to worry that the 3D was a bit made up, maybe with six clubs and three diamonds, simply making sure the hand wasn't passed. It appears that W has pretty much decided to go to slam (well, he passed 5C so maybe not) and is simply checking out which minor to bid it in. I think 4D will get him the information he needs.

This assumes that trumps have not already been implicitly set be the time 3N was bid. If they have been set it appears that the players are not aware of this.

[skjaeran]

hrothgar, on Mar 23 2007, 03:13 AM, said:

Hard to fault any of the first three bids

1♣ or 2NT and 2NT look perfectly normal (assuming that ~11 balanced is your agreement for 2NT). Patterning out and showing extra strength via 3♦ is also fine.

Things get a bit strange after 3♥. It looks as if the the two players were on different wave lengths.

From my perspective, there are three reasonable ways to structure auction continuations

1. Cue bids set Diamonds as trump. A club raise sets clubs
2. Cue bids set Clubs as trumps. A Diamond raise sets Dimaonds
3. Cue bids are used to show/deny stoppers. The priary goal is exploring 3NT but you might be groping towards slam

I strongly prefer option 1. After 3♥ - 3♠, I'd cue 4♣

Agree with this. Having passed originally with a hand I'd open 1♣ in my methods, I can't see any reason not to cooperate towards slam. ♣KJ9, ♠Q and♥A(J) are great. Good interiors in trumps are OK too.

Clear 4♣ over 3♠ IMO.

[whereagles]

zasanya, on Mar 24 2007, 08:12 AM, said:

1. Opener has defined his strength .It is responders turn to show his extras especially ♣ support. He knows hands fit well and have at least 29 points so why shouldnt he take control?

2. Cannot understand the aversion to bid natural 1♦ showing 6+ hcp 4+ cards.Why not allow opener to describe his hand keeping the bidding space? Surely Nt can be bid later?

1. For the very simple reason that he needs to know a lot from openers hand and he can't do that himself. It's more practical to let opener take charge. This principle is general: strong hand is capitain. Failure to understand this is the source of 90% of bidding errors.

2. Because bidding 1♦ systematically will complicate matters on simple hands. It's not worth to do it just to find a slam that will be there once every 10000 hands. 4-card diamonds suits are to be bid only when the hand is strong enough so that slam is a possibility, e.g. with 15+ or something like that.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Mar 23 2007, 03:06 PM, said:

A third-seat 1♣ opening could easily be something like xxx-xxx-xxx-AKJx, at least as I like.  If this thinking is used, then this strongly stands for why you would prefer 1♦ to 2NT (or 1NT over 2NT, for that matter). 

This brings up an interesting point.  To my thinking, assuming that a minor opening in third-seat can be lead-directional and quite light, it seems that a jump to 2NT is nearly impossible if it merely shows a balanced hand.  Any hand worthy of such a jump would have been opened, and even then I'd be wary of punishing partner for a lead-director opening.

2NT as "almost an opener" and simply balanced is way outside my way of thinking.  With some 4333 hand and 10-11, I'm bidding a simple 1NT, planning to bid 2NT only if partner bids again (thereby giving room for the 15-16 count I need).

I strongly disagree with the idea of an ultra-light lead-directing 3rd seat opening of 1♣. To my way of thinking, such bids are horrendous.

1. 1♣ never preempts the opps. Good players can bid as constructively over your 1♣ opening as when you pass: in fact, while they lose the 1♣ bid, they gain cuebids and double, so they actually have MORE flexibility over 1♣ than over pass.

2. 1♣ invites 4th chair into the auction. He may bid on hands on which he was otherwise passing, altho admittedly this is not common. But when it does happen, it will be when his side owns the majority of the hcp, in that his hand will be stronger than yours, and 1st and 2nd seat will be near-openers

3. Constructive and competitive bidding becomes incredibly challenging if you stretch to open a minor. How on earth is partner to make an appropriate decision when you may have your example hand? Is he to 'work out' from the opps' bidding that you are ultra-light? Few successful partnerships define their methods by assuming that the opps are the bidders to always be trusted.

4. Compare this to 1major, especially 1♠. 1♠ effectively takes away the 1-level, and we are going to want to compete and win partscores with a fit. But with a minor, especially your balanced hand, we almost certainly want no part of a 3 level partscore. And we can play a version of drury to limit the risk of getting too high opposite a fit.

