The Natural Portion of a Non-Natural System

[relknes]

This doesn't really follow. First, there is a tempo advantage associated with the opening lead, such that it's not unusual to take an additional trick or two on defense over declaring. Second, there are often situations with a guess that declarer can get wrong in the play (but when defending, seeing the dummy prevents a similar mistake). For example, say declarer has ♦Q9x opposite ♦KTx on a two-way guess for the jack to take two tricks in the play. But when defending notrump by the opponents, you can see the jack (or not) in dummy so are unlikely to get this wrong. Finally, there are cases where the opponents can actually make 3NT on 10 opposite 13 and two balanced hands, but are very unlikely to ever bid it. By playing 1NT vulnerable on these hands (instead of defending a partial by the opponents) you are conceding a much bigger score. The fact that the layout permits them to make an otherwise against-the-odds 3NT contract doesn't really provide much consolation when you are losing a bunch of IMPs or MPs.

 

Again, if this was just my intuition you'd be free to discount it. But there are a number of expert pairs who play (or have played) very weak notrump at nonvulnerable and virtually none of them play this sort of range at red in serious competition. I think that's rather indicative that I'm not alone here.

OK. I was just currious how that worked. I always though of breaking a new suit as costing a fraction of a trick, not gaining a trick. I also find it easier to play declarer than defense, but that is probably a function of my limited experience level.

I am convinced that, non-vulnerable, a very weak (10-12ish) NT is the best. Vulnerable, a stronger NT is preferable, from what I have read (and what you wrote in your post). The question, for me, is if it is worth it to play a "varriable NT" range, say 10-13 non-vunerable and 13-15 vulnerable, or if it is better to split the difference with a range like 11-14 that would lessen the memory work and risk of confusion.

I am intrigued, also, by what hrothgar wrote about his version of the MOSCITO 1NT. Something like that may also be a solution, though I have to give the implications some more thought.

[straube]

The question' date=' for me, is if it is worth it to play a "varriable NT" range, say 10-13 non-vunerable and 13-15 vulnerable, or if it is better to split the difference with a range like 11-14 that would lessen the memory work and risk of confusion.[/quote']

 

I'd split the range. A "problem" though with having split ranges and having weak NV and strong V is that you pretty much need two separate continuations to sort out the strong NTs.

 

Say you're not vulnerable and you open 1H. Partner bids 1N. Now what? Especially difficult if your heart can be 4-cds in length. What could you bid sensibly to show a strong NT? Can't I think. If you play 5-cd majors, you rebid 2m and hope to hear partner invite.

[relknes]

I'd split the range. A "problem" though with having split ranges and having weak NV and strong V is that you pretty much need two separate continuations to sort out the strong NTs.

 

Say you're not vulnerable and you open 1H. Partner bids 1N. Now what? Especially difficult if your heart can be 4-cds in length. What could you bid sensibly to show a strong NT? Can't I think. If you play 5-cd majors, you rebid 2m and hope to hear partner invite.

A strong NT would open 1♣ or 1♦ to start with, denending on how strong the balanced hand is. Here would be the balanced hand structure with a varriable NT:

 

Vulnerable: 10-12 pass, 13-15 open 1NT, 16-17 open 1♣ and rebid 1NT, 18-19 open 1♦ and rebid 1NT

Non-Vulnerable: 10-13 open 1NT, 14-16 open 1♣ and rebid 1NT, 17-19 open 1♦ and rebid 1NT

[straube]

I see. It's not great that you have to pass the 12 pt balanced hands vulnerable. What are your 1C and 1D openings (exactly) and what are your responses?

[relknes]

I see. It's not great that you have to pass the 12 pt balanced hands vulnerable. What are your 1C and 1D openings (exactly) and what are your responses?

Under that particular varriable structure, you would pass 12 point balanced hands that don't have a 4 card major when vulnerable. It would be easy to tweak the vulnerable structure to be: 10-11 pass, 12-14 1NT, 15-17 1♣ then rebid 1NT, 18-19 1♦ then rebid 1NT, if that would be better.

The exact 1♣ and 1♦ openings will depend on how the NT issue gets settled, but if we assume for convenience that a 1NT opener ended up being non-varriable, 11-14 balanced with no good quality 4 card major, then they would be:

1♣ = 15+ points unbalanced with 5+ hearts, 15+ points unbalanced with 4+ clubs and no 5 card major, or balanced (15-17, 21-22, or 25-26)

1♦ = 15+ points unbalanced with 5+ spades, 15+ points unbalanced with 4+ diamonds and no 5 card major, or balanced (18-20, 23-24, or 27+)

The 1NT opener would also affect the 1M bids slightly. They would, under the assumption of a 11-14 1NT, be:

1♥ = 9-14, 4+ hearts (unbalanced if 9-10, good quality suit if only 4)

1♠ = 9-14, 4+ spades (unbalanced if 9-10, good quality suit if only 4)

The sole exception to the good quality suit rule would be that you still open 1H with 4-4 majors regardless of suit quality.

 

*Edit: when 1♣ shows 4+ clubs, it could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape. Likewise 1♦ could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape.

[straube]

Feels like you're trying to set up for...

