NT ranges

[firmit]

(Hope this is the correct forum)

 

I recently posted a thread regarding a weak NT structure. I got some good solid answers. But I am still in doubt of which ranges are the best. I have put together some data.

 

I am converting to zar-points, and the range-colors are coded as: Green=pre-emptive (22-25zp), Red=Normal (26-30zp), Blue=MediumStrong (31-35zp)

 

Given these tables, the 10-12, 13-15, 16-18 range seems to catch a lot of the hands, and it has the best "fit" in the most expected hand (4432). Please comment on these tables - and give your reasons for why you play the given range.

 

(A.Cp = average controll points A=2,K=1, R =relativ prob. , A = Prob., Cum Prob)

http://firmit.bridge.googlepages.com/ntranges.PNG/ntranges-full.jpg

 

I think I will stick with the 10-12, 13-15, 16-18 NV 1./2.seat:

1NT 10-12hp

1♦-1x-1NT 13-15hp

1♣-1x-1NT 16-18hp

 

changing to Vul, 3./4. seat

1NT 16-18

1♦-1x-1NT 13-15hp

 

This implies NOT opening hands with up to 12hp and no 4-5 card major in 4. seat.

[Free]

Where's the 12-14 range?

[firmit]

Where's the 12-14 range?

Why - do you want it? Tell me what intervalls you'd like to see, and I will generate the tables.

edit:table

http://firmit.bridge.googlepages.com/1214nt.PNG

[SoTired]

I think you will get a more calm, reasoned and unemotional response if you ask, instead, "Whose mother is best?"

[firmit]

I think you will get a more calm, reasoned and unemotional response if you ask, instead, "Whose mother is best?"

lol ;)

 

I am not trying to show off or anything - just wanted to start a discussion based on numbers. Someone might find it interesting.

 

I myself find a lot of interesting stuff in the post that have few and solid claims - which someone normally backs up - which then again means: "end of discussion".

 

But then again - what do I know...

[Gerben42]

As usual it depends on system.

 

PLAYING STANDARD - STRONG NT

I prefer 14 - 16 by far. It is hard to defend as it is kind of weak for opponents who apply a "DONT" approach but kind of strong for those using a "Capp" approach (preemptive vs constructive). Then it solves all kinds of problems like staying low on 13 + 11 and things like that. And it comes up way more than 15 - 17.

 

PLAYING STANDARD - VARIABLE NT

If 14 - 16 is the strong one, 1st 2nd NV I like 10 - 13.

 

FANTUNES / KAPLAN-SHEINWOLD - WEAK NT

12 - 14 here, 11 - 14 first / second not vuln. As these systems function best with a weak NT throughout, 10 - 13 is too dangerous imho.

 

STRONG CLUB - 5-CARD MAJORS

I think that here it is best to start agressively in 1st / 2nd seat. 1♣ = 15+ / 16+ balanced and 1NT is 12 - 15. Only one NT range in this case because otherwise the 1♦ becomes a mess. In 3rd and 4th seat 1♣ starts at 17+ / 18+ balanced and 1NT is 15 - 17 (weak NTs in 1♦ in that case).

 

STRONG CLUB - 4-CARD MAJORS

I prefer the same style shown above but now two NT ranges below the strong ♣ are possible again. So first and 2nd seat not vulnerable 9(!) - 12, vuln. 13 - 15. 3rd and 4th seat 15 - 17.

[foo]

Every 1N range has it's good and bad. TANSTAAFL.

 

Kamikaze (10-12, 10-13):

Great preempt frequency wise.

=destroys= your partscore accuracy and your constructive NT ladder; particularly in a "natural" system.

It's a gadget. Easy to defend against once the opponents know what to do.

The easiest NT range to X "into oblivion and beyond".

Teaches one bad bridge habits.

 

Weak (12-14, 13-15):

IMHO the best range is the disciplined KS 12-14 range.

Great for finding good 23-24 HCP games the other ranges will have a harder time finding.

