[the hog]

Agree with Nuno that there are 9 counts and 9 counts and this isn't a 9 count. I find it farcical that some downgrade 15 counts and yet say that you can't downgrade a 9 count because you have already thrown safety considerations out the door.

Csaba, sorry but to say not opening this is poor dsiclosure is a silly comment.

By the way Nuno, I would open AKQxx of D with 1NT and be happy about it. I don't see JT's point at all.

[Cascade]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 26 2008, 07:35 AM, said:

If I'm playing 9-11 mini, then this is a 9-11 mini. It's the right vulnerability, and the right position. The whole point of the method is to open a mini as often as you possibly can.

Completely agree.

That is why we have a four-point range for our mini - although we are a much more conservative 10-13.

I don't see the point in playing this method and passing when the vulnerability is right!!!

[the hog]

Cascade, on Mar 26 2008, 07:55 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 26 2008, 07:35 AM, said:

If I'm playing 9-11 mini, then this is a 9-11 mini. It's the right vulnerability, and the right position.  The whole point of the method is to open a mini as often as you possibly can.

Completely agree.

That is why we have a four-point range for our mini - although we are a much more conservative 10-13.

I don't see the point in playing this method and passing when the vulnerability is right!!!

So Wayne, playing a 15-17 NT you NEVER downgrade? The logic is exactly the same.

[effervesce]

It's fav vul. Why not? 1NT opener for me!

[whereagles]

Well, for practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether you open 1NT or not. If you do, LHO has a strong NT and will double, after which pard will show his 5 card spade suit and all is well. I was just curious to see whether people would downgrade and pass this hand.

Must say I was surprised to see most would open anyway. Thx all. For the record, I would pass most of the time

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Mar 25 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

So Wayne, playing a 15-17 NT you NEVER downgrade? The logic is exactly the same.

No it's not. This range has been chosen for frequency and for preemption, 15-17 is chosen for constructive bidding.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Mar 26 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 25 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

So Wayne, playing a 15-17 NT you NEVER downgrade? The logic is exactly the same.

No it's not. This range has been chosen for frequency and for preemption, 15-17 is chosen for constructive bidding.

Actually, we chose it because it fits into the other openings very well.

[Apollo81]

As others have pointed out, the whole point of this range is to preempt the opponents, not constructively reach game. In fact id say theres no point to playing a 3 point range for a purely preemptive NT opening, might as well play 8-11. I dont think this argument extends to other ranges (even 10-12 vs 10-13) because a lot of those will be "constructive" hands whereas a lot fewer of the 8-11s will be our hand.

If I were to play 8-11 fav I would open any balanced 8 count and would upgrade some 11s (field openers) into 1-suit.

[cherdano]

han, on Mar 25 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

cherdano, on Mar 25 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

I would open, but then again I wouldn't agree to play a min-NT.

Why not? Do you think it is that bad NV against V?

I would feel good opening this hand 1N actually. But I haven't yet seen a system with a 9-11 NT that I would like to play.

[whereagles]

Apollo81, on Mar 26 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

As others have pointed out, the whole point of this range is to preempt the opponents, not constructively reach game.

Absolutely disagree. A 9-11 1NT is an extremely CONSTRUCTIVE opening. It describes your hand to a very high degree of accuracy, after which pard knows exactly where to go, and has the tools to go there. The only non-constructive thing about it is the loss of major suit 44 fits when responder is in the 9-13 region. But any NT range has the same problem (albeit, admittedly less frequently).

I won't hide that preemption is also a part of it, but it's completely wrong to say it's ONLY preemptive. If it were so, I'd widen the range into the classic preempt range of, say 7-11, and dump with all sorts of balanced and semibalanced shapes into it. (I'm allowed to open balanced 7 counts here, by the way.) We should not confuse "risky" (which it is) with "destructive" (which it is NOT).

[helene_t]

Apollo81, on Mar 26 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

the whole point of this range is to preempt the opponents, not constructively reach game. In fact id say theres no point to playing a 3 point range for a purely preemptive NT opening, might as well play 8-11.

Fair enough, but the premise of this poll was 9-11, not 8-11. I suppose those who open this hand would upgrade many 8-counts and downgrade few if any 9-counts, so the disclosure should in that case have been (8)9-11 or some such.

Btw there may be a HUM problem with upgrading too many 7-counts to 1NT.

[ArtK78]

I find this thread to be bordering on silly.

If you agree to open a 9-11 HCP 1NT and you hold a balanced 9 count with scattered (some would say widely scattered) values, then you open 1NT.

Now, if you agree to open a GOOD 9 - 11 HCP 1NT, then you might not open this one due to the lack of spot cards. But that was not what was presented.

I routinely play 10-12 1NT openings Nonvul, and I open any balanced or semi-balanced hand with 10 HCP 1NT (except if I have a 5 card major, and then I use my judgment whether to open 1NT or one of the major). Once you start to refuse to open what your agreements state is an opening hand you will have serious problems. (I have a different problem - my partner likes to "upgrade" 9 counts to a 1NT opening - lol)

[Apollo81]

whereagles, on Mar 26 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

If it were so, I'd widen the range into the classic preempt range of, say 7-11, and dump with all sorts of balanced and semibalanced shapes into it. (I'm allowed to open balanced 7 counts here, by the way.) We should not confuse "risky" (which it is) with "destructive" (which it is NOT).

