[gszes]

IMPS 15-17 NT both vul no SOTM considerations.

We are comparing 2 responder hands NOINT p opens 1NT and the main point of the discussion is how should these two hands be evaluated by responder (weak invitational or game forcing). Technique for bidding is unimportant as that is usually decided when responder determines how the hand is evaluated.

Hand 1 J6532 J8643 A4 3
Hand 2 JT953 JT952 A7 2

I think all those interested in learning about hand evaluation will enjoy reading this discussion. TY in advance for any/all comments.

[steve2005]

I would evaluate both hands as invitational. The second hand you have more safety because of the spots. However whether you make game will depend mostly on major suit fit/fits and A/K's in minors.

Hopefully you have a way to invite with 5-5 in majors (3♥ one way) or it becomes more difficult

[wank]

conventions in use does matter. for example, system permitting, it would be a perfectly sane strategy to bid stayman and jump to game if opener has a major, or to sign off with 1nt-2c-2d-2h if not.

[rmnka447]

Certainly hand # 2 is much stronger than hand # 1. Unless partner has opened a "funny" 1 NT like 2=2=5=4 or 2=2=4=5, you are assured of at least an 8 card fit.

While there may be no SOTM considerations, there certainly are some IMP scoring implications. NV bidding game versus not is about a wash. But VUL, any game that is about 35% or better to make should be bid.

With the actual hands, both hands would be worth more if the A was in one of the long suits. With the A being doubleton, it probably isn't worth more than it's point value, so I'd treat it as essentially neutral -- could be good, could be bad -- no way to know.

Both hands have two 5 card majors headed by a J. The essential difference is that in the second hand, the J is supported by intermediate cards. The first hand has no intermediates in either suit, so the Js are dangling and not worth much trick taking potential opposite whatever holding the 1 NT hand holds. That's a negative factor. The intermediates in the second hand will work to form tenaces with whatever honors the 1 NT hand might hold in the suits, so they are positive factors.

With hand #1, I'd treat as a 6 HCP minus hand and simply seek to play at the 2 level in one of the majors. If playing Garbage Stayman, I would bid 2 ♣ and pass opener's major suit response. After 1 NT - 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ - ?, I'd bid 2 ♥ which is not forward going. Opener must bid 2 ♠ if holding 2 ♥s or pass with 3 ♥s. If not playing Garbage Stayman, I'd simply pick a major, transfer to it, and pass.

With hand #2, I'd treat it a 6 HCP plus hand. Because of the premium for bidding and making VUL games at IMPs, I'd treat it as an invitational hand and transfer into ♥ and then bid 2 ♠ -- showing at least 4-5 in the majors and inviting game. As indicated before, NV at IMPs, game ought to be about 50/50 to be bid, so pushing with this hand is less clear. Nonetheless, I'd probably still treat the hand as invitational and try for game. It would seem easier to justify pushing with a marginal hand and going down than trying to explain not bidding the game when it makes.

[nige1]

gszes, on 2015-July-16, 17:07, said:

IMPS 15-17 NT both vul no SOTM considerations. We are comparing 2 responder hands NOINT p opens 1NT and the main point of the discussion is how should these two hands be evaluated by responder (weak invitational or game forcing). Technique for bidding is unimportant as that is usually decided when responder determines how the hand is evaluated.
Hand 1 J6532 J8643 A4 3
Hand 2 JT953 JT952 A7 2
I think all those interested in learning about hand evaluation will enjoy reading this discussion. TY in advance for any/all comments.

Please would somebody do a simulation with double-dummy analysis. My guess is that the hand with better intermediates will perform much the same as the hand with worse intermediates because the notrump opener will perforce have compensating worse/better intermediates.

[Vampyr]

gszes, on 2015-July-16, 17:07, said:

IMPS 15-17 NT both vul no SOTM considerations.

SOTM? All I can think of if "state of the match" but that clearly doesn't apply here.

[Mbodell]

nige1, on 2015-July-16, 18:40, said:

Please would somebody do a simulation with double-dummy analysis. My guess is that the hand with better intermediates will perform much the same as the hand with worse intermediates because the notrump opener will perforce have compensating worse/better intermediates.

I think it will be close, but not quite the same. I'd certainly rather have hand 1 than the suits and spots of hand 2, but with the 55 in the minors (so the spots are less important to me than the 55 being the majors).

For a simulation, what contract are you evaluating? 1nt? 4M if there is a 4 card 1nt and 3nt if not (stayman then 3nt if no fit)? 4M if there is a fit and 2nt (opposite min) or 3nt (opposite max) if no fit? 4M or 3M or 3nt depending on a bid like 3♥ over 1nt showing 55 major invite?

And what hands by opponents do you want to rule out?

[gszes]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-16, 22:22, said:

SOTM? All I can think of if "state of the match" but that clearly doesn't apply here.

That is correct and SOTM is always a consideration late in any session - that is why I wanted to eliminate that bias.

[gszes]

Mbodell, on 2015-July-17, 01:03, said:

I think it will be close, but not quite the same. I'd certainly rather have hand 1 than the suits and spots of hand 2, but with the 55 in the minors (so the spots are less important to me than the 55 being the majors).

For a simulation, what contract are you evaluating? 1nt? 4M if there is a 4 card 1nt and 3nt if not (stayman then 3nt if no fit)? 4M if there is a fit and 2nt (opposite min) or 3nt (opposite max) if no fit? 4M or 3M or 3nt depending on a bid like 3♥ over 1nt showing 55 major invite?

And what hands by opponents do you want to rule out?

You misread the question. Both hands are responder after p opens a 15-17 1n and have identical 5521 distribution take it from there.