14-16 or 15-17 1NT

[jmc]

We have recently decided to stop playing 10-13 NT's for awhile in our precision system. There are a variety of reasons but the main reason is to get a feel for strong NT's in a precision context to better decide on what we like. As we've always played weak NT's, this is a way to get a feel for strong.

 

Should we play 15-17 or 14-16?

 

Why do the pros play 14-16?

 

15-17: As I see it this is a nice range to "stay with the field"

 

14-16: Slightly more preemptive and cleans up the 11-13 1D opener a bit.

 

We play a pretty normal berkowitz-manly precision with transfers after the big club and 1C-1D-1H Kokish like relay. We open Rule of 20 hands and all 11 counts. Flat 10's are normally passed.

[mtvesuvius]

There are a number of reasons why 14-16 is better:

 

• It helps define the 1D-1M-1N auctions much better, 11-14 for those is a bit wide of a range, this could be fixed, but as I'm sure you know from playing 10-13 NTs...
  
• It's nice to open all 11 counts. Playing a 15-17 NT, you can't do that nearly as much, especially for balanced hands.
  
• It completes your NT ranges quite nicely, 1♦ then 1N is 11-13, 1N is 14-16, 1♣ then 1N is 17-19, 2N is 20-21, 1♣ then 2N is 22-23, 1♣ then 2♥ Kokish is 24-25 etc...
  
• It is more pre-emptive, and overall advocates a more aggressive style, which it sounds like you and your partner enjoy
  
• Holding balanced 8 counts, you no longer get too high. Holding 9 counts you may get too high though.
  
• 11/12s invite and 10s pass opposite 11-13, which is a big gain IMO
  

[awm]

The main question is whether you want to open balanced 11-counts. Opening these hands fits well with the common precision style, since you presumably open unbalanced 11s and some 10s. If you're opening balanced 11s, then playing 14-16 gives you three-point ranges (which works quite a bit better than four-point ranges).

 

There is also some advantage to 14-16 because it seems non-obvious whether to treat this as weak or strong. It's generally a range that's "strong enough" for opponents not to get much value out of a penalty double, yet also "weak enough" that opponents can be talked out of a game-on-power if they don't play a penalty double.

 

I do recommend 15-17 in 3rd/4th chair for the safety and field protection.

[MickyB]

There are a number of reasons why 14-16 is better:

 

• It helps define the 1D-1M-1N auctions much better, 11-14 for those is a bit wide of a range, this could be fixed, but as I'm sure you know from playing 10-13 NTs...
  
• It's nice to open all 11 counts. Playing a 15-17 NT, you can't do that nearly as much, especially for balanced hands.
  
• It completes your NT ranges quite nicely, 1♦ then 1N is 11-13, 1N is 14-16, 1♣ then 1N is 17-19, 2N is 20-21, 1♣ then 2N is 22-23, 1♣ then 2♥ Kokish is 24-25 etc...
  
• It is more pre-emptive, and overall advocates a more aggressive style, which it sounds like you and your partner enjoy
  
• Holding balanced 8 counts, you no longer get too high. Holding 9 counts you may get too high though.
  
• 11/12s invite and 10s pass opposite 11-13, which is a big gain IMO
  

 

I agree with the first two points, I think the last two are just randomness though, either range can work better on a specific hand.

 

Yes, 14-16 allows you to comfortably open 1D with 11-13. Flat seventeens do just fine being opened 1C.

 

I too prefer 15-17 in third and fourth, but my main reason for this isn't one of the two put forward by Adam. If you are opening bal 11s and unbal 10s with 5M/6m in 1st and 2nd, then you will never be investigating game after P:1D, 1M:1NT. This allows you some leeway with the 1D opening, leads to fewer 2NT contracts and allows responder's 2m rebid to be natural and NF, as you have no need for checkback.

[whereagles]

The reason, according to Rigal's "precision in the 90s", is as follows.

 

The inventor of precision (C.C.Wei) wanted to open 1♣ ALL the 16+ hcp hands. That made the 16-18 NT range go into the 1♣ opener. Now, since all responder's 8+ counts are game forcing after a 1♣ opener, you sometimes end up playing 3NT with 16 opposite 8 without long suits. Since that is statistically a loser, the NT scale was updated to the current

 

11-13: 1♦-1x-1NT

14-16: 1NT

17-19: 1♣

etc...

