very offshape 1nt openings

[mike777]

Interested in your feedback on trying out this idea. Thank you in advance.

Assume:

1nt=14-16 in first and second seat, offshape ok

1nt=15-17 in third and fourth seat, off shape ok

Mex. 2D=18-19 in all seats, off shape ok

Let's not worry/discuss 17 balanced hands in other seats for this thread.

edit: if it matters since the goal is to make our one level bids more constructive with these methods assume you open almost all 11 hcp balanced hands and many 2 suited ten hcp hands. 8 or 9 hcp hands are opened rarely at the one level.

 

The main issue I wish to get feedback on is how offshape is offshape.

I wish to try out:

1) no voids

2) almost no stiffs except for rare Q or K.

3) no 54 or 45 in the majors

4) no 6+major

5) no balanced hand with 5 card major if hand has other flaw, example Jx or worse in side suit.

 

Examples of extreme offshapes that would be ok but not limited too are:

2=2=2=7

2=2=7=2

2=2=5=4..no major suit stoppers...:)

2=5=4=2..with side stoppers

5=2=4=2... with side stoppers

 

I assume of course there are some hands that could be a disaster, my question is there enough gain from opening 1nt or 2D with these hands and is there enough gain in taking these hand types out of your one level opening bids and rebids? Therefore making your one level bids and rebids more constructive?

[hrothgar]

Personally, I think that you are going about things the wrong way...

 

I (often) open off-shape hands with 1NT. However, I tend to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. The decision is (typically) based on the perception of a rebid problem following the auction 1m - (P) - 1M. Playing strong NT, I typically have a hand that is too strong for a 1NT rebid or raise to 2M and too weak for a jump raise to 3M or a reverse.

 

I think that the best place to start is to start by defining hands where you would chose to open an off shape 1NT. You might find enough examples of a specific shape (3=4=5=1 or some such) where you can define some more general rules...

[awm]

I've played methods for a while where (2254) hands with no five-card major are mandatory 1NT openings if in range. Occasionally bad things have come of this, and occasionally good things (certain hands are much easier if opened 1NT), I've found the net effect to be fairly neutral.

 

On the other hand my experiences with opening (5224) hands including a 5-card major with 1NT have been pretty uniformly bad. The issue is that the major suit fit is too often right. If partner has 4-card support for the major and a hand too weak to respond to the 1NT, you will quite often miss a game. You're also forced to look for 5-3 major fits very aggressively, so you have to bid some kind of stayman or puppet on hands where the field bids 1NT-3NT (allowing lead directional doubles etc).

 

Really one of the advantages of a natural system is that you have a choice of openings on certain hands based on location of values. You generally lose quite a bit by removing this choice -- basically you are installing one of the downsides of precision/relay type methods (which often mandate an opening based on shape without reference to location of values) without getting the benefits (limited openings and/or relays for exact shape).

[pbleighton]

I have been opening semibalanced hands with different NT ranges for 3 years. I do not open with a stiff or 7222, as I play a lot in the ACBL and I don't want to deal with their nonsense (you can do it, but you have to comply with the no more than 1% rule).

 

I always open 5M332 in the NT range, except for a strong hand at the top of the range. I will generally not open 5M422, unless in a mini where the hand doesn't qualify for 1M, or with a bad primary suit with values in the doubletons.

 

I am happy with the results. Playing a strong NT, as you do, there is a big upside in showing pd a good hand with a tight range. Opening 5H332, you avoid rebid problems after 1H-1S. You will get some good results (more than bad ones) in the partscore battle by starting 1NT.

 

Peter

[mike777]

Thank you all very much for your thoughtful replies.