[shevek]

These decisions are often crucial.
If you stretch to open 1♣, you sail into a tight game.

---

Straight Precision with 13-15 1NT.
1♣, 1♥ or 1NT?

[mgoetze]

Pretty clear 1NT IMO. I mean a hand with Jxx in a suit is going to have to be pretty incredible otherwise for me to want to upgrade it, and this one isn't.

[sfi]

1NT looks normal and uncontroversial.

[straube]

http://www.jeff-gold...xx+AQJ8x+KJx+KT

[shevek]

shevek, on 2015-December-13, 21:05, said:

These decisions are often crucial.
If you stretch to open 1♣, you sail into a tight game.

---

Straight Precision with 13-15 1NT.
1♣, 1♥ or 1NT?

The full hand:

---

I don't mind Jxx, prefer it to Qx. Would ♠JTx make all the difference?
Kaplan - Ruben is skewed towards suit contracts.
For NT, this might be better than
♠Ax ♥AKxxx ♦Axx ♣xxx

This certainly makes 1NT a better choice than 1♥.

You can see where this is heading ...
The field opened a 15-17 NT and North ploughed into slam.
6♦ made with Qx in the pocket. (& hearts 4-3)
6NT had the extra chance of dropping ♦Q then club finesse or squeeze.

I reckon it's a 16-count.
The alternative is to get with the stength and switch to a 15+ club to avoid swings like this.
I don't like today's "Standard" to dictate our ranges.

[SteelWheel]

Many have abandoned the classic 13-15 NT range of Precision because of hands like this--it's kind of anti-field--even more so than a plain K/S-ish 12-14 weak notrump. At least there you get to open or rebid in such a way as to suggest the "other" range (the typical 15-17).

These days many Precision pairs are playing the "medium NT" of 14-16--some playing 10-12 in some seats when NV, but still mostly based around 14-16--which is a bit more "with the field".

Some go the other way, either playing a slightly wider ranged 12-15 (takes some of the pressure off the nebulous diamond) or 11/12-14 and push the floor for a 1♣ open to 15+

No matter what you do, you have to resign yourself to "the range issue" as a potential problem whenever you embrace a strong club or weak NT system. Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windshield...

[1eyedjack]

straube, on 2015-December-13, 21:51, said:

http://www.jeff-gold...xx+AQJ8x+KJx+KT

I don't understand what I am supposed to infer from this.

The appropriate strength to open 1C, or for that matter 1N, is defined by an arbitrary partnership agreement based on an arbitrary method of evaluation.

This link provides a numerical value of the strength of one hand, based on an alternative method of evaluation. To be of use, it would at least require an additional statement of the requirements, under that method, for a 1N or 1C opener, but even that would be an arbitrary matter of partnership agreement, even having settled on that basis as the method of valuation.

[straube]

1eyedjack, on 2015-December-16, 23:58, said:

I don't understand what I am supposed to infer from this.

The appropriate strength to open 1C, or for that matter 1N, is defined by an arbitrary partnership agreement based on an arbitrary method of evaluation.

This link provides a numerical value of the strength of one hand, based on an alternative method of evaluation. To be of use, it would at least require an additional statement of the requirements, under that method, for a 1N or 1C opener, but even that would be an arbitrary matter of partnership agreement, even having settled on that basis as the method of valuation.

The hand has 15 hcps, but I assumed that he wanted adjustments made for playing strength. If he had with his partner an arbitrary method of evaluation he could have just used that. I didn't think the hand deserved an upgrade. The link I posted was to two hand calculators that downgraded the hand a little.

[Free]

1NT WTP? A bad slam that makes doesn't improve your hand...

[rhm]

If you open this hand 1♣ you should not claim that your 1♣ opening is 16+

Rainer Herrmann

[shevek]

rhm, on 2015-December-20, 05:35, said:

If you open this hand 1♣ you should not claim that your 1♣ opening is 16+

Rainer Herrmann

This I don't understand.
If I open a 15-17 notrump with
♠JT5 ♥K7 ♦AQT54 ♣A93

no books get thrown, nor system cards edited.

