I'm over 80yo and basically a new player of Bridge but not card games in general. The first time I had this situation I also went with 1NT opening and did have
I'd never heard of this idea, but it seems quite useful. I play 5 card majors, so 1D/1C openings are inherently vague, while 1NT is perhaps a tad narrow in scope, so we can afford to loosen the NT criteria slightly. I think in ACOL, the case is not quite as clear, but even then it could be good. However, the discussion assumed for some reason that after opening 1D one would automatically rebid the D. But why not bid NT at this point, i.e. showing the length before the balance? What kind of an auction does one get into here? I can believe that 1NT is better, but pedagogically really need to consider the other option explicitly. A key point not made is that often a long suit is very useful in NT, because one can afford to lose a couple of tricks to develop it. Here the diamonds turn out to be fabulous in NT, and I think there's good chances of going +2. Disappointed to see the claim. Always good to see how to quickly decide how to approach slightly messy competitive hands like this, especially because there's a number of different decisions that players might make. But we have to form a view in real time, right? Hi to the parrot
My computer typing stopped: So I continue: I did get a 2C response and followed with a 3NT bid. Partner passed which would be normal. My calculation was that partner had at least 1 Major with 4 cards with perhaps some help in the other. I was hopeful that his 4 card was in Spades, it was but wasn't great but I did make 3NT and got a good score. I did figure that I had a reasonable hand to do it in and the !NT opener did tell partner my 15-17 range. The long Diamond/Club (don't remember which) suit was key..
The modern trend to open 1NT with 2 doubletons or a singleton or not quite enough points takes away the reliability of the old fashioned 1NT where partner can be quite confident about your hand shape and point range. Give me a reliable partner every time.
You can do anything you want with any suit holding, point range or distribution. Take a potentially losing gamble at success, or be sensible and bid in a manner where partner knows and understands what it is that you are conveying to them. There are no statistics to indicate a higher level of successful contracts when using wacky deviations from standard balanced or semi-balanced 1NT openers. The purpose of a 1NT opening bid is to describe a very specific shape and point count - it is limited in what it can contain, therefore it conveys a great deal of information to partner. However, like anything in life, deviations from the norm can be fun (like this video), but risky. I like to win at bridge, so I choose sensible every time...
You can't bid contrerary to your convention card or your opponents can call foul (unless you can convince the tournament director that your partner was as in the dark as your opponents)
It is hard. Strange enough as we have 2 rounds of control other than diamond, after take queen spade. The odd play is let diamond small. When we won again another diamond small. Unless diamond 4-1 which know by 2nd loser, we can win easily. Otherwise if we use one control to go to the table we have issue when diamond lost. … Not as easy. And in real game can I be so clam to do that.
Does nobody play a wide range 1NT rebid ( Crowhurst ) any more ? 1D rebidding 1NT over a major suit response from partner seems to describe this hand perfectly.
I’m surprised he only made 3NT considering he had a free finesse from the S Ten opening lead. 3 spades tricks, 2 hearts, 1/2 clubs, and very likely 4 diamonds (if qualified first) were available.
What on earth does legal mean? Bidding systems are a form of language, and unless you’re playing tournaments that protect children and learners, bidding is by agreement. Of course, disclosure to your opposition is needed, legality?
Google the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. A special partnership understanding (like bidding NT with a singleton) would need to be explicitly documented in your system card. And under Law 40B2ai, it might not even be legal then either if the TO decides that it is not.@@leokearley4145 Under law 40B3 declarer would be required to clarify that their bid included a singleton after bidding ended and before the opening lead or might receive a penalised result.
But it's 16 not 12-14 so you'd have to open 1D and rebid 1NT - It's actually less confusing in this case. With 12-14 you can at least escape to 2D if you are doubled
Why would you miss a heart fit with a starting transfer to spades?? After the transfer to two spades, responder (to the 1NT opener) will be 3H, and all is good for the choices of opener to place the final contract in 3NT.....
