[helene_t]

Oh btw with a minimum, you don't have to bid on after
1M-1N
2m-2M
while you cannot show your 5-card with a jump response to Stayman. OTOH, with extras, you would have to bid 2N over
1M-1N
2m-2M
while you could bid 3M in response to Stayman if you open 1N. So with a minimum, it's more attractive to open 1M, especially if the suit is good so you like the idea of 2M in the 5-2 fit.

Also in SAYC you have a comfortable pass after
1M-2M
if you have 15 points.

[awm]

Jlall, on Feb 1 2008, 04:21 AM, said:

So we aren't considering the effect it has on opponents being able to overcall at the 1-level? Or to obstruct the opponents from finding their game.

or the inherent advantage you gain in the cardplay after you have opened 1N and had some unrevealing auction (1N p 3N) or less revealing auction (1N p 2C p 2H p 3N)

or the fact that despite saying that "when you have game on power you can get to game either way you bid" 15 opp 9/10 and/or 16 opp 9/10 can be difficult to bid having opened 1H depending on what style you adopt. If you elect to not rebid 2H after an auction like 1H p 1N p 2D p with 10 then you will also find 2N with 10 opp 11/12 quite often. If you elect to rebid 2H with 10 then you will not find 15 opp 10. If you elect to bid more with 16 after 1M p 1N p 2x p 2M p then you will get too high with 16 opp 6/7 very often (or less if you can respond with less than 6, which everyone does). If you elect to pass with 16 you will miss 16 opp 9 games. If you elect to play something artificial to solve this problem (like gazilli) you lose the ability to play 2C. If you like gazilli anyways, you have to show an extra hand type in an already overloaded auction and have less accurate gazilli auctions.

or the fact that your 2m bids become less defined since you have to bid 2m on these hands, and the sequence that 2m followed by 2N becomes less defined than if 15-16 balanced is not a possible hand type (if you are playing you open 1N with 15-17 balanced 1H p 1N p 2D p 2H p 2N promises 4 diamonds, responder can back out in 3D now with 4 etc).

or the fact that if the opponents start bidding you are put in a lot of awkward spots having opened 1M. This is because "intermediate" range hands are inherently difficult to show in competitive auctions since they feel too strong to pass but are too weak to committ to a high level. This is a problem that weak NTers encounter fairly often. Even an auction like 1H 2S p p can become tough.

Adam, you really really oversimplify issues like this imo. "Should I open 1N or 1M with 5M332" is really a question that one cannot answer with simple arguments, it is a question that has overtones on the entire constructive bidding system, competitive auctions, leads, defense, etc. To me this is the equivalent of "what is better, 4 card majors or 5 card majors?" and someone answering "obviously 5 card majors, it makes it easier to find 5-3 fits in competitive auctions, and it is easy to find 4-4 fits anyways because you can play negative Xs and respond 1M to 1 of a major with 4." Obviously that question cannot be answered so simply, if at all.

In fact 1♠ tends to be more obstructive than 1NT. There are many hands where people routinely overcall against a strong notrump and would pass over 1♠. This is because most people play that two-level overcalls against a 1M opening require sound values (because you're still looking for game on power), whereas people have lots of ways to get into the auction with weak distributional hands over a strong 1NT opening. For obstructiveness, I'd rate 1♥ as not being much worse than 1NT either -- opponents have a cheap spade bid, but they don't have easy ways to show spade/minor two suiters cheaply, or to show hands with a long minor but less than sound values, etc.

If you're going to generally bash 3NT (i.e. don't check back for five-card major) then you will obtain some advantages in card play, but you will lose on those hands where the major suit fit is a better game. There is always a tradeoff between bash versus science, and you can produce unrevealing bash auctions like 1M-4M or 1M-2N(nat)-3N over a major suit opening also at times, perhaps with hands that would typically bid more slowly over 1NT (i.e. hands with four hearts). I've found that this is roughly break even -- 1N-3N sometimes makes when a slower auction starting with 1M would fail (i.e. opponents lead your major or miscount your hand) but there are also times when you bid 1N-3N and find that you have a small doubleton opposite a small doubleton and an 8-card major suit fit...

The argument about 15/9 and 16/10 is again a system argument. Sure, playing some systems (for example 2/1 without Gazzilli) this problem exists. But this seems akin to arguing that "it is better to open 1♦ with 4♦/5♣ rather than open 1♣, because 1♣ would show 16+" or "it is better to open 1♣ with 2-3-4-4 because a 1♦ opening shows an unbalanced hand." Obviously if this is your system, you're stuck with it. And maybe your system is a winner on other hands. But the fact that "my system doesn't handle these hands well" is only an argument for that opening in the context of your system, not an argument that it's a better opening in some fundamental way.

As for competitive auctions, my observation has been that people love to bid after 1♥-P-2♥ or 1♠-P-2♠. Balanced hands with mild extras (i.e. 15-17 notrumps) are among the best hands to penalize people on this auction! So there are definite competitive wins to compensate for any competitive losses. And there are also situations where partner has an easy competitive raise (say 4♥ and 7 hcp) over 1♥-2♠ but has to pass over 1NT-2♠.

Anyways I agree that it's "not a simple issue" and definitely depends on your choice of follow-up methods. But I find that an awful lot of the arguments people make for 1NT revolve around not being able to make good game decisions after 1♠-1NT or not having a good rebid after 1♥-1♠. And I would make the point that this has a lot more to do with the choice of follow-ups than anything else. In a strong club system it could well be a good idea to open 1NT with 4225 because this hand is otherwise awkward to show (since you can't open 1♣ natural). This doesn't make opening 1NT with 4♠/5♣ a "better opening" -- it's just a hole in the big club system that you're trying to plug.

I've noticed that my results have improved substantially since I started opening 1M on these hands most of the time. At the same time I've noted a trend among good players to open 1NT more and more (but of course this is influenced by the fact that "expert standard" in the US is 2/1 GF without Gazzilli, which happens to handle followups over 1M when opener has a strong balanced hand particularly poorly). So I thought it was worth presenting alternative view.

[Apollo81]

sheilafran, on Feb 1 2008, 12:13 AM, said:

We open 1NT with a five card major .. what i want to know is, with a good 5 card major ie AKJxx, is it better to bid the major.

IMO 1NT openings tend to work out better if you have 3 in the other major. The extra horse of making it easier to find that 5-3 fit if it exists tips the balance.

[ulven]

Didn't this one get worked out in this thread?
http://forums.bridge...topic=15252&hl=