Negative inferences when you =don't= open Weak NT are very useful.

The sequences 1m-1M;2M and 1m-1M;3M and 1m-foo;3m become very precise.

Partscore accuracy still damaged a lot.

 

Strong (15-17, 16-18)

Easiest for immediately differentiating playing strength when 1N is not opened.

Partscore accuracy better than either of the above.

No where near as common as the above ranges.

1N-pa-pa-pa starts being an auction that you won't hear often; but when you do you really won't like dummy.

Penalty X's are =more= likely to work when done right than vs WNT since you rate to have communications problems. Thankfully they tend to be rare.

1m openings are now very wide ranging in terms of playing strength.

[david_c]

I don't see the point to be honest. Certainly frequency is an important issue, but measuring this to two decimal places doesn't seem to prove anything.

[hrothgar]

I recently posted a thread regarding a weak NT structure. I got some good solid answers. But I am still in doubt of which ranges are the best. I have put together some data.

I'm all for data, but I think that you are approaching this the wrong way:

 

The "best" NT range is the one that

 

(a) is most efficient complementing the rest of your bidding system

(;) makes you happy

 

none of this is going to crop up in a table of frequency distributions.

 

Here is an example of the thought process that I went through developing the 1NT opening used in my own MOSCITO variant.

 

MOSCITO's 1♣ starts with a balanced 15 count, so 1NT opening is anchored at a 14 count.

 

MOSCITO's 1♠ opening promises 4+ Diamonds and an unbalanced hand. I don't have the luxury of showing primary Diamonds with a 3=3=5=2 / 3=2=4=4 shape. Therefore, we can't use a 9 - 11 or 10 - 12 HCP mini-NT. The 1NT opening (essentially) needs to promise 11+ - 14 HCP

 

Personally, I think that this range is a bit unwieldy. Its quite wide and stresses the response structure over 1NT. Accordingly, I did some work to partition the NT opening.

 

Balanced hands with 11+ - 12 HCP and 4-5 Spades get opened 1♥. This maximizes the chance that we are able to show the boss suit as quickly as possible. It also means that if partner opens 1N and then shows Spades, he also have a maximum strength NT opening.

 

Balanced hands with 13 - 14 HCP and 4-5 Hearts get opened 1♦. This puts us in a bit stronger position during competitive auctions like

 

1♦ - (P) - 2♥ - (2[HE♠)

 

Opener is either sitting on an unbalanced hand or a maximum strength balanced hand. Its a bit safer for partner to act.

 

Paul Marston has adopted a quite different NT opening style for the MOSCITO version that he is currently using. He opens 1N with ANY balanced 11+ - 14 HCP hand. If doesn't matter if he has a 4 card major, a 5 card major, what have you. If its balanced and in range, he opens it. Once again, this decision has nothing to do with frequencies or charts. The relay structure that Paul has adopted uses a first step response to a 1 level opening to show either game invitational values or a 7-10 HCP balanced hand. (Paul did this so he could play a transfer response scheme in addition to relays) This system works MUCH better if a 1♦ / 1♥ explictly promise a unbalanced hand.

 

If you are are serious about studying NT ranges, you need to start by studying the fundamentals of the bidding system that you are using. You can't effectively isolate this one topic.

[Bende]

I play 8-10 non vul and 12-14 vul. This is first and second position only, since pass is 0-7 or 17+. 1NT in "resonpose" to a pass is 15-17.

[pbleighton]

Kamikaze (10-12, 10-13):

Great preempt frequency wise.

=destroys= your partscore accuracy and your constructive NT ladder; particularly in a "natural" system.

It's a gadget. Easy to defend against once the opponents know what to do.

The easiest NT range to X "into oblivion and beyond".

Teaches one bad bridge habits.

 

ROFL.

 

Peter

[foo]

Kamikaze (10-12, 10-13):

Great preempt frequency wise.

=destroys= your partscore accuracy and your constructive NT ladder; particularly in a "natural" system.

