Just curious...

[jdonn]

So Wayne, playing a 15-17 NT you NEVER downgrade? The logic is exactly the same.

No it's not. This range has been chosen for frequency and for preemption, 15-17 is chosen for constructive bidding.

[whereagles]

So Wayne, playing a 15-17 NT you NEVER downgrade? The logic is exactly the same.

No it's not. This range has been chosen for frequency and for preemption, 15-17 is chosen for constructive bidding.

Actually, we chose it because it fits into the other openings very well.

[Apollo81]

As others have pointed out, the whole point of this range is to preempt the opponents, not constructively reach game. In fact id say theres no point to playing a 3 point range for a purely preemptive NT opening, might as well play 8-11. I dont think this argument extends to other ranges (even 10-12 vs 10-13) because a lot of those will be "constructive" hands whereas a lot fewer of the 8-11s will be our hand.

 

If I were to play 8-11 fav I would open any balanced 8 count and would upgrade some 11s (field openers) into 1-suit.

[cherdano]

I would open, but then again I wouldn't agree to play a min-NT.

Why not? Do you think it is that bad NV against V?

I would feel good opening this hand 1N actually. But I haven't yet seen a system with a 9-11 NT that I would like to play.

[whereagles]

As others have pointed out, the whole point of this range is to preempt the opponents, not constructively reach game.

Absolutely disagree. A 9-11 1NT is an extremely CONSTRUCTIVE opening. It describes your hand to a very high degree of accuracy, after which pard knows exactly where to go, and has the tools to go there. The only non-constructive thing about it is the loss of major suit 44 fits when responder is in the 9-13 region. But any NT range has the same problem (albeit, admittedly less frequently).

 

I won't hide that preemption is also a part of it, but it's completely wrong to say it's ONLY preemptive. If it were so, I'd widen the range into the classic preempt range of, say 7-11, and dump with all sorts of balanced and semibalanced shapes into it. (I'm allowed to open balanced 7 counts here, by the way.) We should not confuse "risky" (which it is) with "destructive" (which it is NOT).

[helene_t]

the whole point of this range is to preempt the opponents, not constructively reach game. In fact id say theres no point to playing a 3 point range for a purely preemptive NT opening, might as well play 8-11.

Fair enough, but the premise of this poll was 9-11, not 8-11. I suppose those who open this hand would upgrade many 8-counts and downgrade few if any 9-counts, so the disclosure should in that case have been (8)9-11 or some such.

 

Btw there may be a HUM problem with upgrading too many 7-counts to 1NT.

[ArtK78]

I find this thread to be bordering on silly.

 

If you agree to open a 9-11 HCP 1NT and you hold a balanced 9 count with scattered (some would say widely scattered) values, then you open 1NT.

 

Now, if you agree to open a GOOD 9 - 11 HCP 1NT, then you might not open this one due to the lack of spot cards. But that was not what was presented.

 

I routinely play 10-12 1NT openings Nonvul, and I open any balanced or semi-balanced hand with 10 HCP 1NT (except if I have a 5 card major, and then I use my judgment whether to open 1NT or one of the major). Once you start to refuse to open what your agreements state is an opening hand you will have serious problems. (I have a different problem - my partner likes to "upgrade" 9 counts to a 1NT opening - lol)

[Apollo81]

If it were so, I'd widen the range into the classic preempt range of, say 7-11, and dump with all sorts of balanced and semibalanced shapes into it. (I'm allowed to open balanced 7 counts here, by the way.) We should not confuse "risky" (which it is) with "destructive" (which it is NOT).

I bet this would be more effective at fav than 9-11

[jdonn]

I won't hide that preemption is also a part of it, but it's completely wrong to say it's ONLY preemptive. If it were so, I'd widen the range into the classic preempt range of, say 7-11, and dump with all sorts of balanced and semibalanced shapes into it. (I'm allowed to open balanced 7 counts here, by the way.) We should not confuse "risky" (which it is) with "destructive" (which it is NOT).