If you open 1 D, like I would, then W will certainly bid 1 Spades and our partner in N will most likely pass. What do we then? Bid 2 D possibly and then pass pass pass. That’s what I think
Hello Curt. I do 'nt think I would be brave enough to open 1nt in the above hand and would open 1 diamond but with your idea and common sense advice I will have more of insight and be braver next time. Thanks Curt.Joan Moloney.
This is dumb luck, and someone is trying to make genius out of it. The fact that he answered that he would not open 1NT if the 6 cards were hearts or spades, explains the craziness. This is the dumb message bridge instructors drill in students heads, because it’s “better to risk playing a game hand and NOT make it than bid a partial game and make it. Question: what if N has W’s hand, which similar in strength & distribution? Would Curt be celebrating his genius bidding NT? Of course not. He would not make it. The best advice: bid the hand you have, not the you hope your partner has. Bottom line: don’t open bid NT with 2 doubletons, a singleton, or a void-no exception, and don’t confuse your partner.
I think bridge is a great game but all of the rigid bidding conventions ruin it. I played bridge and other card games and chess too when I was in college, and decided recently that I wanted to get back into bridge. I'm quite adept at playing the hands post-bidding, but the bidding conventions will be so time-consuming to learn it doesn't seem to be worth the investment. I'm a very scientific/technical person and I understand that there are certain things about hands that make particular contracts possible or impossible, so it makes sense to me as a general rule to count points in a particular way though there are times when departing from the rules are warranted. But the bidding is like an artificial language that allows no leeway. It makes me wonder what kind of person wants to spend so much time learning bidding conventions, what kind of person thinks this part of the game is fun. I guess I'll shift over to chess or some other game that doesn't require that I speak in rigid code to a partner. To those of you who are into it, power to you. I do wonder how many other people who could become good bridge players are turned off like I am by the bidding rigidity.
Partly thats presumqbly your choice if system, but imho you eventually realise there are more hands than bids available, so you become less rigid over time and instead think about how you might best help your partner make the right decision with the infomation available. The hand above is a great example, both opening 1NT and 1D could be right, and possibly vary by position
@@cthulhudreams7578 I would like to be less rigid, but if my partner bids something using one of the artificial bid schemes and I'm not into it, then it's impossible for me to play with that person. I don't know if this is a term used by others, but I would like to find players who are into a more "natural" bidding style.
I'm hearing what you are saying about bridge requiring too much study to ultimately achieve an understanding of the "communication" between partners. Nothing in life comes easy. I have always played team sports and the best part of playing a team sport is working well together. I have had many partners over many years and the best partners are the ones that "mostly" stick to our conventions. Occasionally, if my partner strays from these conventions, I just have to trust that they have good reason, whether it works out or not. The worst partners are the ones that want to play all the hands and steal the contracts away from you by not describing their hands correctly. If there is no reliable communication between you and your partner, how can you achieve the optimum contract? If you want to play a game without needing to communicate with your partner, chess is a good choice.
@@davidduckworth9214 I have zero interest in learning to speak in this language, because it only has usefulness for bridge and I keep thinking "why not just lay your whole hand down then?" :) It's possible to have a wonderful game of bridge by bidding in a more straightforward manner and you are still communicating with your partner. This is how people used to play before the the cult of the secret decoder rings took over. :)
Natural bidding isn't capable of dealing with all the various suit combinations held between two hands, or for perfectly describing your hand to partner. That said, you can enjoy a lifetime of bridge using natural bidding and a few well chosen standard artificial bidding conventions AND experience success at the game. I can assure you, the bells and whistles are nice if you want them, but they are not necessary. Learn to walk before you run...
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm over 80yo and basically a new player of Bridge but not card games in general. The first time I had this situation I also went with 1NT opening and did have
I'd never heard of this idea, but it seems quite useful. I play 5 card majors, so 1D/1C openings are inherently vague, while 1NT is perhaps a tad narrow in scope, so we can afford to loosen the NT criteria slightly. I think in ACOL, the case is not quite as clear, but even then it could be good.
However, the discussion assumed for some reason that after opening 1D one would automatically rebid the D. But why not bid NT at this point, i.e. showing the length before the balance? What kind of an auction does one get into here? I can believe that 1NT is better, but pedagogically really need to consider the other option explicitly.
