[shugart24]

Earlier year I started keeping some detailed statistics on the games that I play with my son. At the moment my sample size is 412 hands with an average score of 52.1 %. Our NT opening is 10-13 unless in 3rd or 4th seat vulnerable where we open 1NT with 13-15. (In 4th seat, rule of 15 applies). This means that when we have a NT distribution of 14 or 15 HCP in 1st or 2nd seat or white in 3rd or 4th seat we open 1D. We also put ALL 5332 hands into 1D or 1NT (hence when we open 1M we are 2-suited or have 6+).

With that background, on 412 hands, we have opened 1NT 57 times and we have opened a balanced 1D hand 19 times

Starting with the 1NT opening hands, we played the hand 42 times (not necessarily in NT) and defended the hands 15 times (the opponents got the bid). Our average score respectively was 60% and 57% (total 59%)

When I break the 1NT opening by HCP, the data is less credible, so I calculated the average and the median with the median being probably a better statistic

10 HCP opened 16 times for an average 58 and a median 54
11 HCP opened 11 times for an average 69& ands a median 81
12 HCP opened 13 times for 59 and 65
13 HCP opened 12 times for 53 and 58
for 14 and 15 HCP, opened 5 times for 55 and 47%. The reason we open 1nT with 14 or 15 HCP so infrequently is because we would have to be in 3rd or 4th seat and be vulnerable.

Out of the 57 times we opened 1NT, we had a 5 card Major (5332) 6 times, played 5 times, defended once and out scores were 25,38,48,54,72, and 74 so I don't think including 5 card Majors in our 1NT bid has had any impact yet.

*****************************************8

With regards to the 1D opening, the vast majority of times when we open 1D with a balanced hand we have 14 or 15 HCP (to have less means we are in 3rd or 4th seat vulnerable with 10-12 HCP and partner has already passed)

The data I have is a small sample: 10 times we defended and 9 times we played the hand. When we defended, our median score was 29% and when we played our median score was 63. The samples are so small as to really be non-credible, but it is apparent that opening 1D with 14 or 15 is allowing the opponents to more easily compete.


Out of the 19, 9 times we had 14 HCP and 10 times we had 15 HCP. Interestingly, 5 out of the 19 we had a 5M332 distribution and got the bid 4 times. It does not appear that putting 5M332 hands into the 1D bid has been a negative on this very small sample

*******************************************

Possible conclusions ...1) SO far, putting 5M332 hands into 1D or 1NT does not seem to have hurt us and thus gives our 1M openings an advantage. 2), Opening 1D with 14 or 15 HCP allows the opponents to compete

Contemplation: change my 1NT opening range to 10-14 or 11-15 in 1st or 2nd seat or white. If partner is a passed hand, continue with 13-15 when red

I welcome any comments or questions.

[mike777]

You leave out too many other factors to be able to draw those conclusions. In your attribution analysis please add in other factors. Experiment with different weights for those factors...

Good start.

[shugart24]

mike777, on 2026-February-01, 10:00, said:

You leave out too many other factors to be able to draw those conclusions. In your attribution analysis please add in other factors. Experiment with different weights for those factors...

Good start.

my
Yes...there is a paucity of data. . Nevertheless, it's pretty interesting. Might just have to open all my hands 1NT....I'll update when we get a another 500 hands in...Really don't know how to adjust non-credible data with arbitrary weights to draw any more valid preliminary conclusion however. Which preliminary conclusion do you suspect is false ?

[mycroft]

• You have shown a classic result in bridge bidding: you score better when you open 1NT than when you don't. This applies almost invariably, independent of range or qualifiers.
  This is because 1NT is well-formed, limited both in shape and strength, and there is a well-designed system (two, in fact) after it.
  
• You have shown that an amorphous, if limited, opener scores less well when balanced (although I would not look solely at "1♦ openers that are balanced", but "1♦ openers". One of the things you are trying to resolve after 1♦ is "are we the 14-15/11-12 balanced hand?" and not looking at how you do on the other hands where you "lose space" ruling them out is ignoring parts of the system that will be impacted).
  
