1NT range for precision

[andych]

Comparing the merits of weak NT/strong NT may probably be too difficult under standard systems e.g. SAYC.

 

Playing Precision, which is the better choice, weak NT/strong NT? Or still a 50-50 proposition? :rolleyes: ;)

[vang]

many experts prefer 14-16, main advantage being that 16HCP balanced is excluded from strong 1C and this leads to better notrump ranges (1C-1D-1NT is 17-19 instead of 16-19).

[MickyB]

IMO there are three sensible ranges -

 

14-16. This is clearly right in 3rd+4th seat.

12/13-15, with a natural 1♦ opening.

9-12, 1st (and possibly 2nd) NV only.

[P_Marlowe]

The following interview by Eric Rodwell, was already mentioned on the

forum again and again, but since he also discusses the NT ranges playing

precision, here we go again:

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

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Free]

I prefer 12-15 with a natural and unbalanced 1♦ opening. I don't say it's superior, it's a matter of preference.

[awm]

I like 14-16. However, the reasons probably aren't very mainstream. Basically:

 

(1) I like to play a non-forcing 1NT response to 1M and pass with balanced hands. Because of this it's good to be able to open 1NT with the maximum balanced hands so that a flat 1M opening is basically 11-13.

 

(2) I think natural 1♦ openings are overrated and am not a huge fan of precision 2♦. Instead, I play a style where 1♦ is either balanced or three-suited (could be short diamonds!) and open intermediate twos in both minor suits. So there's no need to try to compress my balanced non-1♣ openings into a single range.

[pclayton]

14-16 is sensible, and usually works well with standard Precision rebids.

 

12-14 works fine too, with 1♦ - 1x - 1N being 15-17.

 

Even a mini 10-12 / 10-13 works fine.

 

I don't like 13-15, since I don't like to open balanced 11's with 1♦ and to have 1♦ - 1x - 1N as exactly 12 has never made sense to me. 13-15 was developed when folks regularly passes 12 counts; not so true anymore.

[rbforster]

I play 10-12 NV and 12+ to 15 when Vul or 4th seat. I like the preemption of weak NT when NV, although I could be convinced to play 10-13 so that 1C is a little sounder when balanced (16+ unbal or 17+ bal instead of any 16+). At Vul, I open any balanced hand I think the field would open (good 12's have a 5 card suit or nice spots, etc). This allows us to pass the bad balanced hands when vulnerable, which seems like a good idea :).

[luke warm]

i guess it depends on the rest of your system, but i don't agree with adam that a 1♦ bid that actually shows diamonds is overrated... one of the weakest (imo) things about 'standard' precision is the nebulous diamond... that's one reason i prefer 12-15 with 1♦ showing (always) an unbalanced hand with 4+ diamonds

[erki_]

If 1NT is 12-15 and 1D is natural unbalanced, then what is 1D-1M-1NT/2C/2D?

[mikestar]

If 1NT is 12-15 and 1D is natural unbalanced, then what is 1D-1M-1NT/2C/2D?

Luke's structure may differ, but this is what I play where 1NT is 12-15 and 1♦ is guaranteed unbalanced:

 

1♦-1M-2♣ is natural, showing 4+ clubs and 5+ diamonds, diamonds as long as or longer than clubs.

 

1♦-1M-2♦ is 6+ diamonds, one-suited (might choose this sequence with ♣xxxx on the side).

 

1♦-1♥-1NT is 4+ diamonds, 5+ clubs, clubs longer than diamonds.

 

1♦-1♠-1NT is as after 1♦-1♥ but there are two other possibities:

1) Exactly five diamonds and four hearts and too weak to reverse and not able to raise spades.

2) 1=4=4=4 shape.

[DrTodd13]

Another vote for 12-15 with 1♦ being 4+.

[luke warm]

If 1NT is 12-15 and 1D is natural unbalanced, then what is 1D-1M-1NT/2C/2D?

ok, but hardly anyone else plays this... over 1d, 1h is a herbert relay and 1s/2c/2d are all weak and to play, 1nt is game force relay

 

after 1d : 1h : 1nt shows a 3 suited hand with a short major (2c asks where)... like i said, it depends on the rest of the system

[MickyB]

12-14 works fine too, with 1♦ - 1x - 1N being 15-17.

I don't like this at all, but then I've never seen much benefit in moving balanced 16/17 counts from the strong club - the worst hand a strong club opener can have for partner is a misfitting minimum, so what help is it removing those balanced hands? In fact, I like opening them a strong club - it is the only time that I feel that 1♣ has shown my hand with one bid, I can now sit back and await events.