 

1C-1D,

.....1H-5H, 15+

.....1S-clubs?

.....1N-15-17

 

1D-1H,

.....1S-5S, 15+

.....1N-18-20

 

is that right?

 

Trying to show 5/15 at the 1-level seems wrong to me. It caters to too specific a hand type and seems as if its design is to be nf. Whatever the meaning of a step 1 rebid, it needs to be forcing.

 

Compare this to strong clubbers some of whom use 1C-1D, 1H as an artificial 20+ hand. You need a way to create a force for those good hands that don't have 5M.

[relknes]

Feels like you're trying to set up for...

 

1C-1D,

.....1H-5H, 15+

.....1S-clubs?

.....1N-15-17

 

1D-1H,

.....1S-5S, 15+

.....1N-18-20

 

is that right?

 

Trying to show 5/15 at the 1-level seems wrong to me. It caters to too specific a hand type and seems as if its design is to be nf. Whatever the meaning of a step 1 rebid, it needs to be forcing.

 

Compare this to strong clubbers some of whom use 1C-1D, 1H as an artificial 20+ hand. You need a way to create a force for those good hands that don't have 5M.

The schematic was going to be:

 

After 1♣-1♦:

1♥ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ hearts

1♠ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades

1N = 15-17 balanced

2♣ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ clubs

2♦ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts

2♥ = 20+, unbalanced, 5+ hearts, GF (since partner's 1♦ response showed 5-9 points)

2♠ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades

2N = 21-22 balanced

3♣ = 20+, unbalanced, 5+ clubs, GF

3♦ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts, GF

3N = 25-26 balanced

 

A simmilar structure is in place over 1♦-1♥

 

*Edit to earlier post: when 1♣ shows 4+ clubs, it could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape. Likewise 1♦ could have a 5 card major, but only if it is 5440 shape.

[straube]

I don't think that will work. Here's what we're doing after strong club

 

1C-1D-GF with certain hands

1C-1H-shows 5-7 hcps

.....1S-artificial GF

.....1N-17-18

.....2L-to play

1C-1S-shows 0-4 hcps

.....1N-17-20 hcps

.....2C-artificial GF

.....2L-to play

 

Meckwell does...

 

1C-1D 0-7

.....1H-4+ hearts, forcing

.....1S-4+ spades, forcing

.....1N-17-18

.....2m-to play

.....2H-artificial, forces 2S for various hand types

.........2S-forced

.........2N-GF balanced

.........forget what else

.....2S-artificial, stronger, 3-suited with major suit shortness

.....2N-22-23 or so

 

or TOSR

 

1C-1D 0-7

.....1H-20+ artificial

..........1S-0-4

.....1S-shows various with a 5-cd minor

..........1N-asking

..........2C-pass or correct

..............2D-diamonds

.....1N-not sure the range

.....2C-5/4 or better majors

.....2D-unspecified 6cd major

.....2M-5M/4m

.....2N-not sure the range

 

Important to be able to get into a GF at a low level

[relknes]

I don't think that will work.

......

Important to be able to get into a GF at a low level

Would it work better to have the structure be like this?

 

After 1♣-1♦:

1♥ = GF, unbalanced 20+ (still in clubs or hearts), or balanced (25-26 or 29+), Relay

.....1♠

..........1N = 25-26 balanced

..........2♣ = 20+, 5+ clubs

..........2♦ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts

..........2♥ = 20+, 5+ hearts

..........2N = 29+ balanced

1♠ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades

1N = 15-17 balanced

2♣ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ clubs

2♦ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts

2♥ = 15-19, unbalanced, 5+ hearts

2♠ = GF, 20+, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades

2N = 21-22 balanced

 

with a simmilar structure over 1♦?

[straube]

Would it work better to have the structure be like this?

 

After 1♣-1♦:

1♥ = GF, unbalanced 20+ (still in clubs or hearts), or balanced (25-26 or 29+), Relay

.....1♠

..........1N = 25-26 balanced

..........2♣ = 20+, 5+ clubs

..........2♦ = 20+, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts

..........2♥ = 20+, 5+ hearts

..........2N = 29+ balanced

1♠ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades

1N = 15-17 balanced

2♣ = 15-19 unbalanced, 5+ clubs

2♦ = 15-19, 3 suited in clubs, diamonds, and hearts

2♥ = 15-19, unbalanced, 5+ hearts

2♠ = GF, 20+, 3 suited in clubs, hearts, and spades

2N = 21-22 balanced

 

with a simmilar structure over 1♦?

 

I don't see that working either. It's very difficult to get into a GF without responder showing a little something. I have to correct my structure a little because 1C-1S, 2C-2D is actually a third negative so the 2C bid is not quite GF but opener's rebids of 2N or higher thereafter establish a GF. The point of my correction is to illustrate how difficult it is for one hand by itself to initiate a GF.

 

Is your 1C-1D, 1H-1S now virtually forced? What's 1S show? and what else could responder bid?

 

The other thing you have to think about is how likely these hands are to come up.