• In particular, you have shown that opening a lower bid than the field with 15 balanced (and, depending on your field, "upgradable" 14s or all 14s) leads to more competitive auctions than the field, which leads to poor scores when defending (which happens more often because your auctions aren't 1NT-AP or 1NT-p-2red-p; accept-AP, they're 1♦-(1M)). In other words, "well, yeah. See 1.; when *they* open 1NT and *you* don't, you are behind."
  
• Not knowing your field for sure, but I bet just *opening* balanced 10s wins, because both the room is passing them, and they don't know how to defend against a weak NT; improving your score over and above the inherent advantage from the limited bid.

The question is, "how much more can you load your 'happy bid' and still be +EV opening it" vs "how much better will our 'catchall' be if we remove these hands from it"? And while I don't have an answer for you, I do have thoughts (mostly from others who have tried it):

• If you're not taking advantage of "it's an unbalanced diamond" to rework your system after 1♦, then you won't see all the gains you're looking for (this is why I wouldn't be looking solely at "balanced 1♦ openers"!)
  
• Moving from a 3-HCP range for NT to 4 is hard on the system (and moving from 4 to 5 even more so). The hit you will take on your 1NT EV might be higher than you expect.
  
• Moving to a 5 HCP Range for 1NT in the ACBL means you waive your right to "use judgement" to upgrade/downgrade *into* 1NT (you still have every right to upgrade/downgrade *out of* 1NT).
  
• I bet 11-15 will play worse than 10-14 in your game explicitly because of the "passes 10 balanced", even if 11-15 both allows for a fully "unbalanced" 1♦ and the 10-14s still opening 1♦ (or 1♣) on 15 flat (with the room opening 1NT), with all the minuses that implies.

I know a pair who plays (11)12-15 NT in a Precision framework. It allows their 1♦ opener to promise 4, and more specifically, be unbalanced. I don't know how they do with it, but I bet they haven't worked the system as well as they could. I don't think the system helps them immensely in an open field, but they're comfortable with it, so more power to them.

[mike777]

shugart24, on 2026-February-01, 10:18, said:

my
Yes...there is a paucity of data. . Nevertheless, it's pretty interesting. Might just have to open all my hands 1NT....I'll update when we get a another 500 hands in...Really don't know how to adjust non-credible data with arbitrary weights to draw any more valid preliminary conclusion however. Which preliminary conclusion do you suspect is false ?

You will not know what factors are arbitrary till you put them in the analysis...that is the whole point.

declarer play? Defense? other bidding options?, caliber of opponents, etc etc.

why are you getting the scores you are getting, we dont know...

Are you getting the scores more from opening 1nt, (weight) or the weight of other factors, dont know...

If you are getting most of the score from 1nt openings, why?...

[shugart24]

mike777, on 2026-February-01, 10:35, said:

You will not know what factors are arbitrary till you put them in the analysis...that is the whole point.

declarer play? Defense? other bidding options?, caliber of opponents, etc etc.

Oh sure....if I had 100000's of hands and AI. You can see, for example, with only 5 or 6 hands having shape 5M332, no amount of analysis on them is going to lead to any conclusion. My conclusion is that it hasn't hurt us so far is about as good as I can declare. If I had all zeroes on them, I would say something different, but that's not the case.

I'm not disagreeing with you that there are a lot of other variables that can skew results.

[shugart24]

mycroft, on 2026-February-01, 10:19, said:

• You have shown a classic result in bridge bidding: you score better when you open 1NT than when you don't. This applies almost invariably, independent of range or qualifiers.
  This is because 1NT is well-formed, limited both in shape and strength, and there is a well-designed system (two, in fact) after it.
  
• You have shown that an amorphous, if limited, opener scores less well when balanced (although I would not look solely at "1♦ openers that are balanced", but "1♦ openers". One of the things you are trying to resolve after 1♦ is "are we the 14-15/11-12 balanced hand?" and not looking at how you do on the other hands where you "lose space" ruling them out is ignoring parts of the system that will be impacted).
  
• In particular, you have shown that opening a lower bid than the field with 15 balanced (and, depending on your field, "upgradable" 14s or all 14s) leads to more competitive auctions than the field, which leads to poor scores when defending (which happens more often because your auctions aren't 1NT-AP or 1NT-p-2red-p; accept-AP, they're 1♦-(1M)). In other words, "well, yeah. See 1.; when *they* open 1NT and *you* don't, you are behind."
  