No one said destructive, and no one said "only" preemptive (I think). You are confusing "constructive" with "descriptive". How can you call an opening on which it is more likely to be their hand than yours constructive? (expected strength of the sides is equal, but since you are balanced they are more likely to have shape so it's more likely their hand). The way you describe it you could easily be talking about a 3 level opening (descriptive, partner can easily place the contract, etc.)

[whereagles]

1. no one said "only" preemptive (I think).

 

2. How can you call an opening on which it is more likely to be their hand than yours constructive? (expected strength of the sides is equal,

 

3. but since you are balanced they are more likely to have shape so it's more likely their hand).

 

4. The way you describe it you could easily be talking about a 3 level opening (descriptive, partner can easily place the contract, etc.)

1. Think again.

 

2. I dispute that claim. As you said, expectancy is the same for both sides and the follow-ups played are such that you'll get to

- a good partscore anytime responder has 5D/H/S or a more extreme shape

- a decent-to-good partscore anytime responder has 9-13 hcp and no 5 card

- the best game/slam if he responder is strong

- the best available partscore if opps are strong and double us

 

Now tell me: how is that not constructive?

 

3. ????????????? I had never heard such thing.

 

4. So what? You can place some very simple requirements on 3 level openers that turn them constructive. CC Wei's original precision 3 level openers were like that: a 3m opener was made on a 7 carder with 2 top honors and a side entry.

[hrothgar]

As others have pointed out, the whole point of this range is to preempt the opponents, not constructively reach game. In fact id say theres no point to playing a 3 point range for a purely preemptive NT opening, might as well play 8-11. I dont think this argument extends to other ranges (even 10-12 vs 10-13) because a lot of those will be "constructive" hands whereas a lot fewer of the 8-11s will be our hand.

I still have some very real issues with this line of reasoning: I think that you're asking for trouble if the vocabulary that you use in your disclosure system varies significantly depending on the strength of your hand.

 

At the end of the day, that's what most of you seem to be arguing in favor of:

 

The expression "HCPs" means X if you're playing a 15-17 HCP NT and you hold a balanced 15 count.

 

"HCPs" means Y if you're playing a 9-11 HCP NT and you hold a balanced 9 count.

 

I think that its a lot more reasonable that the yardstick - in this case the meaning of "HCPs" - remains fixed regardless of what you happen to be measuring.

 

If you want to play a structure in which ALL 9 counts are opened with a micro NT, you're probably better off saying that you play an 8+ to 11 HCP 1NT opening... (Given that you want to open 1NT as often as posisble, you're probably upgrading the good 8 counts)

[jdonn]

1. Think again.

 

2. I dispute that claim. As you said, expectancy is the same for both sides and the follow-ups played are such that you'll get to

- a good partscore anytime responder has 5D/H/S or a more extreme shape

- a decent-to-good partscore anytime responder has 9-13 hcp and no 5 card

- the best game/slam if he responder is strong

- the best available partscore if opps are strong and double us

 

Now tell me: how is that not constructive?

 

3. ????????????? I had never heard such thing.

 

4. So what? You can place some very simple requirements on 3 level openers that turn them constructive. CC Wei's original precision 3 level openers were like that: a 3m opener was made on a 7 carder with 2 top honors and a side entry.

1. I didn't say it but ok someone else did. I agree preemptive is not the 'only' value.

 

3. No need for so many question marks just because you have not heard of something plainly obvious. Which of these combinations is more likely to have more shape: Two completely unknown hands, or one completely unknown hand and one balanced hand? Come on, you can figure it out if you try hard :)

 

By the way you REALLY should not break up someones post like that if you are quoting it directly and then pass it off as a direct quote, please don't do it to mine anyway. Direct quotes should be exactly as written or else you are crossing a line you do not want to cross.

[hrothgar]

1. no one said "only" preemptive (I think).