I bet this would be more effective at fav than 9-11

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Mar 26 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

I won't hide that preemption is also a part of it, but it's completely wrong to say it's ONLY preemptive. If it were so, I'd widen the range into the classic preempt range of, say 7-11, and dump with all sorts of balanced and semibalanced shapes into it. (I'm allowed to open balanced 7 counts here, by the way.) We should not confuse "risky" (which it is) with "destructive" (which it is NOT).

No one said destructive, and no one said "only" preemptive (I think). You are confusing "constructive" with "descriptive". How can you call an opening on which it is more likely to be their hand than yours constructive? (expected strength of the sides is equal, but since you are balanced they are more likely to have shape so it's more likely their hand). The way you describe it you could easily be talking about a 3 level opening (descriptive, partner can easily place the contract, etc.)

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Mar 26 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

1. no one said "only" preemptive (I think).

2. How can you call an opening on which it is more likely to be their hand than yours constructive? (expected strength of the sides is equal,

3. but since you are balanced they are more likely to have shape so it's more likely their hand).

4. The way you describe it you could easily be talking about a 3 level opening (descriptive, partner can easily place the contract, etc.)

1. Think again.

2. I dispute that claim. As you said, expectancy is the same for both sides and the follow-ups played are such that you'll get to
- a good partscore anytime responder has 5D/H/S or a more extreme shape
- a decent-to-good partscore anytime responder has 9-13 hcp and no 5 card
- the best game/slam if he responder is strong
- the best available partscore if opps are strong and double us

Now tell me: how is that not constructive?

3. ????????????? I had never heard such thing.

4. So what? You can place some very simple requirements on 3 level openers that turn them constructive. CC Wei's original precision 3 level openers were like that: a 3m opener was made on a 7 carder with 2 top honors and a side entry.

[hrothgar]

Apollo81, on Mar 26 2008, 07:34 PM, said:

As others have pointed out, the whole point of this range is to preempt the opponents, not constructively reach game. In fact id say theres no point to playing a 3 point range for a purely preemptive NT opening, might as well play 8-11. I dont think this argument extends to other ranges (even 10-12 vs 10-13) because a lot of those will be "constructive" hands whereas a lot fewer of the 8-11s will be our hand.

I still have some very real issues with this line of reasoning: I think that you're asking for trouble if the vocabulary that you use in your disclosure system varies significantly depending on the strength of your hand.

At the end of the day, that's what most of you seem to be arguing in favor of:

The expression "HCPs" means X if you're playing a 15-17 HCP NT and you hold a balanced 15 count.

"HCPs" means Y if you're playing a 9-11 HCP NT and you hold a balanced 9 count.

I think that its a lot more reasonable that the yardstick - in this case the meaning of "HCPs" - remains fixed regardless of what you happen to be measuring.

If you want to play a structure in which ALL 9 counts are opened with a micro NT, you're probably better off saying that you play an 8+ to 11 HCP 1NT opening... (Given that you want to open 1NT as often as posisble, you're probably upgrading the good 8 counts)

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Mar 26 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

1. Think again.

2. I dispute that claim. As you said, expectancy is the same for both sides and the follow-ups played are such that you'll get to
- a good partscore anytime responder has 5D/H/S or a more extreme shape
- a decent-to-good partscore anytime responder has 9-13 hcp and no 5 card
- the best game/slam if he responder is strong
- the best available partscore if opps are strong and double us

Now tell me: how is that not constructive?

3. ????????????? I had never heard such thing.

4. So what? You can place some very simple requirements on 3 level openers that turn them constructive. CC Wei's original precision 3 level openers were like that: a 3m opener was made on a 7 carder with 2 top honors and a side entry.

1. I didn't say it but ok someone else did. I agree preemptive is not the 'only' value.

3. No need for so many question marks just because you have not heard of something plainly obvious. Which of these combinations is more likely to have more shape: Two completely unknown hands, or one completely unknown hand and one balanced hand? Come on, you can figure it out if you try hard

By the way you REALLY should not break up someones post like that if you are quoting it directly and then pass it off as a direct quote, please don't do it to mine anyway. Direct quotes should be exactly as written or else you are crossing a line you do not want to cross.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Mar 26 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 26 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

1. no one said "only" preemptive (I think).

2. How can you call an opening on which it is more likely to be their hand than yours constructive? (expected strength of the sides is equal,

3. but since you are balanced they are more likely to have shape so it's more likely their hand).

4. The way you describe it you could easily be talking about a 3 level opening (descriptive, partner can easily place the contract, etc.)

3. ????????????? I had never heard such thing.

Josh's statement can be read one of two ways

1. The fact that we hold a balanced hand makes it more likely that they hold an unbalanced hand (I believe that the converse is true)

2. We are known to hold a balanced hand. they may or may not hold a balanced hand. Therefore, they are more likely to have shape than we are

I suspect that Josh meant option 2, while you are assuming that he meant 1...

[Apollo81]

When you PREEMPT your bid does not have PURELY preemptive value either. Lets not get into a ridiculous semantics argument.

When you open a 15-17 NT youre thinking "I hope this gets us to the best contract" When you open 1NT with 7-11 or 8-11 or 9-11 or 10-12 at fav, you are not thinking, "I hope this will get us to a good game" You're thinking "I hope this F's the opps!" Anyone who thinks or states otherwise is wrong. End of discussion.

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Mar 26 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

I suspect that Josh meant option 2, while you are assuming that he meant 1...

yes