[blackshoe]

The reason for two point ranges over 2NT is that there isn't any room to explore for the best game. That's less of a problem over 1NT, so I'm not so sure that two point ranges are really necessary there.

In Romex, 1x-1y-1NT is 12-16, and 1x-1y-2NT is 17-18. Two way Checkback works well with the wide ranging 1NT rebid. Romex doesn't have a natural 1NT opening, 1NT is artificial and may include a balanced 19-20 (in which case you rebid 2NT, or 3NT if necessary). 21-22 is shown by opening 2♦ (artificial) and rebidding 2NT, 23-24 by opening 2♣ (artificial) and rebidding 2NT, 25-26 by opening 2NT (which is natural and forcing), or optionally by opening 2♣ and using Kokish. 27-28 is shown by opening 2♦ and jumping to 3NT (forcing to 4NT) and 29-30 by opening 2♣ and doing the same thing.

In table form:

12-16: Open 1x (usually 1m) and rebid 1NT (Rebids after 2 way Checkback will divide the range into 12-14 and 15-16).
17-18: Open 1x and rebid 2NT
19-20: Open 1NT and rebid 2NT
21-22: Open 2♦ and rebid 2NT
23-24: Open 2♣ and rebid 2NT
25-26: Open 2NT, forcing to at least 3NT. Optionally, open 2♣, and use Kokish relay (2♣-2♦-2♥ (relay)-2♠ (forced)-2NT.
27-28: Open 2♦, rebid 3NT
29-30: Open 2♣, rebid 3NT

Some Romex players use the mini-NT, in which case it's:

10-12: Open 1NT
13-16: Open 1x (usually 1m) and rebid 1NT
17-18: Open 1x and rebid 2NT
19-20: Open 2NT
21-22: Open 2♦ and rebid 2NT
23-24: Open 2♣ and rebid 2NT
25-26: Open 2♣ and use Kokish relay (2♣-2♦-2♥ (relay)-2♠ (forced)-2NT).
27-28: Open 2♦, rebid 3NT
29-30: Open 2♣, rebid 3NT

[gwnn]

 Statto, on 2012-January-10, 18:10, said:

We play a natural 1♦ and 12-15 1NT. 2♠ is a range enquiry which might be invitational in NT, weak take-out to a minor, or interested in some slam. 2NT is still free for another use. It seems perfectly playable

The problem is when you have a 10 count and the field is in game with 15 opp 10. You can say it is not a problem - maybe not for you, I played this for more than a year and this happened several times and it was always unnerving when I opened 1N on 15 or I passed 1N on 10.

[fromageGB]

 whereagles, on 2012-January-10, 10:59, said:

Ok. You probably have to lower the 2NT opening to 19-20, though. No biggie.

 mycroft, on 2012-January-10, 11:15, said:

so, 15-16 means that you now have 17-22 (say) to work out. In "standard", the ranges are 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20-21, 22-whatever. I don't know if one wins by pulling the 2-point range to the more common 15-16 rather than 18-19; I do know that with a balanced 17 playing Precision I always feel a little uncomfortable about the anti-field nature of the continuations; I'm sure that somewhere in your NT ladder there's one of those.

Of course, the other disadvantage of opening 1♣ is that their 1-level overcall is more descriptive and safer than their 2-level overcalls after 1NT. I get that *a lot* (obviously) playing 12-14 NT; but the 17s are going to be a problem for you as well.

The ranges are not a problem with a 15/16 1NT open if you play transfer walsh as I do, with rebids that show a balanced hand with different bids for 12-14, 17/18 and 19. 2NT open is 20/21, upwards via 2♣ as normal.

After a club open, and partner "transfers" to show a major, we complete the transfer at the 1 level with 2 or 3 cards in that major and 12-14, break transfer and rebid 1NT with 17/18 and rebid 2NT with 19. So when there is no 4-4 major fit for immediate support the strengths are shown. And of course, when responder has longer majors, there are transfers over the NT, and other things. When partner has no major we play a reply of 1♠ as a transfer to 1NT, with balanced hands as well as other options, and opener rebids 1NT with 12-14, 2NT with 17/18, and an artificial relay of 2♥ to 2♠ to 2NT with 19. So again the 17/18 is distinguished from 19.

19 is not enough to open 2NT in my view, as it destroys investigative bidding, as well as being bad when partner passes, so 2NT should only be used when you could miss game if partner passes your opening 1 bid. If you open 1♣ with 19 and partner passes, you have not missed game.