A key point not made is that often a long suit is very useful in NT, because one can afford to lose a couple of tricks to develop it. Here the diamonds turn out to be fabulous in NT, and I think there's good chances of going +2. Disappointed to see the claim. Always good to see how to quickly decide how to approach slightly messy competitive hands like this, especially because there's a number of different decisions that players might make. But we have to form a view in real time, right?
Hi to the parrot
My computer typing stopped: So I continue: I did get a 2C response and followed with a 3NT bid. Partner passed which would be normal. My calculation was that partner had at least 1 Major with 4 cards with perhaps some help in the other. I was hopeful that his 4 card was in Spades, it was but wasn't great but I did make 3NT and got a good score. I did figure that I had a reasonable hand to do it in and the !NT opener did tell partner my 15-17 range. The long Diamond/Club (don't remember which) suit was key..
The modern trend to open 1NT with 2 doubletons or a singleton or not quite enough points takes away the reliability of the old fashioned 1NT where partner can be quite confident about your hand shape and point range. Give me a reliable partner every time.
Forget the spades. What is happening is we are treating Ax as a 3 card suit. Which would you rather have Ax or xxx?
I was always taught to keep it simple.
And don’t lie or mislead partner/opponents.
You can do anything you want with any suit holding, point range or distribution. Take a potentially losing gamble at success, or be sensible and bid in a manner where partner knows and understands what it is that you are conveying to them. There are no statistics to indicate a higher level of successful contracts when using wacky deviations from standard balanced or semi-balanced 1NT openers. The purpose of a 1NT opening bid is to describe a very specific shape and point count - it is limited in what it can contain, therefore it conveys a great deal of information to partner. However, like anything in life, deviations from the norm can be fun (like this video), but risky. I like to win at bridge, so I choose sensible every time...
You can't bid contrerary to your convention card or your opponents can call foul (unless you can convince the tournament director that your partner was as in the dark as your opponents)
It is hard. Strange enough as we have 2 rounds of control other than diamond, after take queen spade. The odd play is let diamond small. When we won again another diamond small. Unless diamond 4-1 which know by 2nd loser, we can win easily. Otherwise if we use one control to go to the table we have issue when diamond lost. …
Not as easy.
And in real game can I be so clam to do that.
Does nobody play a wide range 1NT rebid ( Crowhurst ) any more ? 1D rebidding 1NT over a major suit response from partner seems to describe this hand perfectly.
Good idea. I am sure 1 Diamond opening should end with 3SA as well. It can certainly go: 1 ♦️, 1 spades, Double, pass, 1SA, pass, 2SA, pass, 3 SA
Does one have to have semi-balanced 1NT openings alerted/announced?
I’m surprised he only made 3NT considering he had a free finesse from the S Ten opening lead. 3 spades tricks, 2 hearts, 1/2 clubs, and very likely 4 diamonds (if qualified first) were available.
Talking about Acol, assuming 12-14 HCP, is it legal to bid with a Two doubles ? Given partner has passed, they have maximum of 11 pts, and if
Yes I would absolutely open 1NT with 12-14 and two doubletons.
What on earth does legal mean? Bidding systems are a form of language, and unless you’re playing tournaments that protect children and learners, bidding is by agreement. Of course, disclosure to your opposition is needed, legality?
Google the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge. A special partnership understanding (like bidding NT with a singleton) would need to be explicitly documented in your system card.
And under Law 40B2ai, it might not even be legal then either if the TO decides that it is not.@@leokearley4145
Under law 40B3 declarer would be required to clarify that their bid included a singleton after bidding ended and before the opening lead or might receive a penalised result.
But it's 16 not 12-14 so you'd have to open 1D and rebid 1NT - It's actually less confusing in this case. With 12-14 you can at least escape to 2D if you are doubled
The playing is not easy. But it is good to see west is short on spade so it cannot return spade.
Why would you miss a heart fit with a starting transfer to spades?? After the transfer to two spades, responder (to the 1NT opener) will be 3H, and all is good for the choices of opener to place the final contract in 3NT.....