 

This NT scale is more precise and goes more with the field. It appeared not because of a downgrade of the 15-17 NT, but rather as an upgrade of the 13-15 one.

[mycroft]

The biggest problem with 14-16 NT in 15-17 land is responder's 9-counts. Either you just blast game, like all the 15-17ers are doing (and get -EV when partner did open 14), or you invite (and play 2NT rather than 1NT when partner has 14, *and* give the opponents the benefit of a 1NT-2NT-3NT auction (granted, only for the opening lead, dummy will come down, but it's still something)) vs the field's 1NT-3NT.

 

15-17, as awm says, means that you are pretty much limited to the same bottom range of balanced openers that the rest of the field has, with the added ambiguity of them all being opened 1D. That takes some of the pressure off the opponents that a Strong Club system allows, compensated by the knowledge that you're not being forced to game with "flat 17 vs misfitting flat 8" and the fact that you're taking pressure off yourself.

 

Having said that, I play 10-12 NV, 14-16 V and 4th currently (I like pushing the opponents). If I thought our system brains could handle it, switching to 10-12 NV 123, 14-16 V 12, 15-17 V3 and all 4 would probably be theoretically better.

[Gerben42]

I think you shouldn't worry too much about the field. In the end it all evens out so you should go for the range that fits better into your system, which is without any doubt 14 - 16.

 

I agree with playing 15 - 17 opposite a passed hand though, but again not for reasons of "staying with the field" but because partner has already passed and because your strong 1♣ opening should probably show 17+ with a passed hand if you open light. If you stick to 16+, you won't have enough positive responses to make a living.

 

One nice advantage of 14 - 16 NT is that it isn't really clear how to defend against it. Opposite a strong NT, it doesn't pay that much to double for points or penalty (except perhaps in 3rd seat against aggressive opponents). Against weak NT, it's essential. 14 - 16 is well... inbetween. Whatever strategy you choose, you will have problems when the other hand comes up, and it will.

[Phil]

14-16 works quite nicely. Disagree with opening all 11's, especially 4333 11's, however. There are 4432 11's that I will open in a strong club setting, but will gladly pass playing 2/1.

 

Many good 2/1 players upgrade a lot of 14's anyway, so you aren't getting that much field variance with a 14-16.

[fred]

An important point that I don't think anyone has mentioned: 14-16 works well with 2/1 GF and "semi-forcing" 1NT responses to 1M.

 

Assuming you open 1NT with 5332 hands containing 5-card majors, when a 1M opener has a 5332 hand he will have 13 HCP at the most (unless he is too strong to open 1NT of course). Passing a semi-forcing 1NT response with a 5332 13-count will usually work out OK, but if opener can have a 14 HCP 5332 hand (as is possible if 1NT is 15-17), passing the semi-forcing 1NT response is a lot more dangerous - you will miss too many good game contracts.

 

The alternative of rebidding 2m with a 5332 14-count (or any 5332 hand for that matter as is necessary if the 1NT response is truly forcing) is frowned upon by what seems to me to be a growing number of experts these days.

 

One of the big plusses of semi-forcing 1NT is that 2m rebids usually deliver 4 cards in the suit bid. If you use 1NT as 14-16 then "usually" effectively becomes "always".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bluecalm]

The alternative of rebidding 2m with a 5332 14-count (or any 5332 hand for that matter as is necessary if the 1NT response is truly forcing) is frowned upon by what seems to me to be a growing number of experts these days.

 

This is interesting. In Poland it's going in the other direction. People are employing forcing 1NT even if systems which don't require it just to be able to bid 2♣ on every 5-3-3-2 (bidding 2♦ with 3diamonds is super bad in my opinion) and hopefully get to better partial than 1NT. I have noticed that both Greco Hampson and Meckwell play not (semi) forcing 1NT now but unfortunately only knowing the hands from vugraph isn't enough to tell if they are losing or winning thanks to it.

[bluecalm]

I agree with playing 15 - 17 opposite a passed hand though, but again not for reasons of "staying with the field" but because partner has already passed and because your strong 1♣ opening should probably show 17+ with a passed hand if you open light. If you stick to 16+, you won't have enough positive responses to make a living.