On the question of weak NT vs strong NT, with either you open a minor when not in range. While so opening a minor playing a weak NT may be overcalled less often than so opening a minor playing strong NT, we play "system on" (X="I would have bid that", ie a transfer) so opener stll has the ability to show the strength ranges. However, even if you take that as a downside, I think a far bigger downside is that the weaker the 1NT the bigger the devastation it causes to your own bidding. At least with 15-17, responder is going to find major fits with 8+, and he rates to have 8+ half the time. WIth 12-14 responder rates to have 9 points, and he needs 11+ to find the major fits. Therefore considerably more than half the time he has to pass and you fail to find the majors. Give me a strong NT over a weak NT any day.

[Zelandakh]

 fromageGB, on 2012-January-11, 04:34, said:

The ranges are not a problem with a 15/16 1NT open if you play transfer walsh as I do, with rebids that show a balanced hand with different bids for 12-14, 17/18 and 19. 2NT open is 20/21, upwards via 2♣ as normal.

It sounds like you use up your 3NT rebid for 19hcp hands. This tends to be a real slam killer opposite a good hand. A few years ago most of the England team was playing this in the BB and they missed so many slams on this sequence it was unbelievable.

 fromageGB, on 2012-January-11, 04:34, said:

On the question of weak NT vs strong NT, with either you open a minor when not in range. While so opening a minor playing a weak NT may be overcalled less often than so opening a minor playing strong NT, we play "system on" (X="I would have bid that", ie a transfer) so opener stll has the ability to show the strength ranges. However, even if you take that as a downside, I think a far bigger downside is that the weaker the 1NT the bigger the devastation it causes to your ownopponents's bidding. At least with 15-17, responder is opponents are going to find major fits with 8+, and they rates to have 8+ half the time. WIth 12-14 responderopponents rates to have 9 points, and they needs 11+ extra shape to find the major fits. Therefore considerably more than half the time he has they often have to pass and you they fail to find the majors. Give me a strongweak NT over a weak NT any day.

FYP. A weak NT hides the fits for both sides. It usually leads to an auction where the opening side is better placed to contest the part score. Where a weak NT hurts our bidding more is having to accomodate the stronger hands after a 1X opening and an overcall. Playing a strong NT you can just pass the balanced minimum hands. You can mitigate this somewhat by lumping all the stronger balanced hands into 1C (ie unbalanced diamond) but you can never make this go away completely. Weak NTers usually either believe the part-score wins when they open 1NT compensate for the downsides in other auctions or the system has other compensating factors. For example, in 4 card major systems such as Acol you gain the additional benefit of being able to raise more aggressively playing a weak NT than a strong NT.

Your mileage may vary of course but I do not believe anyone can categorically say that a weak NT is worse (or better) than a strong NT in a generic one size fits all way.

[fromageGB]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-January-11, 06:42, said:

It sounds like you use up your 3NT rebid for 19hcp hands. This tends to be a real slam killer opposite a good hand. A few years ago most of the England team was playing this in the BB and they missed so many slams on this sequence it was unbelievable.

You appear to have not read my post - a 2NT rebid shows a 19 count. I agree you should not have a bid higher than this, because you need to find majors even if you are not slamming.

 Zelandakh, on 2012-January-11, 06:42, said:

FYP. A weak NT hides the fits for both sides. It usually leads to an auction where the opening side is better placed to contest the part score. Where a weak NT hurts our bidding more is having to accomodate the stronger hands after a 1X opening and an overcall. Playing a strong NT you can just pass the balanced minimum hands. You can mitigate this somewhat by lumping all the stronger balanced hands into 1C (ie unbalanced diamond) but you can never make this go away completely. Weak NTers usually either believe the part-score wins when they open 1NT compensate for the downsides in other auctions or the system has other compensating factors. For example, in 4 card major systems such as Acol you gain the additional benefit of being able to raise more aggressively playing a weak NT than a strong NT.

Your mileage may vary of course but I do not believe anyone can categorically say that a weak NT is worse (or better) than a strong NT in a generic one size fits all way.

Weak notrumpers of course believe in it (those that have thought about it, not the majority that were just taught that way so do it by inertia), but I fail to understand the argument of preempting to hide the fits for both sides. The argument seems to be that as I have more than my average share of the points, the expectation is that it will be our hand rather than theirs. So therefore prempt. Why ? You are preempting yourselves more than the opponents. I agree the self-preemptive effect is still bad for the strong NT, but an important point is that you have a strong NT less frequently than a weak NT, so playing a strong NT you are self-destructing less often. And when you play a 15/16 NT, it is marginally less often than than 15-17.

I will oppose your argument that a weak NTer wins the part-score battle by giving a counterargument that by playing transfer walsh (and an unbalanced diamond) you are in a better position to get to the right contract, even after oposition bidding.

[hrothgar]

 fromageGB, on 2012-January-11, 12:23, said:

I will oppose your argument that a weak NTer wins the part-score battle by giving a counterargument that by playing transfer walsh (and an unbalanced diamond) you are in a better position to get to the right contract, even after oposition bidding.

