[ehhh]

Recently this hand came up in an ACBL speedball tourny.

♠AKQx
♥AKx
♦xxx
♣xxx

Does this constitute as a 1NT opener?
It's balanced and has the req'd hpt count and by the Open Chart satisfies the definition for NT.
However, I always thot that you needed stoppers in at least three of the suits or is that just a teaching guideline?

[pescetom]

ehhh, on 2020-October-30, 10:03, said:

Does this constitute as a 1NT opener?

Yes.

ehhh, on 2020-October-30, 10:03, said:

However, I always thot that you needed stoppers in at least three of the suits or is that just a teaching guideline?

It's just history.

[TylerE]

ehhh, on 2020-October-30, 10:03, said:

is that just a teaching guideline?

It's a guideline that that's a teacher you shouldn't listen to, because they don't know what they're talking about.

[mycroft]

"If it looks like a balanced 15-17, open 1NT". That's the modern guideline.

All of the caveats of the past:

• need stoppers in 3, preferably all 4 suits;
  
• need 2.5 QT;
  
• 4333, 4432 or 5m332 only;
  
• no small doubleton;

and the rest have all dropped by the wayside. People still discuss what to do with 5M332 and 6m322, but more and more pairs are moving to "put it in 1NT".

People are pushing the boundaries of what regulators consider "balanced", as well. Something like AKTx KJ9x K QTxx has always been opened 1NT by many with "looks balanced to me", and regulators are bowing to the inevitable. So now, players are saying "well, of course AKTx KJ9x 7 KQTx is balanced." Others are saying "are you out of your mind?" and "if you describe that as balanced, that's clear misinforming of the opponents"... You can see from this, or from the 7m222s that people want to open 1NT as well, just how much those caveats/old rules have disappeared.

The problem isn't that any of those old caveats are bad - in fact, we'd prefer to avoid them even now. The problem is that if you don't open 1NT with a balanced hand in your range, it's almost impossible to show it later, or you have to devote so much of your system to "15-17 balanced, unsuitable for NT" that could be used to distinguish between all the rest of the hands in a "12-21, 3+" 1♣ or 1♦ call (which needs a lot of distinguishing as it is). Never mind when it goes 1♣-p-1♥-2♠; now you really want to be able to say "pass is minimum, no 4-card raise (if BAL, 12-14, much easier than 12-16), 2NT is a big hand (18-19 much easier to handle than 16-19),..."

It does cost sometimes, like all decisions. There's at least two threads going on currently about downsides of opening 1NT with 5♠332, or 1♠-2♣; 2NT in a non-2/1 system; that all revolves around "what do you lose if you don't open 1NT with balanced 15-17, versus what you lose if you do open 1NT with these specific balanced 15-17s". You will get 1NT-p-3NT off the first 5 heart tricks sometimes. But it pays back 4, 5, 6-1 on hands where partner can rely on you not having that hand when they try to figure out *this* crazy auction.

But the stopper requirement went out with Goren in the 1960s. You just can't bid standard sanely with it.

[AL78]

ehhh, on 2020-October-30, 10:03, said:

Recently this hand came up in an ACBL speedball tourny.

♠AKQx
♥AKx
♦xxx
♣xxx

Does this constitute as a 1NT opener?
It's balanced and has the req'd hpt count and by the Open Chart satisfies the definition for NT.
However, I always thot that you needed stoppers in at least three of the suits or is that just a teaching guideline?

It's false. If you are contracting for 1NT, you are contracting for seven tricks, so can afford to lose the first six, hence not necessary to have stops in three or four suits. The problem is if you don't open 1NT, what is your rebid?

When you overcall 1NT, you should have a stop or two in opener's suit, but that is a different situation.

[mikeh]

Mycroft pretty much nailed it

One of the main problems with old or poorly written newer books for beginners (used by teachers) is that they tend to illustrate their bidding advice with examples matching their advice, and don’t spend much, or any, time pointing out problem hands.

On this hand, they might tell the student to,open 1C and rebid 1S, without noting how difficult that makes the auction on many layouts. However, at least this is plausible, if misguided.

Make your example xxx AKQx xxx AKx and have partner respond to 1C with 1S.

Now what?