 

I think it could only work if you open all 11's. You really don't want to be in a spot:

pas 1♦

????

 

When the passer still can have 11 and the opener 14. Jumping to 2NT after passing first is obviously very bad but bidding 1NT puts opener in very awkward spot if he has 14.

11-13 range and 14-16nt solves a lot of those problems and allows for more or less free ride in 3rd seat.

[fred]

This is interesting. In Poland it's going in the other direction. People are employing forcing 1NT even if systems which don't require it just to be able to bid 2♣ on every 5-3-3-2 (bidding 2♦ with 3diamonds is super bad in my opinion) and hopefully get to better partial than 1NT. I have noticed that both Greco Hampson and Meckwell play not (semi) forcing 1NT now but unfortunately only knowing the hands from vugraph isn't enough to tell if they are losing or winning thanks to it.

In the USA at least, I get the strong impression that the top pairs who have switched from forcing to semi-forcing in recent years don't even think it is close - most would be horrified by the notion of switching back to forcing.

 

They (including me) definitely think that semi-forcing is a big winner, but of course that doesn't mean that it really is.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

Fred, assuming partner is balanced, what approximate point count do you think he should have to make a 2/1 GF response to 1M? This assuming that opener is going to pass the 1N with a 11-13 5332 hand. I'm guessing 13 hcps but that leaves us in 1N when 13 opposite 12.

 

Long ago, Meckwell played that after 1S-1N, opener would rebid a 3-cd minor with the 13 pt 5332 and then correct to 3N if the minor was raised. Assuming they aren't doing this now, it seems that there is more pressure on responder to initiate a GF.

[bluecalm]

They (including me) definitely think that semi-forcing is a big winner, but of course that doesn't mean that it really is.

 

Well, I trust your judgement more than mine on this one (still I am going to dig up all the hands from vugraph history where Meckwell or GH opened 1M and passed 1NT and see).

One more thing is that I thought that it's common to bid 1NT with many 12 counts. In this case semiforcing doesn't solve the problem of being stuck in 1NT on 25pc. If we bid 2/1 with every/most 12 then we often play sharp 3NT on 23.

 

I guess the difference in approach is that most people here play mainly matchpoints. At matchpoints missing better partscore or playing 3NT on 23pc is often a disaster. At imps not so much. I would be much more willing to play semi forcing 1NT if imps were my main game.

[fred]

Fred, assuming partner is balanced, what approximate point count do you think he should have to make a 2/1 GF response to 1M? This assuming that opener is going to pass the 1N with a 11-13 5332 hand. I'm guessing 13 hcps but that leaves us in 1N when 13 opposite 12.

I think 13 is about right, but of course not all balanced 12s and 13s are created equal.

 

That, along with much of what I have said in this thread, assumes that your opening bids are not extremely light. If you routinely open balanced 10 counts or 5431ish 9 counts when you have a 5-card major, that complicates matters perhaps to the point that there are no great answers. I suppose that is part of the price you pay for opening very light, but maybe I am missing something as I have little experience playing a very light style.

 

I wouldn't lose any sleep over missing these 13 opposite 12 3NTs because:

 

- It is relatively rare that both opener and responder have complete maximums

- It is not as if 3NT is always going to make on these layouts

- All systems have their weaknesses

- Both opener and responder should be allowed to upgrade if they think their hand is worth more than its HCP total suggests

- The benefits of being able to play in 1NT and of 2m rebids delivering 4+ cards are easily enough to make up for the this (in my view)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bluecalm]

Also it's not clear if you want to open 1NT with every 14-15 5M-3-3-2. It seems to me that Americans have no problem with that at all while Europeans don't like it. If you are going to open 1M then the benefit of knowing that 2C is natural after 1NT is gone. So I think that if you are going to adopt semi forcing 1NT you have to go for the whole package (1NT with 5M-3-3-2, puppet stayman of some kind etc. etc.)

[wclass___]

Several people have conducted statistical studies to try to determine what happens

when the 1NT response is passed, as opposed to when opener makes his normal rebid in a

three-card minor suit. The conclusion has been that rebidding usually improves the

contract. In our style, responder will frequently be passing with a doubleton in opener’s

major and up to as many as 8-9 points, so if we get to 2M on a 5-2 fit, it will usually have

adequate high cards (and the 5-2 fit is superior to 1NT surprisingly often). The rest of the

time, we will get to an eight-card major fit (when responder has support) or a seven-card,

and usually eight-card, fit in some other suit when he does not. While it would be nice to

play 1NT when it is the best contract, Al Roth determined a long time ago that it is

impossible to know when that is true, and that your long-term results are better when you

2

keep on bidding to the two level. I believe he was right, and have preserved his principle in

Revision.