It's a gadget. Easy to defend against once the opponents know what to do.

The easiest NT range to X "into oblivion and beyond".

Teaches one bad bridge habits.

ROFL.

??? Not sure what the laugh is about.

 

=The Kamikaze does have high frequency

 

=The weaker your 1N opening range, the more often you will play 1N when you should be playing 2ofasuit.

 

=Even in a Forcing Minor system, using the KNT means that the other NT ranges are harder to show compared to other systems. One friend who plays it in a FC system basically pretends he can't be dealt 17 counts. They are either down or up graded.

The problem is worse in a "natural" system.

 

=The best defense starts with a Direct X showing a 1N overcall and a Balancing X showing a 6 HCP range Balancing 1N whose minimum is the KNT pair's maximum (so 12-17 if Their KNT is 10-12, 13-18 if Their KNT is 10-13).

Additionally, you add methods to show high ODR hands.

And you don't sweat the small stuff.

Upshot is you tend to bid your games and slams reasonably well, and you tend to nail them with fairly high frequency when it's right.

Nothings perfect, and they have thrown a random number generator into the auction, but discipline and a good defense pretty much restore equity.

 

=The bad bridge habits in question are things like relying on gadgets rather than better skills to generate good results...

[pbleighton]

??? Not sure what the laugh is about.

 

Your remarkably one sided and ill-informed post.

 

=The weaker your 1N opening range, the more often you will play 1N when you should be playing 2ofasuit.

 

It's true the mini can hide a fit, but it has less of a problem with this than 12-14, since the majority of hands opened in the mini are passed in standard bidding, and frequently you can't find your fit because the opps are in there.

 

=Even in a Forcing Minor system, using the KNT means that the other NT ranges are harder to show compared to other systems. One friend who plays it in a FC system basically pretends he can't be dealt 17 counts. They are either down or up graded.

The problem is worse in a "natural" system.

 

I play 10-13, with a rebid showing 14-16, and a jump rebid showing 17-19. The problems caused by 17-19 are very rare.

 

=The bad bridge habits in question are things like relying on gadgets rather than better skills to generate good results...

 

That's a hell of an assumption, that pairs who play the mini don't care about better skills.

 

=The best defense starts with a Direct X showing a 1N overcall and a Balancing X showing a 6 HCP range Balancing 1N whose minimum is the KNT pair's maximum (so 12-17 if Their KNT is 10-12, 13-18 if Their KNT is 10-13).

Additionally, you add methods to show high ODR hands.

And you don't sweat the small stuff.

Upshot is you tend to bid your games and slams reasonably well, and you tend to nail them with fairly high frequency when it's right.

Nothings perfect, and they have thrown a random number generator into the auction, but discipline and a good defense pretty much restore equity.

 

I agree that X should be penalty.

 

However, playing a runout system, we rarely get penalized.

 

We also find the mini to be a significant net winner. Equity is not restored.

 

How much have you actually played the mini? I've played it regularly for the last 3.5 years, and your post, while it makes some technically accurate points, seems to be of the *I don't worry about that crap, real bridge players don't play (fill in the blanks)* variety. In particular, your comment:

"The easiest NT range to X "into oblivion and beyond"."

strikes me as coming from someone who really doesn't know what he's talking about. Runouts work (usually).

 

Peter

[goobers]

TANSTAAFL.

???

[gwnn]

wikipedia (google) is your friend.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I agree with hrothgar(am I really writing that I agree with hrothgar?) about the sytem should hopefully help you select the NT ranges.

 

I currently play a forcing club(started out as Precision, however, the only thing left is five card majors and 1C is still forcing. 1NT=15-17, 1C-rebid of NT is 18-20 and 1D(2+) is 12-14HCP 'if' balanced.

 

KS was a favorite system for several decades. 12-14 1NT and 1m-rebid 1NT with 15-17.

 

ACOL period 12-14NT with 1NT rebid as 15-16HCP.

