[jillybean]

Playing 'standard' 1nt 15-17 what do these bids mean.

1. (1x) 1nt (15-18?)

2. (1x) X (P) 1y
(P) 1nt (19-21 / 18-20?)

3. 4th seat 1nt (15-18?)

4. 4th seat balancing (11-14?)

[Mr. Dodgy]

1. 15-18
2. 19-21
3. 15-17
4. 11-14

[Walddk]

1. 15-18
2. 18-19
3. 15-17
4. 11-14

Roland

[jillybean]

thanks oops I had 3 and 4 transposed - fixed

[andy_h]

What Roland said. There is a case for 4) where the balance of 1M is a bit stronger than 1m, but that's up to you.

[Walddk]

andy_h, on Jul 5 2008, 07:03 AM, said:

What Roland said. There is a case for 4) where the balance of 1M is a bit stronger than 1m, but that's up to you.

Good point. After 1MA pass pass 1NT (12-16) and let double followed by 2NT be 17-18. A direct 2NT 19-21.

Roland

[jdonn]

Agree with Roland/Andy except number 2, where I play it as 19-21. I don't see much sense in overlapping with the 1NT overcall range, or any need to get higher than 1NT with 20 or 21 if partner is broke.

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Jul 5 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

Agree with Roland/Andy except number 2, where I play it as 19-21. I don't see much sense in overlapping with the 1NT overcall range, or any need to get higher than 1NT with 20 or 21 if partner is broke.

In that case 19 balanced or 20-21 unbalanced (no 2NT opening). Indeed playable.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Jul 5 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 5 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

Agree with Roland/Andy except number 2, where I play it as 19-21. I don't see much sense in overlapping with the 1NT overcall range, or any need to get higher than 1NT with 20 or 21 if partner is broke.

In that case 19 balanced or 20-21 unbalanced (no 2NT opening). Indeed playable.

Roland

You misread the auction (doubler bids 1N, not opener), and I suppose you actually fully agree with jdonn (X, then bid 1N as 19-21 balanced).

[ochinko]

Even though I play standard strong NT (15-17) I would very much like it to be 12-14 in 4th seat after 3 passes because of it preemptive value. This is the safest position for a weak NT, so one shouldn't bother to vary it with the vulnerabilities or the scoring form.

For the balancing NT Mike Lawrence suggests that balancing with NT over 1M should be stronger than the one over 1m, so I would say 12-15 and 11-14. You are also not required to have a stopper in the opening suit.

[awm]

I have a partner who likes P-P-P-1NT to be 11-14 also. There are several reasons I don't recommend this:

(1) After three passes, you are actually more likely to hold a 15-17 notrump than an 11-14. This is because your opponents passes limit their hands. The difference in frequency is slight if opponents play sound third seat openings but quite substantial if opponents open third seat on garbage as many modern players do.

(2) While opening an 11-14 notrump does preempt the opponents somewhat, it also preempts your side. It can be hard to find your 4-4 major suit fits and 5-4 minor suit fits when you don't have game for example. Given that three opponents passed, whose hand do you think it is? Which side should be able to go plus if they can find their proper partial?

(3) In general I don't think it's good to radically alter your methods in some unusual situation. If you usually play strong notrump, how good is your judgement opposite 11-14? How likely are you to forget it's 11-14? It seems like you're penalizing yourself by playing different methods in an unusual sequence, so they need to be substantially better to be worthwhile, not just a little better.

Anyway I agree with the Mr. Dodgy interpretation, although I like the balancing 1NT to be a bit stronger over 1M opening.