5. The lead-directing may be unnecessary and may even back-fire, since the opps (to whom the hand belongs) will place cards more accurately both in the auction and in the play (unless your partner, with values remains strangely silent)

[kenrexford]

Even if 1♣ should not be opened on a flat 8-count COV, many would use 1NT in third seat as 14-16. I assume that to be fairly regular. If this is so, would you open 1♣ with a 4324/3424 11-count? Would you not open 1NT with any hand that can make game opposite a balanced passed hand?

In other words, what is the point of jumping to 2NT when partner cannot accept the game try unless he is unbalanced? In that event, can't you just make a one-level call, even 1NT, expecting another call, and THEN bid 2NT?

For what it is worth, this little tidbit of analysis and advice was what I consider to be one of the best tidbits I ever received, from a fortunate sharing of scotches with Freddie Hamilton in Pittsburgh.

If this makes sense, then a jump to 2NT should show something more, something that elevates our analysis above a passed hand, something that justifies forcing the auction perhaps prematurely to the 2NT+ level, namely a great fit.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Mar 29 2007, 07:12 AM, said:

Even if 1♣ should not be opened on a flat 8-count COV, many would use 1NT in third seat as 14-16.  I assume that to be fairly regular.  If this is so, would you open 1♣ with a 4324/3424 11-count?  Would you not open 1NT with any hand that can make game opposite a balanced passed hand?

In other words, what is the point of jumping to 2NT when partner cannot accept the game try unless he is unbalanced?  In that event, can't you just make a one-level call, even 1NT, expecting another call, and THEN bid 2NT?

For what it is worth, this little tidbit of analysis and advice was what I consider to be one of the best tidbits I ever received, from a fortunate sharing of scotches with Freddie Hamilton in Pittsburgh.

If this makes sense, then a jump to 2NT should show something more, something that elevates our analysis above a passed hand, something that justifies forcing the auction perhaps prematurely to the 2NT+ level, namely a great fit.

Ken: I express my doubts about the wisdom of your style of opening in 3rd seat with xxx xxx xxx AKJx, and in response you claim that it is 'fairly regular' to open 1N in 3rd with 14-16. Now, from the name-dropping you do, it may well be that you travel to more tournaments than I do (that wouldn't take much) or that you play in an area of the country where 'standard' methods are different from my experience. However, I have seen very few (i.e.none) 'standard' or 2/1 partnerships change their strong notrump range in 3rd compared to 1st and 2nd seat, so I very much doubt that it is 'fairly regular'.

I am not saying that it is not a good idea: in fact, in all 3 of my current regular partnerships, we play different ranges according to seat an vulnerability and in 2 of them, our strong notrump is 14-16 (in all seats red and 3rd and 4th all colours).

I also agree that 2N by a passed hand can be an unfortunate call, such that I don't use it as natural over a major, which can be light. Nevertheless, opposite a minor, there is no reason not to use it this way, especially since any artificial use is going to be a rare occurence. I don't believe in opening 1 minor light on balanced hands: so I am not reaching 2N on a combined 21 hcp: I may get there with 22, but that is the worst, and we will often make 2N on those hands.

BTW, the answer to your question 'would you not open 1N with any hand that can make game opposite a balanced hand?' is NO, even if I read the question as I think you meant it: 'opposite a balanced 11 count'.

Obviously, when playing 14-16, by agreement, I would open all balanced hands in that range 1N. But if playing 15-17, why should I be afraid of bidding within my methods with 14?

And if I hold a good 13, I am going to accept a game invite after 1♣ 1♦ 1N 2N (whatever methods we use to invite.. for me 2♣ puppet to 2♦ then 2N etc).

[kenrexford]

I am somewhat surprised to learn of such wild differences in opening style. The style I have used for quite a while, and that is common in my area, seems to make a lot of sense and may be worth considering.

First seat, you would open any balanced 11-count if you would consider it worthy of a notrump game opposite an average 13 count.

Third seat, conversely, you would open 1NT whenever you have a balanced 14-count that has play for 3NT opposite a maximum passed hand.

These are not the "definitions" but the practical realities.

Using this technique, it makes no sense to have a P-P-1min-P-2NT auction, especially if the minor is clubs. This is a good thing, as it saves space for the partnership and avoids 2NT-1. This is also why 1NT is defined as 6-11 or 8-11 after a 1♣ opening, at least by many in my area. The same general principle applies to direct NT openings, such that 1NT in first seat is usually the same as a third-seat opening.

By the "name drop" of Freddie Hamilton, my reason for this was to reference this method as not just another wild kenrexford innovation, but rather as a fairly mainstream idea.