 

Forcing Pass system. 1nt=10-12 AND 1D-any-1NT=13-15. Pass and 1NT=16-18.

I also tried playing Forcing Pass using(at different times) 8-10 and 9-11HCP in 1st/2nd seat.

 

Two Up and Two Down Precision system. Opened Precision 'Two' HCP lower

(11-13=1NT) in first/second seat. Opened Precision 'Two' HCP higher(15-17=1NT) in third/fourth seat.

 

Roman system using 17-20=1NT range. Changed 1NT to 17-19 shortly after starting playing Roman.

 

Blue Team Club using a 13-17HCP=1NT. Normally 16-17 as the 13-15HCP range involved only certain shaped hands 3=3=3=4 or 3=3=2=5 with clubs.

 

Bende and I used the same range after an opening 'Pass' with my 1C*(fert)-1NT showing

15-17HCP.

 

I enjoyed playing all of these ranges. From 8-10 up to 17-20(even if I changed the 17-20 to 17-19). I believe that NT ranges are a matter of style. If you are happy with a certain range, you try and play that range.

 

I do not prefer to play wide range NT openings or rebids. If partner wants to play a four step 1NT range, I go along with that choice or get a new partner.

 

Regards,

Robert

[foo]

It's true the mini can hide a fit, but it has less of a problem with this than 12-14, since the majority of hands opened in the mini are passed in standard bidding, and frequently you can't find your fit because the opps are in there.

The weaker your 1N opening, the less likely you are to be able to afford to probe for a better suit contract. It's a simple fact of math. The Kamikaze, being the weakest of 1N openings, has this problem worse than any other 1N opening range does.

 

In addition, opening flat average hands gambles

A= on possibly Declaring with hands that should defend due to ODR.

B= on telling the opponents where to place cards if They end up Declaring.

 

 

I play 10-13, with a rebid showing 14-16, and a jump rebid showing 17-19. The problems caused by 17-19 are very rare.

Which means you are using a 2N rebid to show a 3 HCP range when more constructive systems have a tighter range of 2 HCP. Wider range has to mean less bidding accuracy and more guessing. Again, simple math.

 

 

That's a hell of an assumption, that pairs who play the mini don't care about better skills.

I made no such assertion. I said that reliance on a gadget that gets most of its pluses because the opponents do not know how to do the right thing teaches one to be lazy bridge skills wise. I'll stand by that and we can agree to disagree if you wish.

 

 

Your analysis of the defense I presented was way off. X is !not! penalty. X shows a 1N hand of a specified range. While it may very well be =converted= to penalty, it may just as well begin a constructive auction between the defenders as if they had bid 1N.

 

As for run outs, I'll even give you the best one I know:

1N X-??

pa!= Forces a XX, business or two suiter with few or bad S's

After XX, run outs with certain two suiters are:

..............2c!= H+C or D+C

..............2d!= H+D

..............2h!= S+H, Better H's

xx!= single suited hand, 5-6 card suit, puppet to 2C

2c!= S+C

2d!= S+D

2h!= S+H, Better S's

2n!= single suited hand, 7+ card suit, puppet to 3C

 

A different run out structure is optimal after a balancing X.

 

I chose the defense to the KNT after 1st finding the best 1N run out structure I could.

If you think you know a better run out system, I'd be happy to see it.

 

Even playing the best run outs I could find, the proper defensive system pretty much neutralizes the big wins possible from the KNT and the KNT pair still has all the negatives of playing the KNT that happen when they =don't= open 1N.

 

No matter how one twists and turns, the bottom line is that the KNT is a preempt made with hands that have low ODR. And that your NT rebid structure =must= be less accurate than systems with a more constructive 1N opening.

 

The partscore battle will have more randomness thrown into it. For both sides. But that's not going to make up for the problems the KNT will give you once the opponents are defending against it properly.

[jtfanclub]

The weaker your 1N opening, the less likely you are to be able to afford to probe for a better suit contract.  It's a simple fact of math.

