[P_Marlowe]

Fluffy, on Jan 11 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

if you have to pick between 12-15 and 16-18 or 12-14 and 15-18, I think that the latter is better, the higher the strenght, the less  uniform it will be distributed, so in 15-18 you can assume if you are in doubt that he has 15-16 and guess more times.

But I see nor problem into introducing some judgement and playing 12-14 and 16-18,  forcing you to upgrade or downgrade with 15.

We are currently playing

1NT - 12-14
1NT rebid 15-18
2NT rebid 19
2NT - 20-21

And we want to get rid of the 2NT rebid, to play a 2NT rebid as forcing,
this should make you happy.

My partner suggested

1NT - 12-15
1NT rebid 16-19
2NT - 20-21

But I am currently feeling a bit uneasy playing 12-15.
I will have a look at Kerry, to see, what it looks like.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Introduction of judgement is fine, and we already have plenty of
opportunities to use judgement, so on some bords I need some rest.

[gwnn]

I really think Uwe that using a 1 point range is worse than 4 point ranges maybe you should have asked us about that part of your system

[Fluffy]

I solve it by playing the 2NT rebid forcing, even with 19, you play some bad games, but very few.

I find this pretty awful, but you can always try 2NT opening 18-19 and 2NT rebid 20-21.

I have tried 4 point ranges, but they were focused on getting rid of the 2NT opening, not the 2NT rebid.

[OleBerg]

I find the four point range 9-12 interesting and funny. Probably wouldn't play it in a serious partnership. Wouldn't like it anywhere else. (Isn't 9-12 illegal in ACBL-land?)

[gwnn]

not if you play 100% natural responses

[OleBerg]

For those that wants to free the 2NT rebid:

Play T-Walsh:

1♣ - 1♦/1♥

1♥/♠ = 15-19 bal.

You can then use 1NT for what you usually use 1♥/♠ for, and have freed 2NT withouth cramming your intervals.

Or maybe play it 15-20, and then also free your 2NT opener. (Or take the "weak" ie. less than 24 points NT's, out of your 2♣.)

You might want to systematically reply to 1♣ on 5 points, but don't we all anyway?

[P_Marlowe]

OleBerg, on Jan 11 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

For those that wants to free the 2NT rebid:

Play T-Walsh:

1♣ - 1♦/1♥

1♥/♠ = 15-19 bal.

You can then use 1NT for what you usually use 1♥/♠ for, and have freed 2NT withouth cramming your intervals.

Or maybe play it 15-20, and then also free your 2NT opener. (Or take the "weak" ie. less than 24 points NT's, out of your 2♣.)

You might want to systematically reply to 1♣ on 5 points, but don't we all anyway?

I dont understand the comment regarding taking out the "weak" NT, can
you elaborate a little bit, I will have a look at T-Walsh.

We are currently plaiyng Benjamin, i.e. a NT with 22-23 goes via 2C,
all NT with +24 go 2D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[fromageGB]

1eyedjack, on Jan 10 2010, 08:40 PM, said:

awm, on Jan 10 2010, 08:34 PM, said:

It seems curious to me that a lot of the arguments against a four-point range also seem to imply that a two-point range would be better than a three-point range. Yet no one seems to be trying a two-point range and it got bad reviews from the forums too when it was brought up in a thread at some point.

There are just too many point-possibilities to fit into too few bids to justify the luxury of a 2 point range, perhaps? If you have a 2 point range somewhere then that would require a 4 or 5 point range somewhere else.

I don't agree with you here, as I think the 2 point range is optimum. I play 15-16 in 2 partnerships. The 2 point range makes it very easy to handle as responder, and we have even agreed that Stayman is now not invitational, so it can be played with any hand with a 4 card major that is happy to end in 2NT (to play) if there is no fit. This allows you to find your major fits with hand that in 15-17 you have to pass, as with a 3 point range you just have to have an invitational bid.