 

Putting 15-17 balanced into 1♦ gives you the traditional problem of a weak NT - having to get across your extra strength in competition. I have some symapthy for an 11-13 NT (although I still consider 14-16 to be superior) but 12-14? Just stretch it slightly and you have a natural 1♦ opening, surely that is worth it?

[MickyB]

If 1NT is 12-15 and 1D is natural unbalanced, then what is 1D-1M-1NT/2C/2D?

After 1♦:1♥, the 1NT and 2♣ rebids can both be used to show minor two-suiters. In Siege (1♦ = 11+, 4+♦ unbal, may have longer ♣) I encourage responder to keep the auction open by having a 2♣ rebid promise longer ♦. After 1♦:1♠, I use 1NT to show both minors and 2♣ to show both red suits. Giving opener a 3rd chance to bid isn't anything like as important when he is limited, so I don't know if this is optimal in this scenario.

[lowerline]

Comparing the merits of weak NT/strong NT may probably be too difficult under standard systems e.g. SAYC.

 

Playing Precision, which is the better choice, weak NT/strong NT?  Or still a 50-50 proposition?    :P  :)

14-16 (open 1♦ with a balanced 11-13)

 

If you don't mind to adapt your range to seat and vulnerability:

10-12 in 1st and 2nd NV (open 1♦ with 13-15, 1♣ with 16+)

14-16 in 1st and 2nd V and 3rd NV

15-17 in 3rd V and 4th (open 1♦ with (11)12-14, 1♣ with 18+)

[lowerline]

Meckwell and Greco-Hampson are playing 15-17 in 3rd V and 4th, 14-16 otherwise.

Sontag-Weichsel are playing 15-17, but frequently upgrade 14-counts.

 

Meckwell have played a 9-12 range in 1st/2nd NV vs V, but don't play it anymore.

[Chamaco]

If 1NT is 12-15 and 1D is natural unbalanced, then what is 1D-1M-1NT/2C/2D?

Luke's structure may differ, but this is what I play where 1NT is 12-15 and 1♦ is guaranteed unbalanced:

 

1♦-1M-2♣ is natural, showing 4+ clubs and 5+ diamonds, diamonds as long as or longer than clubs.

 

1♦-1M-2♦ is 6+ diamonds, one-suited (might choose this sequence with ♣xxxx on the side).

 

1♦-1♥-1NT is 4+ diamonds, 5+ clubs, clubs longer than diamonds.

 

1♦-1♠-1NT is as after 1♦-1♥ but there are two other possibities:

1) Exactly five diamonds and four hearts and too weak to reverse and not able to raise spades.

2) 1=4=4=4 shape.

Yep, that's how I play.

 

The 2C and 2D rebids are natural (2C is never canapè, 2D always 6+ bagger and 1NT is a catchall for hands that do not have a sensible rebid:

these hand types are either canapè diams/clubs OR hands with 4+ hearts that cannot reverse when responder bids 1S.

 

The (12)13-15 1NT scheme implies passing often 11 counts and sometimes bad 12 counts. This might seem a losing proposition, but in my experience, losses have been balanced by good results, and indeed, the system had a big improvement in making the 1D opening WAY less nebulous.

Both in partscore (competitive or not) and game bidding, responder's task bacame much much easier, knowing that opener is unbalanced.

[OscarKwok]

Following is copy from a log from a recent BBO vugraph broadcasts:

 

fred: you don't see many 10-12 notrumps in America at the highest levels these days. they were more in style a few years ago, but from what i can tell most of the experts decided that they did not work very well

 

Walddk2: You are hardly a supporter since you prefer 15-17 to 12-14 yourself

 

...

 

jtr: Didnt Meckwell play it?

 

fred: at one point Meckwell played 10-12 notrumps at some vulnerabilities, but not anymore, now they play 14-16 most of the time and 15-17 in a couple of positions

[Gerben42]

I sometimes play an agressive variation of Precision with this structure:

 

1st / 2nd seat:

1♣: 16+ balanced / 15+ unbalanced

1♦: always unbalanced, 3+♦

1NT: 12 - 15 balanced

 

3rd / 4th seat:

1♣: 18+ balanced / 17+ unbalanced

1♦: can be balanced

1NT: 15 - 17

[glen]

"from what i can tell most of the experts decided that they did not work very well"

The 10-12 notrumps did seem to work well, in the sense they usually got to the right contract. However in looking at the Meckwell experience with 10-12 (sometimes 9-12 outside the arms of the ACBL) what was striking was that the mini notrumps did not deliver a lot of IMPs. By contrast, the 14-16 notrump, with frequent upgrades of 13 counts, reached the contracts expected and also delivered many IMPs. In particular, it seems it is considerably harder for expert opponents to judge their game chances against a 13/14-16 notrump than a 10-12 one.