Nope, because you're not considering the converse.

 

Balanced hands, no 5 card major.

 

Which is easier to find a suit contract with?

Opening 1NT with 10-12 AND Opening 1 of a minor with 15-17,

OR

Passing with 10-12 AND opening 1NT with 15-17?

 

Since 1m>>>1NT>>>Pass at finding 4-4 fits, it should be obvious that the Kamikaze structure is superior to the SAYC structure at finding 4-4 fits for both the 10-12 range and the 15-17 range.

[pbleighton]

The weaker your 1N opening, the less likely you are to be able to afford to probe for a better suit contract. It's a simple fact of math. The Kamikaze, being the weakest of 1N openings, has this problem worse than any other 1N opening range does.

 

Ahem. It's a simple fact of bridge that if you pass (as most do with balanced 10-11 counts), the opps frequently get in and make life difficult for you in the partscore battle. Do you really not understand this?

 

It's another simple fact of bridge that the partscore battle is frequently a race to 1NT.

 

Which means you are using a 2N rebid to show a 3 HCP range when more constructive systems have a tighter range of 2 HCP. Wider range has to mean less bidding accuracy and more guessing. Again, simple math.

 

I'm not disputing your math. I'm standing by my assertion (based on playing the mini a LOT) that it is rarely an issue.

 

made no such assertion. I said that reliance on a gadget that gets most of its pluses because the opponents do not know how to do the right thing teaches one to be lazy bridge skills wise.

 

That's actually not what you said, however, in any case, your restatement is false. Most of the good results of the mini are NOT due to the opponents do not know how to do the right thing.

 

As to a runout structure, we use Meckwell. It works for us, as well as...

:rolleyes:

 

The partscore battle will have more randomness thrown into it. For both sides. But that's not going to make up for the problems the KNT will give you once the opponents are defending against it properly

 

Again, quite an assertion. I noticed that you didn't respond to my question about your experience with the mini. This confirms my suspicions...

 

BTW, how do you explain the fact that some of the best pairs in the world play the mini. Meckwell and Cohen-Berkowitz both played it for years. I believe Auken is currently playing it. If it's as ineffective as you (with no proof) claim, why would they do it?

 

This reminds me of your rant against light openers. Lots of smoke :P

 

Peter

[foo]

The weaker your 1N opening, the less likely you are to be able to afford to probe for a better suit contract.  It's a simple fact of math.

Nope, because you're not considering the converse.

 

Balanced hands, no 5 card major.

 

Which is easier to find a suit contract with?

Opening 1NT with 10-12 AND Opening 1 of a minor with 15-17,

OR

Passing with 10-12 AND opening 1NT with 15-17?

 

Since 1m>>>1NT>>>Pass at finding 4-4 fits, it should be obvious that the Kamikaze structure is superior to the SAYC structure at finding 4-4 fits for both the 10-12 range and the 15-17 range.

...and you do what with hands worth 13-14?

 

You are not asking the right question.

 

The right question is something like

"which is more accurate: finding the proper strain and level

A= opening 1N= 10-12 and 1m rebid 1N with 13-17 (or 13-16 if you make your 2N rebid be 17-19), and 1m rebid 2N with 18-19 (or 17-19 using that method.)

or

B= Opening KNT and using 1C rebid 1N to show WNT and 1D rebid 1N to show SNT.

or

C= Passing most flat 10-12's and opening 1m rebid 1N with 12-14, opening 1N with 15-17, and 1m rebid 2N with 18-19."

 

"C" is provably the most accurate of those choices.

[pbleighton]

You are not asking the right question.

 

The right question is something like

"which is more accurate: finding the proper strain and level

A= opening 1N= 10-12 and 1m rebid 1N with 13-17 (or 13-16 if you make your 2N rebid be 17-19), and 1m rebid 2N with 18-19 (or 17-19 using that method.)

or

B= Opening KNT and using 1C rebid 1N to show WNT and 1D rebid 1N to show SNT.

or

C= Passing most flat 10-12's and opening 1m rebid 1N with 12-14, opening 1N with 15-17, and 1m rebid 2N with 18-19."