With 2 points it is much safer to adopt the policy of deciding "weak or game" with no in-between. This rectifies one of the downsides of the strong NT, as weak notrumpers will be finding their 2M contracts where the strong notrumpers play in 1NT, as responder is not strong enough to invite game.

The opening of balanced hands with 12-14 is very well managed with 1C and transfer walsh. Bids following the transfer walsh depend on your methods, but assuming you have only a doubleton in partner's bid major you can (if completion guaranteed 3 and is forcing) rebid 1NT to show 12-14 and 2NT with 17/18. With 19 you can bid 3NT if you don't want to handle it in a more convoluted way.

So the ranges here are 12-14 (3 points), 15-16 (2 points), 17-18 (2 points) 19 (1 point). All very manageable. We don't open with a balanced 11.

(You cant rebid 3NT without transfer Walsh, as then responder is stuck if he has 5 of his major.)

Singleton majors are not possible, incidentallly, as we play 1D open as diamonds or a shortage, so there is no danger - responder knows you have 2 of his major.

Of course if the completion of the transfer walsh in your methods is not forcing, the 1NT rebid is 17-18, and 19 goes (with other things) into the 2NT rebid.

So I am a strong supporter of the 2 point range to open 1NT.

Another benefit is that it throws the 17 point hands into the transfer walsh scenario, which is better.

[Fluffy]

I love those transfer walsh suggestions that never have partner answering 1♠ nor 1NT

[rbforster]

I don't see how anyone can fairly assess the value of a 4 point range without thinking about the rest of the system. Holding the rest of the system constant, opening 1N with a 3 point range should get better results, when this 1N comes up, than one with a 4 point range. This logic would suggest a 1 point range would be optimal! (Prior Discussion of 2 point ranges)

Instead of covering 12-17 with strong NT (15-17) and 1m...1N (12-14), suppose you just play a 13-16 NT (upgrade the 17's to 1m...2N, pass the 12's). Now your 1m openings promise either a real suit (4+ instead of 3+), unless they have 17-19 balanced. This will certainly improve competitive auctions after your 1m openers.

I guess my point is that while a wider range is worse, all else being equal, all else isn't ever equal. Those espousing 4 point ranges should be hoping to get offsetting gains from other improvements to their system, not from widening a 3 point range to a 4 point one and hoping it "doesn't matter".

[rbforster]

I have played a 12-15 range in a strong club context, and it seemed to work ok playing strong NT systems (we did sometimes pass the worst 12's tho). Our "normal" system would have used 10-12/13-15 as the ranges for 1N and 1m...1N, but we found that opening balanced 10-12's Vul (and announcing this fact by the rebid) seemed too risky so we switched to just 12-15 NT when Vul. In a precision context, this also meant our 1♦ opener went from being 2+ to 4+, which was a considerable gain for competition when that came up.

[OleBerg]

P_Marlowe, on Jan 11 2010, 07:39 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Jan 11 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

For those that wants to free the 2NT rebid:

Play T-Walsh:

1♣ - 1♦/1♥

1♥/♠ = 15-19 bal.

You can then use 1NT for what you usually use 1♥/♠ for, and have freed 2NT withouth cramming your intervals.

Or maybe play it 15-20, and then also free your 2NT opener. (Or take the "weak" ie. less than 24 points NT's, out of your 2♣.)

You might want to systematically reply to 1♣ on 5 points, but don't we all anyway?

I dont understand the comment regarding taking out the "weak" NT, can
you elaborate a little bit, I will have a look at T-Walsh.

We are currently plaiyng Benjamin, i.e. a NT with 22-23 goes via 2C,
all NT with +24 go 2D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Surely:

1♣ contains 15-20 bal.
2NT contains 21-23 bal.
2♣ contains 24+ bal.

These last ones are so infrequent, that you might want to use the 3nt rebid for them. Thus the 2NT rebid is freed for other purposes.

I am considering something like:

2♣ - 2♦

2NT = Clubs single-suiter, or 5+ diamonds and another suit.
3♣ = 5+ Clubs and another suit.
3♦ = Diamond single-suiter.