 

2. How can you call an opening on which it is more likely to be their hand than yours constructive? (expected strength of the sides is equal,

 

3. but since you are balanced they are more likely to have shape so it's more likely their hand).

 

4. The way you describe it you could easily be talking about a 3 level opening (descriptive, partner can easily place the contract, etc.)

 

 

3. ????????????? I had never heard such thing.

Josh's statement can be read one of two ways

 

1. The fact that we hold a balanced hand makes it more likely that they hold an unbalanced hand (I believe that the converse is true)

 

2. We are known to hold a balanced hand. they may or may not hold a balanced hand. Therefore, they are more likely to have shape than we are

 

I suspect that Josh meant option 2, while you are assuming that he meant 1...

[Apollo81]

When you PREEMPT your bid does not have PURELY preemptive value either. Lets not get into a ridiculous semantics argument.

 

When you open a 15-17 NT youre thinking "I hope this gets us to the best contract" When you open 1NT with 7-11 or 8-11 or 9-11 or 10-12 at fav, you are not thinking, "I hope this will get us to a good game" You're thinking "I hope this F's the opps!" Anyone who thinks or states otherwise is wrong. End of discussion.

[jdonn]

I suspect that Josh meant option 2, while you are assuming that he meant 1...

yes

[Fluffy]

I know I am wrong Apollo, but when I preempt I think: I hope opponents have dificulties to find their best contract while my partner will have enoug hinfo to find our best contract.

 

If I wanted to only f** up with the opponents I 'd open 2♠ (or any other fancy bid) showing any preemptive hand.

[Cascade]

If I'm playing 9-11 mini, then this is a 9-11 mini. It's the right vulnerability, and the right position.   The whole point of the method is to open a mini as often as you possibly can.

Completely agree.

 

That is why we have a four-point range for our mini - although we are a much more conservative 10-13.

 

I don't see the point in playing this method and passing when the vulnerability is right!!!

So Wayne, playing a 15-17 NT you NEVER downgrade? The logic is exactly the same.

No its not.

 

A 15-17 is designed as a constructive bid.

 

Lower ranges even 12-14 are often cited for their pre-emptive affect.

 

When I pre-empt especially at favourable vulnerability I am less worried about the accuracy of range than when I start with a more constructive bid. For example I would never consider opening a 8 count 5-4-3-1 hand with a one-level bid (I regularly would open 11 counts of this shape). On the other hand while I wouldn't ordinarly open with 2 or 3 points I would sometimes consider it with an otherwise normal pre-empt distribution which is well outside my nominal range. A more specific example is that my partner once opened a 1st seat pre-empt on a one count with seven diamonds our nominal range is 5-9 hcp. I have never seen him open a 6-count in first seat 1♠.

 

This same principle applies to a mini-NT - I want to keep my strong NTs up to strength but I do not care as much about my mini-NTs.

[Cascade]

I know I am wrong Apollo, but when I preempt I think: I hope opponents have dificulties to find their best contract while my partner will have enoug hinfo to find our best contract.

 

If I wanted to only f** up with the opponents I 'd open 2♠ (or any other fancy bid) showing any preemptive hand.

But I bet you place a different relative emphasis on getting to the right contract and getting in the opponents' way depending on the vulnerability.

[the hog]

When you PREEMPT your bid does not have PURELY preemptive value either. Lets not get into a ridiculous semantics argument.

 

When you open a 15-17 NT youre thinking "I hope this gets us to the best contract" When you open 1NT with 7-11 or 8-11 or 9-11 or 10-12 at fav, you are not thinking, "I hope this will get us to a good game" You're thinking "I hope this F's the opps!" Anyone who thinks or states otherwise is wrong. End of discussion.

No its not the end of the discussion! If it fits well into the rest of your system then you are not thinking, "I hope it F the opposition" at all.

[han]

Right, the 9-11 1NT opening that fixes that hole in the system that you've been struggling with for so long. I know the feeling.