Please define the "right" contract.

In my book, the right contract is the one that scores best at the table, not some ivory tower notion of par...
I've seen plenty of cases where a quick bash to a subpar contract leads to great results

[straube]

 hrothgar, on 2012-January-11, 12:28, said:

Please define the "right" contract.

In my book, the right contract is the one that scores best at the table, not some ivory tower notion of par...
I've seen plenty of cases where a quick bash to a subpar contract leads to great results

I take your point, but how about giving him some credit? I interpreted "right contract" to be a contract favorable to his side.

[mycroft]

I can not believe (but am willing to be convinced) that T-Walsh is ahead of the game after 1♣-(1♥) - after 1♣-(p), sure. And 1NT, especially a weak NT, is more difficult to overcall than 1m.

I am not saying that weak NT doesn't have its minuses - oh, sure - but being behind the alternatives in the partscore battle when 1NT is opened is not one of them (unless, of course, we shouldn't be in it, because it isn't a partscore battle).

[RunemPard]

1N: 15-17 (no 5 card major)
- 2♣: 6-8 HCP (asking for major)
- 2♦: transfer
- 2♥: transfer
- 2♠: 6 card minor -> 2N waiting
- 2N: ACE ?
- 3♣: 9+ HCP (asking for major)(game force)...yes, we are gutsy...
- 3♦: STRONG (5/5 in ♣+♦)
- 3♥: STRONG (5/5 in ♥+LOWER)
- 3♠: STRONG (5/5 in ♠+LOWER)
- 3N: STOP 9-12 (no slam interest)
- Any bid of 4 shows a long suit with strength...it is an invitation to slam.

This is what me and my partner use for 1NT replies...it has worked very well for us.

[RunemPard]

multi post, sorry.

[Vampyr]

 RunemPard, on 2012-January-12, 00:54, said:

1N: 15-17 (no 5 card major)
- 2♣: 6-8 HCP (asking for major)
...
- 3♣: 9+ HCP (asking for major)(game force)...yes, we are gutsy...

This seems very strange. You are using two bids to ask for four-card majors and you still have not managed to fit in the ~3-5hcp hands. And you find your major-suit fits with GF hands at an uncomfortably high level.

[RunemPard]

3-5 HCP normally a pass...sometimes 2C w/ 5 if hoping to find a better fit than NT.

[fromageGB]

 mycroft, on 2012-January-11, 15:15, said:

I can not believe (but am willing to be convinced) that T-Walsh is ahead of the game after 1♣-(1♥) - after 1♣-(p), sure. And 1NT, especially a weak NT, is more difficult to overcall than 1m.

I am not saying that weak NT doesn't have its minuses - oh, sure - but being behind the alternatives in the partscore battle when 1NT is opened is not one of them (unless, of course, we shouldn't be in it, because it isn't a partscore battle).

I cannot believe that 1NT (2♥) puts you in a better position than 1♣ (1♥). After the latter I can show 4 or 5 or 6 spades, distinguishing between them, and in each of those categories show strength ranges as less than invitational, invitational, or GF. I can show 4 spades with a heart stop, I can bid 2♦ or 2♣ to play, or end in 3 of a minor offering a game invitation. Of course if 4th seat ups the ante in hearts you cannot be so precise, but whatever happens, I cannot see how it can be worse than the 1NT open.

Although I do agree with you that some combination of hands/people will bid 1♥ over 1♣ but not 2♥ over 1NT, I think the preemptive effect of 1NT on your partner does not justify those cases.

[raspeball]

Bumping another old thread back to life (Maybe i should change my name to Lazarus?)

Interested to know if anybody found some useful insight on this:

1: Are 3 point ranges playable without balanced invites to game? Seems like there are interesting things that could be done if you can live without it?

2: The 2.5 point range also seems interesting, but I guess then there are some compromises that makes your system worse in other parts (Less defined openings, that are more vulnerable to competition).

[nullve]

From the perspective of a hypothetical bridge player using the best hcp method possible* it would look like most bridge players play overlapping NT ranges. say

1x-1y; 1N = 11-15
1N = 14-18
etc.

or worse. So even if being able to invite 3N opposite a 5-point (or wider) range might be a good idea in this absurd-looking (but common!) system, would it also be useful in this bridge player's own system with non-overlapping ranges

1x-1y; 1N = 12-14
1N = 15-17
etc.

?

I may not use the best hcp method possible, but I'm confident that my 3-point ranges are narrower in the above sense than those of average bridge player. Inviting 3N opposite such "narrow" 3-point ranges has always felt like a waste of bidding space, so when some say they need to be able to invite 3N opposite a 3 hcp range (in their system), then I suspect that either the hcp method they are using must be bad or they just have very little experience with "pass or bash".