I am far from certain this is worth it, but it is a possibilety.

[lowerline]

Rob F, on Jan 11 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

I have played a 12-15 range in a strong club context, and it seemed to work ok playing strong NT systems (we did sometimes pass the worst 12's tho). Our "normal" system would have used 10-12/13-15 as the ranges for 1N and 1m...1N, but we found that opening balanced 10-12's Vul (and announcing this fact by the rebid) seemed too risky so we switched to just 12-15 NT when Vul. In a precision context, this also meant our 1♦ opener went from being 2+ to 4+, which was a considerable gain for competition when that came up.

I play 12+-15 in 1st and 2nd hand. Responder bids as if it were 13-15 (invites with 10-11; forces to game with any 12).

This is also in a Precision system. I do believe that the 1♦ opening showing 4+ gains more than what you loose with a narrower NT range.

Steven

[P_Marlowe]

To those, who played a 12-15 NT opening:

Did you use a standard agreement set (Stayman, Transfer, Smolen, Texas),
or did you go more scientific (Kerry, ...)?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[lilboyman]

Eric Rodwell discusses weak NTs pros and cons at this url:

http://www.bridgemat...com/rodwell.htm

[WrecksVee]

For several years microcap and I (AKA Jay and Rex's Misadventures) have played a five point range 1NT, 12-16. We open 1NT with virtually all balanced hands including those with a five card major. We use Ron Klinger's Keri structure from his book "Bid better, much better over 1NT".

We refer to the "system" as Mostly Unbalanced since our one of a suit bids are balanced or semi-balanced hands unless holding 17-20 HCP. We use 17-18 and 19-20 as the NT rebid ranges with the 2NT jump rebid intended as forcing. This added definition is a gain to us. The 1NT has inherrent inaccuracy but IMO preempts the opponents more than it impedes us.

My rule is to pass with <=9 HCP and invite with 10+ HCP. You win some, you lose some. Keri is some help as we can make an invitational bid in 2♥ or 2♠ and play there if rejected when there is a fit or play 2NT.

We are comfortable playing this. But that could just be that a bad agreement is better than no agreement

[rbforster]

P_Marlowe, on Jan 12 2010, 04:33 AM, said:

To those, who played a 12-15 NT opening:

Did you use a standard agreement set (Stayman, Transfer, Smolen, Texas),
or did you go more scientific (Kerry, ...)?

We use standard "strong" NT systems over our 12+-15 range. Being somewhat of systems guys, this included a few custom tweaks, but the vast majority would be recognized by any expert - transfers, smolen, texas, walsh relay, etc. I think this was our initial set of responses:

2C stayman (with 2M over 2D as garbage, and 3M as GF Smolen)
2D transfer (including Walsh relay hands for 1-suited minor slam tries)
2H transfer
2S minor(s) weak, or both minors strong (asks for preference 2N=D, 3C=C)
2N nat invite
3m good suit invite
3H 5/5 majors inv
3S 5/5 majors GF
3N a fine choice
4C Gerber
4DH Texas
higher NT natural/invitational

[FrancesHinden]

I have played various wide range openings/rebids.

I play a 10-13 1NT 1st NV only, with a 14-17 1NT rebid.
I also play 1H - 1S - 1NT as 11-16 or 12-17

My empirical experience is that the wide range rebid works much better than the wide range opening (we stick with the opening because of its pre-emptive value). As others have said, the wide range rebid works better because
- you don't have to guess whether to invite over 1NT on the off-chance you have a good major suit fit, because you have usually found out already
- The opponents are less likely to give you a guess because they've already passed at least once each

Even the very wide-range 1NT rebid after 1H - 1S seems to work perfectly well, because on the majority of hands responder has either 2 hearts or 5 spades and playing 2M is just as good a spot as 1NT when opener is minimum. (The dreadul hand type is a 4=1=(44 or 53) 10-count where you have to play a dodgy 2NT contract. We think the downsides of this outweigh the benefits from the rest of the system.)