[the hog]

Right, the 9-11 1NT opening that fixes that hole in the system that you've been struggling with for so long. I know the feeling.

It wasn't my comment, it was Nuno's. Who knows, maybe it does plug his hole. (system hole I mean). :)

[EricK]

As others have pointed out, the whole point of this range is to preempt the opponents, not constructively reach game.  In fact id say theres no point to playing a 3 point range for a purely preemptive NT opening, might as well play 8-11.  I dont think this argument extends to other ranges (even 10-12 vs 10-13) because a lot of those will be "constructive" hands whereas a lot fewer of the 8-11s will be our hand.

I still have some very real issues with this line of reasoning: I think that you're asking for trouble if the vocabulary that you use in your disclosure system varies significantly depending on the strength of your hand.

 

At the end of the day, that's what most of you seem to be arguing in favor of:

 

The expression "HCPs" means X if you're playing a 15-17 HCP NT and you hold a balanced 15 count.

 

"HCPs" means Y if you're playing a 9-11 HCP NT and you hold a balanced 9 count.

 

I think that its a lot more reasonable that the yardstick - in this case the meaning of "HCPs" - remains fixed regardless of what you happen to be measuring.

 

If you want to play a structure in which ALL 9 counts are opened with a micro NT, you're probably better off saying that you play an 8+ to 11 HCP 1NT opening... (Given that you want to open 1NT as often as posisble, you're probably upgrading the good 8 counts)

Supposed you played a 1-3 NT. Would you ever downgrade a 1 count? I can hardly see the point. But that doesn't mean that HCP mean something different at the 1-3 level than they do at the 15-17 level. Suppose you play a 3-5 NT. Maybe the only 3 pointers you'd downgrade are those where the 3 points are in suit which is QJ tight. You would be downgrading exceptionally rarely - far less often than when playing 15-17 - and still have HCP mean the same at each level.

 

Given any reasonable set of conditions which cause you to downgrade, there will be a connnection between how many points you have and how likely it is that your hand will meet the conditions to downgrade. So it's not clear to me that downgrading 9 pointers very rarely and 15 pointers more often means you are using a different valuation method at each level.

[whereagles]

1. No need for so many question marks just because you have not heard of something plainly obvious. Which of these combinations is more likely to have more shape: Two completely unknown hands, or one completely unknown hand and one balanced hand? Come on, you can figure it out if you try hard :unsure:

 

2. By the way you REALLY should not break up someones post like that if you are quoting it directly and then pass it off as a direct quote, please don't do it to mine anyway. Direct quotes should be exactly as written or else you are crossing a line you do not want to cross.

1. Well... the onus to prove a claim is on the one who makes it. So you run the simulations and present the results :blink:

 

2. When there's a break, I usually put a thing like this: "(...)", which is the usual way to say the quote is taken from a longer paragraph. Thing is.. sometimes I just don't bother to do it. It's not on purpose, it's just laziness. Anyway, if you don't like my style, too bad for you.

[whereagles]

When you PREEMPT your bid does not have PURELY preemptive value either. Lets not get into a ridiculous semantics argument.

 

When you open a 15-17 NT youre thinking "I hope this gets us to the best contract" When you open 1NT with 7-11 or 8-11 or 9-11 or 10-12 at fav, you are not thinking, "I hope this will get us to a good game" You're thinking "I hope this F's the opps!" Anyone who thinks or states otherwise is wrong. End of discussion.

Grow up, will you?

[whereagles]

Right, the 9-11 1NT opening that fixes that hole in the system that you've been struggling with for so long. I know the feeling.

It wasn't my comment, it was Nuno's. Who knows, maybe it does plug his hole. (system hole I mean). :unsure:

ahah.. lol :blink:

 

Well, we do want to open all 9+ hcp hands in 1st/2nd NV, so the feeble NT is ideal for opening the balanced kind.