* with the equivalent of expert judgement e.g. about "texture" baked into it

[raspeball]

 nullve, on 2020-May-09, 02:43, said:

From the perspective of a hypothetical bridge player using the best hcp method possible* it would look like most bridge players play overlapping NT ranges. say

1x-1y; 1N = 11-15
1N = 14-18
etc.

or worse. So even if being able to invite 3N opposite a 5-point (or wider) range might be a good idea in this absurd-looking (but common!) system, would it also be useful in this bridge player's own system with non-overlapping ranges

1x-1y; 1N = 12-14
1N = 15-17
etc.

?

I may not use the best hcp method possible, but I'm confident that my 3-point ranges are narrower in the above sense than those of average bridge player. Inviting 3N opposite such "narrow" 3-point ranges has always felt like a waste of bidding space, so when some say they need to be able to invite 3N opposite a 3 hcp range (in their system), then I suspect that either the hcp method they are using must be bad or they just have very little experience with "pass or bash".

* with the equivalent of expert judgement e.g. about "texture" baked into it

I think you would gain more from removing the balanced invitational bid after opening 1nt, than say after the sequence 1♦-1♥;1nt(Since in this sequence both opener and responder have given information regarding shape already).

So in one way it makes sense to have a narrower range on the 1nt opening bid, than on the second sequence.
If you like to open all 11 hcp hands, it would then make sense to have the following structure:

1x-1y:1nt=11-13.
1nt=14-15

If you play transfers over 1♣, you could split two ranges into the 1♣ opening: 11-13 or 16-18 is possible.
But then again: Is it a good idea having a system that limits the number of 1nt openers? (Does not sound to great to me..).
But if opening 1nt on a 3 point range is ok(with no balanced invites), it should be ok to have a 4 point range for the 1x-1y;1nt sequence (So if 1nt is 15-17, then 1x-1y;1nt could be 11-14), since you have room to include the balanced invite anyway here.

[fromageGB]

 raspeball, on 2020-May-09, 16:24, said:

If you play transfers over 1♣, you could split two ranges into the 1♣ opening: 11-13 or 16-18 is possible.

Or as I play, 12-14, 17/18, 19/20 for 3 ranges.

raspeball said:

But then again: Is it a good idea having a system that limits the number of 1nt openers? (Does not sound to great to me..).

Sounds great to me. Find your fits. If it's your opening, it's probably your hand, so why pre-empt partner?

[raspeball]

 fromageGB, on 2020-May-10, 10:44, said:

Or as I play, 12-14, 17/18, 19/20 for 3 ranges.


Sounds great to me. Find your fits. If it's your opening, it's probably your hand, so why pre-empt partner?

I guess you don't have a direct balanced invite? (Like 1nt-2nt, or 1nt-2♠?)


In an earlier tread you said that you used:
1nt-2♣
2x-2nt=To play. Do you still play it this way?

Alternative meanings for this sequence could be:

……..* 4 card unbid major, and 5(6)+ club gameinvitational +
……..* 4 card unbid major, and 5(6)+ club weak or gameforcing
……..* Gameforcing, ask for further description of openers shape.

[fromageGB]

Yes, no invite, just 3NT or not. I use 2NT as compulsory transfer to ♣, and 2♠ asking for 4 card minor, 2NT denial. This is useful if you judge you need 4 card support for a minor slam, and aslo when you have a "weak both minors" takeout.

I do play 2NT after failed stayman to play. I think being able to find the major fit when a couple of points lighter than you otherwise would is significant, especially matchpoints against a weak NT field where everyone will be in the major partscore beating you in 1NT.

[helene_t]

 spaderaise, on 2012-January-03, 15:52, said:

I'm wondering about two related things: (1) in the context of a three-point range, how beneficial are invitational sequences?

A sequence like
1NT-2♣
2♠-2NT
is quite essential, imho, since responder could have a hard-valued 8-count that wants to be in game (or at least invite) opposite a hearts fit, but not (at least not blast to game) without a fit.

It also depends on vulnerability and scoring. Someone once posted some stats suggesting that nonvul at IMPs, the balanced invite without fit has lower expected value than pass-or-blast, even without taking the disadvantage of disclosing opener's hand into account.

(2) how playable are larger ranges?

It could be made more playable by targeting your structure more towards invitational hands. Keri allows you to end in 2M on many of the invitational Stayman hands. And you could play 2♦ as a kind of inv+ Flint, a structure which you wouldn't want to play in a strong-NT system but has merits in a weak-NT system with a wide range.

That said, I wouldn't want to play a wide range, except maybe a wide-range weak or baby in 1st seat nonvul at IMPs.