[straube]

I think 13 is about right, but of course not all balanced 12s and 13s are created equal.

 

That, along with much of what I have said in this thread, assumes that your opening bids are not extremely light. If you routinely open balanced 10 counts or 5431ish 9 counts when you have a 5-card major, that complicates matters perhaps to the point that there are no great answers. I suppose that is part of the price you pay for opening very light, but maybe I am missing something as I have little experience playing a very light style.

 

I wouldn't lose any sleep over missing these 13 opposite 12 3NTs because:

 

- It is relatively rare that both opener and responder have complete maximums

- It is not as if 3NT is always going to make on these layouts

- All systems have their weaknesses

- Both opener and responder should be allowed to upgrade if they think their hand is worth more than its HCP total suggests

- The benefits of being able to play in 1NT and of 2m rebids delivering 4+ cards are easily enough to make up for the this (in my view)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

 

Thanks. We open 11 balanced but 10 unbalanced if the hand isn't quackish.

 

Now if we can solve the rebid problem of the 14-15 with 4-5-2-2

 

Actually, the 4-5-(31s) are also a problem if we're wanting a rebid to promise 4 cds.

[bluecalm]

1M - 1NT

pass

 

Seems to be extremely rare. In all vugraph history up to 2009 there are only 4 hands where Meckwell passed 1NT:

 

('QJ.A72.JT872.QJ3', 'K8652.QT8.A43.A8')

('KQ654.A4.632.QJ4', '73.Q5.KQJ85.9863')

('J63.5.AT9652.AJ9', 'AT85.J9742.K7.K8')

('A83.JT.T8.Q98543', 'Q4.KQ984.A52.J72')

 

So not too much material too analyse. (There are no hands where GH passed 1NT).

2 more hands where Balicki - Zmudzinski passed 1NT: (out of 3700):

('83.A.QJ32.J87653', 'QJ65.Q8752.K.KQ2')

('JT8.KJ.KT954.T87', 'KQ5.AQ864.Q76.65')

[fred]

Now if we can solve the rebid problem of the 14-15 with 4-5-2-2

In the absense of Flannery there is no good way to bid this hand, but consider opening 1NT as an admittedly ugly least of evils.

 

Actually, the 4-5-(31s) are also a problem if we're wanting a rebid to promise 4 cds.

I try to avoid using the word "promise" (at least in discussions relating to bidding).

 

A better way to think about it is that partner can effectively play you to hold 4+ cards (even though it is necessary to rebid a 3-card suit on occasion). It it similar to opening 1D playing "standard" with 3 diamonds only when you are specifically 4432 - in general partner shouldn't worry about this possibility when he is thinking about raising diamonds with "only" 4-card support.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[straube]

Thanks. Nice to see you posting in this forum :)

[bluecalm]

I had a bug in my program :)

Actually there were 20 hands on vugraph were either Meckwell or Greco Hampson passed 1NT.

Here are those hands along with the bidding:

 

['Mahmood', 'Rodwell', 'Rosenberg', 'Meckstroth']

('AT85.J9742.K7.K8', 'J63.5.AT9652.AJ9')

1H p 1N p

p p p p

 

['Rodwell', 'Lazard', 'Meckstroth', 'Bramley']

('AK42.A9873.Q8.82', '85.T65.KJ6.QJ953')

p p 1H p

1N p p 2D

2H p p p

 

['Weichsel', 'Rodwell', 'Ekeblad', 'Meckstroth']

('Q4.KQ984.A52.J72', 'A83.JT.T8.Q98543')

1H p 1N p

p p p p

 

['Berkowitz', 'Rodwell', 'Cohen', 'Meckstroth']

('K8652.QT8.A43.A8', 'QJ.A72.JT872.QJ3')

1S p 1N p

p p p p

 

['Meckwell', ' Zia', 'Rodwell', 'Rosenberg']