1N shows 12-14. 2S shows a minimum hand with either 4 card support or 3 cards with a side ruffing value. Thus one literally has no call that remotely describes the hand.

The reason that teachers get away with bad advice is that most of the time a balanced 15-17 will have at least a semi-stopper in 3 suits.

Other than that, I commend re-reading mycroft’s post😀

[helene_t]

Since your second suit is spades you won't have an immediate rebid problem, at least not if opps are silent. You can rebid 1♠. If that doesn't promise an unbalanced hand in your style (i.e. if you would bid the same with a balanced 13 count) you are OK for now.

But there are many possible auctions where 16-counters are awkward as you'd prefer to have either a weaker or a strong hand:
1♣-1♦
1♠-2♣
I suppose you can bid 2NT, and that that isn't even an overbid since you would bid the same with a 4315 with the same strength, but you'd prefer to have opened 1NT, given partner the chance to let the auction stop there rather than in 2NT. There's also the problem that partner will think you have five clubs, so he will probably correct 2NT to 3♣ which will often be a 4-3 fit and maybe could be a 3-3 fit on a bad day. Alternatively, you could bid 2♦ on your third turn but then partner may think you have a singleton hearts, so he won't have any interest in 3NT. All in all, you probably have to pass 2♣. Which is not ideal either as partner could have up to 10 points.

1♣-(p)-1♥-(2♦)
x-(p)-2♥-(p)
?
You start with a support double but what now? raise to 3♥ in what could easily be a 4-3 fit? Or pass when partner could easily have 9, sometimes 10, points? Again, you would rather have opened 1NT and described your strength once and for all.

Basically, while it is possible that a 1♣ opening would work out well often enough on this hand (after all, it is quite possible that a 3NT contract has to be played by partner to protect his minor suit honours against the lead), it is advisable always to open 1NT when you have a 15-17 balanced (or semibalanced with a minor suit being the longest). This is because:
- You won't have to explain to partner why you sometimes have a hand inconsistent with your bidding. If you play in a regular partnership, it is very important that partner feels he can trust your bidding to correspond to your actual holding.
- You won't have to go through a long thought process to figure out how likely you are to have a rebid problem if you chose an anti-system opening. Just following the system saves mental energy.
- 15-17 hands are often awkward even when unbalanced: you have to show your extras without forcing to game. Having a strong NT opening in your system is standard in order to reduce this problem (although it only solves it for balanced hands).
- If you show extras in the third round, partner will infer that you have shortness somewhere since your 1♠ rebid denies a balanced hand with extra values.
- If you play Walsh style you have an immediate rebid problem with this hand since 2NT is an overbid and 1♠ promises an unbalanced hand.

[Winstonm]

Assuming a strong NT, balanced 16 count = wtp? There are enough hard decisions in bridge so don't overthink these easy ones.

[mycroft]

Many years ago, Fred Gitelman, the creator of BBO and bridge professional, said about the weak NT that the worst part about it was when [Edit: you open 1m and] fourth hand interferes; it's impossible to deal with "balanced 15-19, as well as all the unbalanced hands" in that auction. The benefit of the strong NT here is that it's easy to deal if you're resolving "balanced 12-14 or 18-19"; you pass with the former and bid (hopefully NT) with the latter.

If players don't open a 15-17 1NT with "balanced 15-17" because of whatever, they're stuck with the same unsolvable problem as the weak NTers - worse, really, because their range is "balanced 12-19".

So I'm glad it was Helene's second example!

[pigpenz]

1 nt shows your hand,you still have a partner that can deliver to your contract or aid in your defense
just throwing this hand into a simulator with 1000 hands and other three hands with no contraints, 1NT is 70% to make

[Douglas43]

Agree with all the comments about this is 1NT.

The situation described by Mycroft is not actually such a big problem playing weak NT. In a sequence like 1C - 1H- (2D) X, the double typically shows a strong NT. It does mean though that you can't play support doubles, so you may need to raise hearts with three card support.

There is always a trade-off in any method. I think the biggest downside of weak NT at pairs is the hands where you miss a 4-4 spade fit and make 90 as opposed to 110. But at pairs it gains enough on other hands to be worthwhile. I play it at teams too, but with less conviction.