 

"C" is provably the most accurate of those choices.

 

And if your opponents never bid, this would be determinate.

 

However...

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

You are not asking the right question.

 

The right question is something like

"which is more accurate: finding the proper strain and level

A= opening 1N= 10-12 and 1m rebid 1N with 13-17 (or 13-16 if you make your 2N rebid be 17-19), and 1m rebid 2N with 18-19 (or 17-19 using that method.)

or

B= Opening KNT and using 1C rebid 1N to show WNT and 1D rebid 1N to show SNT.

or

C= Passing most flat 10-12's and opening 1m rebid 1N with 12-14, opening 1N with 15-17, and 1m rebid 2N with 18-19."

 

"C" is provably the most accurate of those choices.

I couldn't care less about achieving the proper strain / level.

 

I'm interesting in winning IMPs and scoring high at Match Points. I readily admit, there is some correlation between ending up in the right strain / level and scoring well. There is a lot more in ensuring that the opponents play in the wrong strain, better yet at the wrong level.

 

It is often best to get to a sub-optimal contract as quickly as possible and capitalizing on the opponent's mistake. This is where the mini-NT shines. And you entire analysis fails to take this into account.

 

You exhibit no comprehension that bridge is, in fact, a four handed game... Your fetish for constructive bidding is shining through once again...

[mikeh]

I am willing to bet that I have played as many notrump ranges as anyone... a consequence of longevity and a willingness to accommodate partners.

 

I agree with those who say that the 'best' notrump range depends upon the context of the system. Thus 10-12, while playable in a 2/1 method, seems to work best in a big club approach, because the notrump rebids (after a minor opening) are problematic. While some may argue that playing a 1N rebid as 13-16 and a jump to 2N as 17-19 are not, in reality, problems, my experience is different... and I have played 10-12 in world class events in a 2/1 method as well as, generally, for about 10 years... so I am speaking from actual experience.

 

Some use an idea proposed, I believe, by Kokish: opening 1♣ or 1♦ then rebidding 1N shows tighter ranges: say, 1♣ then 1N is 13-14 and 1♦ 1N is 15-16 and so on. I strongly dislike this method because it destroys accurate minor suit bidding, whether in competition or purely constructive.

 

As it is, if you respond light to a minor opening, as I do, you risk getting to 2N on 17 opposite 4 or 5, when the 'standard' approach gets you a 1N opening and a pass or transfer and pass. So the 10-12 definitely gets you too high on a non-trivial number of boards, and to claim that this hasn't happened suggests either a selective memory, or very weak competition, or inadequate playing time or great luck. The issue is not whether this is a problem: it is whether it is an acceptable cost of an otherwise advantageous approach. Of course, use of a big club obviates this issue (at the cost of others, naturally)

 

I haven't played with my former internationalist partner for years, but when we last played we were seriously considering abandoning the 10-12 because of other drawbacks.

 

The advantages we experienced were:

 

1) we won the race to 1N. This is very good in mps (which we hardly ever played) but useful as well in imps.

 

2) the opps would misguess the bidding. This was especially true at the weaker levels: less true as the quality of the field improved. However, in the BB roundrobin, we played 1N xx'd and made 2. Now, the opps could have beaten us 1000! So it is high variability.

 

3) If we got by direct overcaller, responder could very effectively cause huge problems for 4th chair, since even a quiet 2major runout showed 0-11 hcp.

 

The problems we noticed were:

 

1) On stronger hands, 15-17, we'd open a minor, hear partner respond and 4th chair had a cheap and effective lead directing overcall... especially if his suit was ♠s. Auctions that would go, in 'standard', 1N 3N were going 1C 1♦ [1♠], getting the opps off to a good lead or an easy competition.

 

2) when we passed and later showed some values, it was far easier for skilled declarers to reconstruct our hands... if we showed 9 hcp, we wouldn't have anymore if we were balanced.