1NT must be a balanced hand
Your value IS balanced: Q,A,AJ,AJ
Uh... yes.
I would open the six card suit and when my partner reposonds with 1 spade, I would then bid 2 no trump.
If you open 1 D, like I would, then W will certainly bid 1 Spades and our partner in N will most likely pass. What do we then? Bid 2 D possibly and then pass pass pass. That’s what I think
Hello Curt. I do 'nt think I would be brave enough to open 1nt in the above hand and would open 1 diamond but with your idea and common sense advice I will have more of insight and be braver next time. Thanks Curt.Joan Moloney.
Juan must be a green bird because he was half disappeared with the green screen effect.
You can but it's a bad bid. Bidding and rebidding a six-card suit should have a wide range.
This is dumb luck, and someone is trying to make genius out of it.
The fact that he answered that he would not open 1NT if the 6 cards were hearts or spades, explains the craziness.
This is the dumb message bridge instructors drill in students heads, because it’s “better to risk playing a game hand and NOT make it than bid a partial game and make it.
Question: what if N has W’s hand, which similar in strength & distribution? Would Curt be celebrating his genius bidding NT?
Of course not. He would not make it.
The best advice: bid the hand you have, not the you hope your partner has.
Bottom line: don’t open bid NT with 2 doubletons, a singleton, or a void-no exception, and don’t confuse your partner.
I think bridge is a great game but all of the rigid bidding conventions ruin it. I played bridge and other card games and chess too when I was in college, and decided recently that I wanted to get back into bridge. I'm quite adept at playing the hands post-bidding, but the bidding conventions will be so time-consuming to learn it doesn't seem to be worth the investment. I'm a very scientific/technical person and I understand that there are certain things about hands that make particular contracts possible or impossible, so it makes sense to me as a general rule to count points in a particular way though there are times when departing from the rules are warranted. But the bidding is like an artificial language that allows no leeway. It makes me wonder what kind of person wants to spend so much time learning bidding conventions, what kind of person thinks this part of the game is fun. I guess I'll shift over to chess or some other game that doesn't require that I speak in rigid code to a partner. To those of you who are into it, power to you. I do wonder how many other people who could become good bridge players are turned off like I am by the bidding rigidity.
Partly thats presumqbly your choice if system, but imho you eventually realise there are more hands than bids available, so you become less rigid over time and instead think about how you might best help your partner make the right decision with the infomation available.
The hand above is a great example, both opening 1NT and 1D could be right, and possibly vary by position
@@cthulhudreams7578 I would like to be less rigid, but if my partner bids something using one of the artificial bid schemes and I'm not into it, then it's impossible for me to play with that person. I don't know if this is a term used by others, but I would like to find players who are into a more "natural" bidding style.
I'm hearing what you are saying about bridge requiring too much study to ultimately achieve an understanding of the "communication" between partners.
Nothing in life comes easy.
I have always played team sports and the best part of playing a team sport is working well together.
I have had many partners over many years and the best partners are the ones that "mostly" stick to our conventions. Occasionally, if my partner strays from these conventions, I just have to trust that they have good reason, whether it works out or not.
The worst partners are the ones that want to play all the hands and steal the contracts away from you by not describing their hands correctly. If there is no reliable communication between you and your partner, how can you achieve the optimum contract?
If you want to play a game without needing to communicate with your partner, chess is a good choice.
@@davidduckworth9214 I have zero interest in learning to speak in this language, because it only has usefulness for bridge and I keep thinking "why not just lay your whole hand down then?" :) It's possible to have a wonderful game of bridge by bidding in a more straightforward manner and you are still communicating with your partner. This is how people used to play before the the cult of the secret decoder rings took over. :)
Natural bidding isn't capable of dealing with all the various suit combinations held between two hands, or for perfectly describing your hand to partner. That said, you can enjoy a lifetime of bridge using natural bidding and a few well chosen standard artificial bidding conventions AND experience success at the game. I can assure you, the bells and whistles are nice if you want them, but they are not necessary. Learn to walk before you run...