• Not knowing your field for sure, but I bet just *opening* balanced 10s wins, because both the room is passing them, and they don't know how to defend against a weak NT; improving your score over and above the inherent advantage from the limited bid.

The question is, "how much more can you load your 'happy bid' and still be +EV opening it" vs "how much better will our 'catchall' be if we remove these hands from it"? And while I don't have an answer for you, I do have thoughts (mostly from others who have tried it):

• If you're not taking advantage of "it's an unbalanced diamond" to rework your system after 1♦, then you won't see all the gains you're looking for (this is why I wouldn't be looking solely at "balanced 1♦ openers"!)
  
• Moving from a 3-HCP range for NT to 4 is hard on the system (and moving from 4 to 5 even more so). The hit you will take on your 1NT EV might be higher than you expect.
  
• Moving to a 5 HCP Range for 1NT in the ACBL means you waive your right to "use judgement" to upgrade/downgrade *into* 1NT (you still have every right to upgrade/downgrade *out of* 1NT).
  
• I bet 11-15 will play worse than 10-14 in your game explicitly because of the "passes 10 balanced", even if 11-15 both allows for a fully "unbalanced" 1♦ and the 10-14s still opening 1♦ (or 1♣) on 15 flat (with the room opening 1NT), with all the minuses that implies.

I know a pair who plays (11)12-15 NT in a Precision framework. It allows their 1♦ opener to promise 4, and more specifically, be unbalanced. I don't know how they do with it, but I bet they haven't worked the system as well as they could. I don't think the system helps them immensely in an open field, but they're comfortable with it, so more power to them.

I agree if we change something, 10-14 will likely do better than 11-15.

I'm capturing a lot of data, eg colors, what we opened with and whether or not we got the bid, when we did not open but competed and got the bid, what was the final bid and how many over or under tricks...I did not capture if I am playing or my son is, or who is on lead ( my so or me)....maybe I should....

eventually I am hoping to be able to see where our poor boards are coming from at a high level to see if change is needed. A good example might be our 2M openings which show 4 card M and a longer minor...ultimately I will know if this bid is a winner or loser and if its a loser, the hope would be to determine why.

Perhaps when I get up to 1000 or 1500 plans, I'll share more statistics. I thought if anyone is contemplating going to a weak NT, this might be interesting menawhile

[DavidKok]

Thank you for sharing. There is far too little data reporting in bridge. It is difficult to draw conclusions if people are primarily sharing opinions, and your post is a very welcome deviation from that norm.

Personally I have quite a bit of experience with the Kamikaze NT, and with Precision (though only a few months worth with both simultaneously). I think the sample sizes required to draw accurate conclusions are stunningly large, and can easily be confounded by selection effects in the field, or the likes. I'll break my own recommendation and share some opinions, rather than numbers and statistics:

• I strongly agree with everything Mycroft said. I think the main conclusion you present can indeed be summarized as 'opening 1NT is good in any system, opening not-1NT is worse in any system'.
  
• My personal experience is that when we played 10-13 or 9-12 NT (legal here, not legal under ACBL rules so watch out) we frequently lost, and lost big, on the stronger NT hands, even to the point that I am no longer a fan of the Kamikaze range. I'll play it if partner enjoys it, but I think it's not clear that it is +EV, even if we cherrypick the seating and vulnerability.
  
• Personally I expect that going to a 5 point range will be terrible. I know of some 12-15 1NT openings in Precision, and I think it is unplayable to the point of invalidating the entire system. 11-15 is worse, and 10-14 doesn't lend itself to a direct comparison but is likely only a little better than 11-15. It would not surprise me if this has a serious negative impact on your score.
  
• Lastly one more cheeky suggested summary. Mycroft rightly pointed out considering the other hands in your 1♦ opening and their continuations, as they are competing for bidding space with your 14-15 balanced hands. I would expect the conclusion here, similar to 'opening 1NT is good' to fall along the lines of 'opening 1♦ is bad because it is so nebulous, especially if we get into a competitive auction'. Your sample size is too small to either support or refute this, it would be a massive undertaking to get a rigid conclusion here.