[straube]

http://www.jeff-gold...Tx+Kx+AQTxx+A9x

[sfi]

shevek, on 2015-December-16, 19:01, said:

You can see where this is heading ...
The field opened a 15-17 NT and North ploughed into slam.
6♦ made with Qx in the pocket. (& hearts 4-3)
6NT had the extra chance of dropping ♦Q then club finesse or squeeze.

I reckon it's a 16-count.
The alternative is to get with the strength and switch to a 15+ club to avoid swings like this.
I don't like today's "Standard" to dictate our ranges.

A feature of playing a non-standard notrump range is that you sometimes win or lose on a hand for reasons unrelated to skill or evaluation. If you are looking to stretch your valuation of a particular hand to cater for these differences, it's much better to do so when designing the system rather than at the table.

In one partnership that started out as precision, we did exactly that. We now play a weak NT and all 15-17 balanced hands are thrown into 1D. That particular change adds some odd features to the system, but we made a conscious decision not to increase the randomness by having different types of decisions to the field who normally break the balanced hands up between 14 and 15 points. In other partnerships we discussed the issue but decided to accept it.

[Free]

shevek, on 2015-December-20, 18:15, said:

This I don't understand.
If I open a 15-17 notrump with
♠JT5 ♥K7 ♦AQT54 ♣A93

no books get thrown, nor system cards edited.

This hand is much better than describing it as a 12-14 balanced hand after opening 1♦. You only need ♦K in partner's hand and there's a fair chance of making 7 tricks, so you also don't need a lot to make 9 tricks. There's no way to catch up later in the auction, or when opps intervene. A 1NT opening is very well structured, gives a very accurate picture of your hand, and intervention can easily be handled.

Your original hand however isn't worth more than 15HCP. Even with ♥K you'll only manage to get to 5-6 tricks. So there's absolutely no reason to upgrade to an unlimited ill-defined opening which is vulnerable to preemption.

In general, upgrading balanced hands to a strong 1♣ opening is very rarely a good idea. You should only upgrade unbalanced hands, but only if your limited openings can't describe the strength well enough. For example if you know you can describe your hand with 1♥-whatever-3♥, there's no need to open 1♣. So usually you'll only upgrade minor-oriented unbalanced hands, because after opening 2♣ you might not get the opportunity to show your supermax.

[mycroft]

So, I don't like 13-15 NT in a Precision system. Why? Because flat 16 opposite 8 frequently doesn't make game, and torturing your system to allow yourself to stop in 2NT (and torturing your system avoiding making a passable 2NT call with a GF hand) just isn't worth it. So I play a stronger NT (14-16 - sometimes even 15-17!) and take the flat hands out of 1♣ - and say that 1♣-positive is a 100% GF.

Obviously I can't change the system "we're" playing on this hand, but I certainly can avoid putting myself into the "I hate opening flat boring 16s 1♣" situation by not opening a good but balanced 15 1♣. Why torture myself and partner when I have a good out?

It's not "is it worth upgrading?" It might actually be. It's "do I want to upgrade into an amorphous, unwieldy, fragile to preemption call?" The answer is "Not if I can avoid it!" - and that's why I can think that and also upgrade your diamond-heavy flat 14 into a "very precise, very comfortable, partner can take over even with interference" 15-17 1NT.

As hrothgar is fond of saying re: Moscito, "I'm happy if I break even when I open 1♣." I expect to go plus when I open 1NT (no matter what the NT range is). So if I have a borderline hand, which way should I go?

[1eyedjack]

mycroft, on 2015-December-21, 11:48, said:

As hrothgar is fond of saying re: Moscito, "I'm happy if I break even when I open 1♣." I expect to go plus when I open 1NT (no matter what the NT range is). So if I have a borderline hand, which way should I go?

Odd that - it is the same in robot tourneys. And they are not even playing a strong 1C

[all loomis]

shevek, on 2015-December-13, 21:05, said:

These decisions are often crucial.
If you stretch to open 1♣, you sail into a tight game.

---

Straight Precision with 13-15 1NT.
1♣, 1♥ or 1NT?

1nt, because you must harden your character when you use a 4 point range. it's worth it, in my view, especially if you are willing to clip off poor 12's.