 

3) we got too high, or swung too low, when opener's rebid was either too wide range (a 3 point range is not as good as a 2 point range on nt rebids) or it was too high...the above-noted 17 2N rebid.

 

4) on occasion we'd get burned by the double. In a Canadian National Team Championship, we once went for 1100.... we could, double-dummy have got to a 500 spot, but no game made their way. And I already noted the lucky BB result of an overtrick in 1N xx'd when we could have gone 1000. On another small BAM event, we 'won' the board by going -1400 when our teammates overbid to a lucky 1430. When you are dealt 4333 1 counts, I don't care what your runout is: good opps will take you downtown. weak opps tend to lose patience and eventually bid 3N.

 

So, while I enjoy 10-12.... it gets you into a lot of auctions ... and because most opponents I play are weak... I fully understand why the current trend in expert bridge is away from 10-12.

 

I have been tinkering with my own system design (Historically I play my partners' methods with a few tweaks I like to insist upon) and that method is currently based on 11-13 nv 1st and 2nd and 14-16 in other situations. I still have the 2N rebid on 17-bad 19, but open 2N with good 19-bad 21s.... not perfect, but I doubt I'll ever go back to a big club.

 

BTW, in answer to one of foo's points, I strongly disagree that the 10-12 loses 4-4 major suit fits. It is the 12-14 (or my 11-13) that maximizes that issue: especially if you play, as I used to, that one doesn't open a 12 point 1N (playing 10-12) if one would have opened it with a suit when playing strong(er) notrump openings: in other words, 1N denies a fairly standard opening hand. This means that our competitors are (usually) passing.. and passing is not a good way to find a 4-4 fit when partner has less than opening values B) If partner has an opening hand, then we all find the fits, regardless of notrump range.

[jtfanclub]

The right question is something like

"which is more accurate: finding the proper strain and level

A= opening 1N= 10-12 and 1m rebid 1N with 13-17 (or 13-16 if you make your 2N rebid be 17-19), and 1m rebid 2N with 18-19 (or 17-19 using that method.)

or

B= Opening KNT and using 1C rebid 1N to show WNT and 1D rebid 1N to show SNT.

or

C= Passing most flat 10-12's and opening 1m rebid 1N with 12-14, opening 1N with 15-17, and 1m rebid 2N with 18-19."

 

"C" is provably the most accurate of those choices.

Well, by all means, prove it.

 

I'm especially curious as to how C can possibly be better than A in terms of finding the correct strain. If A is better than C in terms of finding the correct strain, then it is mathematically impossible to prove that C is better than A at finding the correct strain and level.

[pbleighton]

As it is, if you respond light to a minor opening, as I do, you risk getting to 2N on 17 opposite 4 or 5, when the 'standard' approach gets you a 1N opening and a pass or transfer and pass. So the 10-12 definitely gets you too high on a non-trivial number of boards, and to claim that this hasn't happened suggests either a selective memory, or very weak competition, or inadequate playing time or great luck.

 

Mike, no one claimed that it hasn't happened. It does happen, but it's a very small number of boards compared to the mini openers, an *acceptable cost*.

 

I have been tinkering with my own system design (Historically I play my partners' methods with a few tweaks I like to insist upon) and that method is currently based on 11-13 nv 1st and 2nd and 14-16 in other situations.

 

As to the 13-16, that would be more problematic, which is why I play a 10-13. I thought about 11-13, but greed won out B) The 10 counts are a big enough winner on partscores and when the opps have the cards that I can stand the occasional overbids/underbids, though the number is larger than it would be in 13-16. You may well be right that 11-13 is theoretically better (or better against good opps). I won't give up the joy of opening flat 10 counts, at least for now.

 

but I doubt I'll ever go back to a big club

 

Curious, why?

 

When you are dealt 4333 1 counts, I don't care what your runout is..

 

Yeah, bummer, dude :P

 

Peter