Personally I am a huge fan of the 14-16 NT, and it fits well in Precision. Conversely, I put hundreds or maybe thousands of hours into understanding the Precision 1♦ and optimising it to work in modern bridge - I consider it a huge Achilles' heel of the system. It sounds to me like you are still not fully decided on your NT ladder, and I view this as some growing pains in learning about the Nebulous 1♦.

[shugart24]

DavidKok, on 2026-February-01, 11:35, said:

Thank you for sharing. There is far too little data reporting in bridge. It is difficult to draw conclusions if people are primarily sharing opinions, and your post is a very welcome deviation from that norm.

Personally I have quite a bit of experience with the Kamikaze NT, and with Precision (though only a few months worth with both simultaneously). I think the sample sizes required to draw accurate conclusions are stunningly large, and can easily be confounded by selection effects in the field, or the likes. I'll break my own recommendation and share some opinions, rather than numbers and statistics:

• I strongly agree with everything Mycroft said. I think the main conclusion you present can indeed be summarized as 'opening 1NT is good in any system, opening not-1NT is worse in any system'.
  
• My personal experience is that when we played 10-13 or 9-12 NT (legal here, not legal under ACBL rules so watch out) we frequently lost, and lost big, on the stronger NT hands, even to the point that I am no longer a fan of the Kamikaze range. I'll play it if partner enjoys it, but I think it's not clear that it is +EV, even if we cherrypick the seating and vulnerability.
  
• Personally I expect that going to a 5 point range will be terrible. I know of some 12-15 1NT openings in Precision, and I think it is unplayable to the point of invalidating the entire system. 11-15 is worse, and 10-14 doesn't lend itself to a direct comparison but is likely only a little better than 11-15. It would not surprise me if this has a serious negative impact on your score.
  
• Lastly one more cheeky suggested summary. Mycroft rightly pointed out considering the other hands in your 1♦ opening and their continuations, as they are competing for bidding space with your 14-15 balanced hands. I would expect the conclusion here, similar to 'opening 1NT is good' to fall along the lines of 'opening 1♦ is bad because it is so nebulous, especially if we get into a competitive auction'. Your sample size is too small to either support or refute this, it would be a massive undertaking to get a rigid conclusion here.

Personally I am a huge fan of the 14-16 NT, and it fits well in Precision. Conversely, I put hundreds or maybe thousands of hours into understanding the Precision 1♦ and optimising it to work in modern bridge - I consider it a huge Achilles' heel of the system. It sounds to me like you are still not fully decided on your NT ladder, and I view this as some growing pains in learning about the Nebulous 1♦.

Thanks David and others. You all have given me other ideas on data elements to capture (As an aside we are very comfortable with our NT ladder - we use Oliver Clarkes system which I think he calls Cambridge Complex )

I think the wider range no trump might work in 3rd or 4th seat white, after partner has passed and game is unlikely...Opening 1NT with 10-14 would cut out a portion of the balanced 1D openings and force opponents to bid at the 2 level. after which we use transfer lebensohl

Without objection, look for an update in a month or so

[Shugart23]

One more after thought. It’s mentioned twice that opening 1Nt produces a good result. With our method we are opening 1Nt far more often than 12-14 or 15-17 cults do and are rewarded accordingly. So I guess then the question could be asked , is it costing me on the other bids. Also, I don’t ever play IMPs. So I disavow anything I have said where it comes to those of that ilk

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-February-01, 10:19, said:

[*]Moving from a 3-HCP range for NT to 4 is hard on the system (and moving from 4 to 5 even more so). The hit you will take on your 1NT EV might be higher than you expect.

Why do you (and perhaps Davidkok too) consider that moving to a 4 HCP range is hard on the system?
I would have thought that even standard systems split Opener's range in two quite effectively (through either range showing rebids or game invites by Responder) and if anything it might make sense to exploit this by widening the range to 4?

[steve2005]

pescetom, on 2026-February-01, 15:34, said:

Why do you (and perhaps Davidkok too) consider that moving to a 4 HCP range is hard on the system?

All the 2N-1 or 3M-1
and the 1N+2 or 1N/2M, making 4M