('KQ854.AQ.J75.873', 'T7.T97632.K.AKT6')

p 1S p 1N

p p 2N d

3D p p 3H

d p p p

 

['VERSACE Al', 'RODWELL Er', 'LAURIA Lor', 'MECKSTROTH']

('KQ654.A4.632.QJ4', '73.Q5.KQJ85.9863')

1S p 1N p

p p p p

 

['M. Bessis', 'Meckstroth', 'T. Bessis', 'Rodwell']

('AJ932.98.K74.A92', 'T8.AQT52.Q.Q8764')

1S p 1N p

p p p p

 

['Weinstock', 'Rodwell', 'Mihai', 'Meckstroth']

('AQ742.A9.T72.KT6', '3.K54.KJ9.Q97543')

1S p 1N p

p p p p

 

['Schwartz', 'Rodwell', 'Lair', 'Meckstroth']

('J8653.A96.AQ5.Q6', '2.Q54.832.KJ9742')

p p 1S p

1N p p p

 

['BRAMLEY', 'GRECO', 'FELDMAN', 'HAMPSON']

('AT85.J9742.K7.K8', 'J63.5.AT9652.AJ9')

1H p 1N p

p p p p

 

['hampson', 'weinstein', 'greco', 'levin']

('K95.AJ873.T4.J72', 'A83.T2.9763.AQ83')

p p 1H p

1N p p p

 

['2005', 'WORLD', 'ITALY', 'CHAMPION']

('J63.KQ976.A82.94', 'AT74.42.J63.AT52')

p p 1H p

1N p p p

 

['ZIA', 'GRECO', 'ROSENBERG', 'HAMPSON']

('K9863.K87.Q2.AT2', 'J.QT42.AJ987.854')

p p 1S p

1N p p p

 

['KREKORIAN', 'HAMPSON', 'DREWSKI', 'GRECO']

('KJ85.J83.AQT95.3', 'Q7.62.J742.KT864')

1S p 1N p

p p p p

 

['GRECO', 'ZMUDZINSKI', 'HAMPSON', 'BALICKI']

('AJ732.975.T73.AK', 'Q64.AKT.Q62.T753')

p 1S p 1N

p p p p

 

['Greco', 'Fantoni', 'Hampson', 'Nunes']

('AK642.63.AT5.QJ2', '83.J42.J8763.AK4')

p p p 1S

p 1N p p

p p p p

 

['Nunes', 'Hampson', 'Fantoni', 'Greco']

('K9873.KQ4.K52.65', '642.A962.Q76.872')

p p 1S p

1N p p d

p 2C p p

p p p p

 

['Nunes', 'Hampson', 'Fantoni', 'Greco']

('K9873.KQ4.K52.65', '642.A962.Q76.872')

p p 1S p

1N p p d

p 2C p p

p p p p

 

['Zia', 'Hampson', 'Rosenberg', 'Greco']

('KQ872.653.K9.K86', 'J93.T984.T73.A72')

1S p 1N p

p p p p

 

['2005', 'WORLD', 'ITALY', 'CHAMPION']

('AQJ93.AJ.984.983', '842.K732.QJ7.AJ4')

p 1S p 1N

p p p p

 

:-)

[Siegmund]

I really enjoyed 14-16 NT when I played it (in a polish-style club system, some years ago), and felt it was a winner when it went against the 15-17 field. Oddly, the reason I quit playing it was when I started playing a souped-up form of checkback stayman, and decided I was quite happy to open all my 11-14s with 1C.

 

The semiforcing notrump issue does seem like a good reason for the 14-16 NT, since that's a sequence where opener's balanced 14 is a real problem hand, whereas comparing 1N vs 1C-1M-1N ont he other hands is more or less a wash.

[Zelandakh]

Now if we can solve the rebid problem of the 14-15 with 4-5-2-2

The INV+ relay method solves this problem easily. After 1♥ - 1♠, 2♣ = 4+ spades; 1NT = min without 4 spades; others = max without 4 spades. After 2♣, if Responder has a GF hand they can relay with 2♦, and if not they make a natural bid after which Opener can drive to game with 14-15.

[whereagles]

You don't really NEED it to be forcing, unless you want to use 1M-3NT for some sort of raise or do some other high-tech gadgetry which requires a 100% forcing 1NT.