Mountnessing Bridge Club

Board 13: Opening 1NT with a 5-card major

Hand played on	4th October 2007
Board number 13	Red Section
Dealer	North
Vulnerability	Both
Submitted by	Alaric Cundy

North

♠ 93

♥ T64

♦ 543

♣ JT982

West

♠ KJ7642

♥ AJ9

♦ T9

♣ 65

East

♠ 85

♥ KQ872

♦ QJ8

♣ AQ3

North

Bidding:

East

South

West

South

♠ AQT

♥ 53

♦ AK762

♣ K74

3♣

End

1NT

3NT

2♠

We played this hand on the Arrow Switch, so I held the East hand. Our style allows us to open 1NT with a 12-14 HCP hand that includes a 5-card major in some circumstances. The hand must be otherwise balanced and the major suit will be of poor quality. We do not have a hard and fast definition of 'poor quality', but it comes down to a judgement as to whether or not the suit is re-biddable. Picture partner with a weak hand that includes a small doubleton - or even worse, a singleton - opposite your 5-card major, and do you want to contemplate playing the hand in 2♥ after a more usual 1♥ opening? Well this particular hand was, in my book, right on the 'cusp' of a choice between 1♥ and 1NT, but in the event I chose 1NT. Our style also includes two opportunities for me to show the 5-card suit if 1NT gets doubled, depending on partner's reaction. However, if partner takes out into a 5-card plus suit of his own, those opportunities evaporate.

2♠ from partner promises a 5-card plus suit and is to play. With 9 HCPs partner could choose to pass the 1NT, but instead he decided to 'play safe' by taking the contract out. There was a risk that South could have held a long solid minor and have rattled off the first 7 tricks. South's double of 2♠ was not alerted, so technically under the current rules it should have been for take-out. In any event, North 'bottled out' and took out into 3♣. If North's club suit had been better quality there could have been reasonable plays for 3NT by South, but West doubled, and then found the killing lead of Ace followed by the Jack of hearts, rather than leading round into the obvious strength in spades. After taking the first five tricks, I was on lead and I could lead a spade through to partner. From Declarer's perspective, the hand fell apart completely, and the contract went 5 off for a score of 1400 to East / West.

There are far too many 'what might have been different' options to consider all of them, but some of the more obvious lines are:

Partner might have passed the 1NT doubled, and now, surely, North would have rescued into 2♣. Neither East nor West are likely to have doubled, so now West will bid 2♠, and after that sequence the hand is likely to play there. One pair appear to have done that, for a score of +110, and another East / West pair subsided in 3♠ for a score of +140.
The evidence therefore is that had North passed out the 2♠ doubled, that would have come home, probably with an overtrick, giving East / West an excellent score.
South might have passed out partner's 3♣ rescue, and now both East and West might struggle to find a double. Against 3♣ - doubled or otherwise - I would have started with a spade through Dummy, and now the contract looks destined for a probable two off, which as it happens, would have given about an average score whether or not it was doubled.
Had I opened the more obvious 1♥, South would probably double, West would show the spades, and I might have ended the auction with a 2♥ re-bid. That course of events only appears to have happened at one table. In a heart contract it looks as though there are four losers, but North never gets in to make the devastating club lead through the East hand, and in practice the club losers are likely to disappear - especially if South starts off with a top diamond. Three times evidently West invited game after the 2♥ re-bid, and on each of these occasions Declarer accepted the invite and got home, for a score of +620.
Very unlikely, but had South chosen to take no action over the 1NT opening, East West would very likely have reached 4♠, but if played from the East hand courtesy of a transfer bid, it looks to me as though that contract should come home too.

No case is proved or disproved on the basis of a single hand, but clearly you shouldn't completely rule out opening 1NT on a hand that includes a 5-card major.

A Footnote from Tim Prior:

It struck me that this hand illustrates another place one could choose to play Lebensohl to distinguish between a good and bad hand after the second double. (Certainly a natural 2NT seems to be redundant and this is a reasonably popular method on the tournament scene)

E.g. a direct 3♣ shows some values and suggests 3NT if partner has good cards but 2NT is a transfer to 3♣ ("pass or correct") and shows a weak suit interested only in playing in a trump suit at the three level.