Help
Agree with gnasher. Stoppers schmoppers. 1NT is also preemptive too.
How to handle this hand? A flattish hand with concentrated value
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,962
- Joined: 2007-September-14
- Location:Australia
- Interests:The Universe, Traveling, Squash, and Scandinavia.
Posted 2009-August-26, 09:24
- Andy -
We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
We are all connected to each other biologically, to the Earth chemically, and to the rest of the universe atomically.
We're in the universe, and the universe is in us.
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,610
- Joined: 2003-February-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, USA
Posted 2009-August-26, 10:24
I would personally open 1NT, not just because I think the hand is worth 1NT, but because:
1) 1NT is good from a tactical point of view if the deal belongs to the opponents in one of the majors.
2) If you think this is close, let the vulnerability be the deciding factor. At this vulnerability you have more to gain and less to lose by opening 1NT than you would at any other vulnerability.
That being said, I can understand opening 1C and rebidding 1NT should partner respond 1 of a major.
What I can't understand is failing to raise a 1D response to 2D. IMO to bid anything other than 2D is really bad, Walsh or no Walsh. I would even raise to 2D painlessly if we had the agreement that 2D "promised" 4-card support. Partner will forgive me for breaking my promise when we end up in the right contract.
Aside from the obvious fact that, if notrump is right, partner should be the declarer, consider:
1) You have the AKQ of diamonds!!! - if you rebid 1NT partner is never going to play you for this good a hand in support of his suit.
2) The opponents' silence makes it likely that partner has a good hand. You probably have the values for game especially if your opponents, like most "modern players", believe in lightish overcalls even when vulnerable. For the purposes of both getting to a possible slam and getting to the right game from the right side of the table, it is important to make a statement right now that says "diamonds!".
3) Just because you are not playing Walsh does not mean that partner is a robot. Nobody is forcing him to respond 1D with a bad 4-card diamond suit when he has a strong 4-card major. The odds are strong that partner has at least 5 diamonds and, if he doesn't, raising to 2D is hardly the end of the world.
4) I am a generally a strong believer in rebidding 1NT with balanced hands.
In summary: think about the whole deal, not just your own hand and what your system dictates that you should do.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
1) 1NT is good from a tactical point of view if the deal belongs to the opponents in one of the majors.
2) If you think this is close, let the vulnerability be the deciding factor. At this vulnerability you have more to gain and less to lose by opening 1NT than you would at any other vulnerability.
That being said, I can understand opening 1C and rebidding 1NT should partner respond 1 of a major.
What I can't understand is failing to raise a 1D response to 2D. IMO to bid anything other than 2D is really bad, Walsh or no Walsh. I would even raise to 2D painlessly if we had the agreement that 2D "promised" 4-card support. Partner will forgive me for breaking my promise when we end up in the right contract.
Aside from the obvious fact that, if notrump is right, partner should be the declarer, consider:
1) You have the AKQ of diamonds!!! - if you rebid 1NT partner is never going to play you for this good a hand in support of his suit.
2) The opponents' silence makes it likely that partner has a good hand. You probably have the values for game especially if your opponents, like most "modern players", believe in lightish overcalls even when vulnerable. For the purposes of both getting to a possible slam and getting to the right game from the right side of the table, it is important to make a statement right now that says "diamonds!".
3) Just because you are not playing Walsh does not mean that partner is a robot. Nobody is forcing him to respond 1D with a bad 4-card diamond suit when he has a strong 4-card major. The odds are strong that partner has at least 5 diamonds and, if he doesn't, raising to 2D is hardly the end of the world.
4) I am a generally a strong believer in rebidding 1NT with balanced hands.
In summary: think about the whole deal, not just your own hand and what your system dictates that you should do.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
#23
- Follower of 655321
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,293
- Joined: 2008-December-05
- Interests:drinking, women, bridge...what else?
Posted 2009-August-26, 11:43
fred, on Aug 26 2009, 11:24 AM, said:
1) 1NT is good from a tactical point of view if the deal belongs to the opponents in one of the majors.
2) If you think this is close, let the vulnerability be the deciding factor. At this vulnerability you have more to gain and less to lose by opening 1NT than you would at any other vulnerability.
2) If you think this is close, let the vulnerability be the deciding factor. At this vulnerability you have more to gain and less to lose by opening 1NT than you would at any other vulnerability.
Yeah I think people overlook these factors too often.