[ahydra]

♠AKQxx
♥AKxx
♦xx
♣Ax

Non-vul, 3rd seat, MPs. 5cM, weak NT context. Options are:
a) 1S - partner will respond on almost all 5-counts, but extremely rarely on less than that
b) 2NT (20-21), playing puppet stayman and transfers
c) 2D (strong bid). This isn't GF - partner can reply 2H GF or 2S NF double-negative.

ahydra

[WesleyC]

1S for me.

[PhilG007]

ahydra, on 2015-May-29, 16:08, said:

♠AKQxx
♥AKxx
♦xx
♣Ax

Non-vul, 3rd seat, MPs. 5cM, weak NT context. Options are:
a) 1S - partner will respond on almost all 5-counts, but extremely rarely on less than that
b) 2NT (20-21), playing puppet stayman and transfers
c) 2D (strong bid). This isn't GF - partner can reply 2H GF or 2S NF double-negative.

ahydra

Has to be 1♠ This is what they teach you in the bridge school as a beginner..open with your
longest and strongest suit...

[KurtGodel]

We have a strong two - what's wrong with using it? I'm not really experienced with these methods, but surely when you have a hand that is extremely strong for a one level bid, but not quite a game force, that would be a good hand to open with a strong forcing opening that doesn't push us to game. Is your P really raising 1♠ with Jxxx xx xxx xxxx? You will now get there opening 2♦. Similarly, now you can get there opposite xx QJxxx xx xxx, without getting too high opposite junk. I think 2♠ will make whenever p has 3 spades, and a lot of the time they have 2 (they could have the J, they could have doubleton heart, they could have Q!h, or a minor suit king, the suits could break).

You also don't really miss that much room for slams, unless the auction begins 1♠ - 2x, but in those cases you are probably going to end up pushing over partner's sign offs anyway because they won't really expect a hand like this.

[Cyberyeti]

The trouble with 2♦ is that I guess you're passing 2♠, this is not good when you miss the game (and slam) opposite xxx, xxxxxx, x, xxx unless rescued by the opps.

If I was going to open NT, I'd take the optimistic view and open the 22-23 bid, as I think this better reflects the strength of the hand. K&R gives it as 23.1 which I think is slightly OTT but I think it's easily worth 22.

[nige1]

ahydra, on 2015-May-29, 16:08, said:

♠ A K Q x x ♥ A K x x ♦ x x ♣ A x
Non-vul, 3rd seat, MPs. 5cM, weak NT context. Options are:
a) 1S - partner will respond on almost all 5-counts, but extremely rarely on less than that
b) 2NT (20-21), playing puppet stayman and transfers
c) 2D (strong bid). This isn't GF - partner can reply 2H GF or 2S NF double-negative.ahydra

IMO 1♠ = 10. 2♦ = 9. 2N = 8. 1♣ (strong) = 11

[PhilG007]

ahydra, on 2015-May-29, 16:08, said:

♠AKQxx
♥AKxx
♦xx
♣Ax

Non-vul, 3rd seat, MPs. 5cM, weak NT context. Options are:
a) 1S - partner will respond on almost all 5-counts, but extremely rarely on less than that
b) 2NT (20-21), playing puppet stayman and transfers
c) 2D (strong bid). This isn't GF - partner can reply 2H GF or 2S NF double-negative.

ahydra

1♠as a 'feeler' bid to see if there is any life opposite,is the correct choice.
If partner responds( glory hallelujah),the sky's the limit...

[aguahombre]

Side note: I have yet to see a good result from a strong (balanced or nondescript) 2♦ scheme which couldn't have been achieved via a different route; but plenty of disasters.

Side note 2: I don't think KnR should be used to decide between an opening 1-bid and an opening Strong artificial bid.

Side note 3: With Cyber's xxx xxxxxx x xxx opposite my opening 1♠ bid, the opponents holding 10 diamonds and 20 points will be giving us the opportunity to get where we want to go.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-31, 09:18, said:

Side note: I have yet to see a good result from a strong (balanced or nondescript) 2♦ scheme which couldn't have been achieved via a different route; but plenty of disasters.

Side note 2: I don't think KnR should be used to decide between an opening 1-bid and an opening Strong artificial bid.

Side note 3: With Cyber's xxx xxxxxx x xxx opposite my opening 1♠ bid, the opponents holding 10 diamonds and 20 points will be giving us the opportunity to get where we want to go.

To note 2: I was using it to decide between 20-21 bal and 22-23 bal, so saying if I was treating it as bal, I would not treat it as 20-21

To note 3: I agree, but they might not over 2♦-P-2♠ which was part of the point, particularly if partner has a stray Q among that

For the record I would also open 1♠ as my NT scheme can't deal with this shape and we tend to respond light

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-31, 10:25, said:

For the record I would also open 1♠ as my NT scheme can't deal with this shape and we tend to respond light

Not sure anyone's NT scheme can really handle 5-4 or 4-5 in the Majors effectively; but we chuckle about answers to (ugh) Puppet --- do we show the 5cM or the 1 or 2 4-cds?

[PhilG007]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-31, 11:31, said:

Not sure anyone's NT scheme can really handle 5-4 or 4-5 in the Majors effectively; but we chuckle about answers to (ugh) Puppet --- do we show the 5cM or the 1 or 2 4-cds?

Anyone who opens NTs on the example hand will seldom or never make a fortune(!)

[1eyedjack]

PhilG007, on 2015-May-31, 23:42, said:

Anyone who opens NTs on the example hand will seldom or never make a fortune(!)

Except against GIB in a robot tournament

[PhilG007]

1eyedjack, on 2015-June-01, 01:08, said:

Except against GIB in a robot tournament

Still wouldn't recommend it.... GIBs can be tricky opponents as well as tricky partners(!)

[1eyedjack]

PhilG007, on 2015-June-01, 07:34, said:

Still wouldn't recommend it.... GIBs can be tricky opponents as well as tricky partners(!)

When I evaluate incoming advice, particularly unsolicited, I consider a few influences:
1) The credibility of the advisor, ie his pedigree or credentials
2) The credibility of the advice, ie whether logically reasoned or supported by structured argument that stands on its feet
3) The quantum of personal experience on which to draw, and the degree of correlation of the advice with that experience.

As to the first item in the list, I have no information to suggest that it should carry any influence. I could be wrong, but simply have no evidence other than other posts in these forums, which I do not find particularly compelling. Let's just leave it at that.

As to the second item in the list, no logically reasoned argument has been presented to be subject to evaluation. "GIBs can be tricky" does not really qualify.

As to the third item, in the year from 01 June 2014 to 31 May 2015, I have played 8918 hands in robot tournaments. And I started playing in them somewhat earlier than that. When presented with an unsupported opinion from an unknown individual that is at odds with a significant wealth of personal experience, I will tend to side with personal experience.