 

1C-1D, 1H-1S, 1N to show 25-26 is very infrequent for such an important sequence. TOSR is probably showing 20-22 or so (can't remember) at that point. I'm using that as an asking bid having established a GF at the point of 1D. Meckwell is probably using that as 16-19 or so with hearts and no spade fit (not absolutely sure on that point).

 

1C-1D, 1S to show a three-suited 15-19 is pretty rare. I looked it up on a simulator and it said .25% of hands fit that and that's including the 5C431s.

 

I would recommend just using one strong opening...the 1C opening and using 1D for hands that don't fit your other openings. In order, I like...

 

A) the nebulous diamond (promises no diamonds)-sets up fabulously for relay continuations

B) the 2+ diamond (in combination with 2C showing 6 and 2D showing short diamonds)

C) the unbalanced hand with 3+ diamonds (has shortness or 6 diamonds)

 

I'd also recommend looking up TOSR (transfer oriented symmetric relay) for their 1C-1D continuations. They are pretty simple and pretty good.

 

Probably not what you want to hear, but I don't think reserving both 1C and 1D as strong openings is necessary or best.

[relknes]

I don't see that working either. It's very difficult to get into a GF without responder showing a little something. I have to correct my structure a little because 1C-1S, 2C-2D is actually a third negative so the 2C bid is not quite GF but opener's rebids of 2N or higher thereafter establish a GF. The point of my correction is to illustrate how difficult it is for one hand by itself to initiate a GF.

 

Is your 1C-1D, 1H-1S now virtually forced? What's 1S show? and what else could responder bid?

 

The other thing you have to think about is how likely these hands are to come up.

 

1C-1D, 1H-1S, 1N to show 25-26 is very infrequent for such an important sequence. TOSR is probably showing 20-22 or so (can't remember) at that point. I'm using that as an asking bid having established a GF at the point of 1D. Meckwell is probably using that as 16-19 or so with hearts and no spade fit (not absolutely sure on that point).

 

1C-1D, 1S to show a three-suited 15-19 is pretty rare. I looked it up on a simulator and it said .25% of hands fit that and that's including the 5C431s.

 

I would recommend just using one strong opening...the 1C opening and using 1D for hands that don't fit your other openings. In order, I like...

 

A) the nebulous diamond (promises no diamonds)-sets up fabulously for relay continuations

B) the 2+ diamond (in combination with 2C showing 6 and 2D showing short diamonds)

C) the unbalanced hand with 3+ diamonds (has shortness or 6 diamonds)

 

I'd also recommend looking up TOSR (transfer oriented symmetric relay) for their 1C-1D continuations. They are pretty simple and pretty good.

 

Probably not what you want to hear, but I don't think reserving both 1C and 1D as strong openings is necessary or best.

Responder has shown something. Specifically, the 1♣-1♦ and the 1♦-1♥ both show 5-9 points.

The sequence to show 0-4 points is 1♣-1♠ or 1♦-2♣ with the idea of opener signing off in his best suit at the 2 level unless they can force game opposite a bust.

Any bid by responder other than the neutral 1st step or the very negative 3rd step is taken as 10+ points game force. These responses were covered earlier, so I thought you were just asking about the continuations after the neutral response.

My least favorite bid in bridge happens to be a nebulous 1♦ showing points in the 10-14 sort of range. When the opponents interfere, which they are very likely to do when both majors are still available at the 1 level and you have a barely above average hand, then partner is lost and all those fabulous relays are useless. My opinion is that the 1m bids should be saved for hands that don't fear competition, since you are letting the opponents in so cheap.

It is fine that other people like the bid, but I just can't stomach it. It would be interesting to find out how many imps it costs, on average, when a Precision player opens 1♦ promising 0+ diamonds. Even more interesting to know how much it costs when the left hand opponent overcalls.

[straube]

I see. Yes, I expect the nebulous 1D to lose imps. It really ought to lose imps compared to a 1D that shows some number of diamonds.

[glen]

I see. Yes, I expect the nebulous 1D to lose imps. It really ought to lose imps compared to a 1D that shows some number of diamonds.

Depends on what the "some number" starts at

[wclass___]

I don't want to go in details explaining all aspects, because from my experience one needs a lot of knowledge and experience with nebulous type 1♦ on his own to be able to evaluate weight of pros and cons.

 

However, this is counterbalanced by the

“preemptive” effect of 1D as opposed to 1C. I was not expecting to find this when I took

up the style, but it exists. The 1D opening that can be as short as a doubleton works quite

well. Ask Eric Rodwell. I have to admit that I do not fully understand why it seems to

make so little difference whether you open 1D on the doubleton or 1C on the five-card suit

when you have, say, 3=3=2=5 distribution. For a long time this was one of my main

objections to playing modern Precision; I thought that the lack of definition in minor-suit

auctions would be costly. Eventually, I learned otherwise. I also learned something else, as

is stated in other places in this book: it is not necessary to be able to understand the

underlying reason or reasons for the existence of a fact in order for it to be true. The fact

still exists, regardless of whether you know why it is a fact or not.

 

From my experience my nebulous 1♦ (playing it only NV 1st/2nd seat) defined as = 12-15 balanced or 5m+4M yields very good results.

[Flameous]

I think it would be best to use the kokish relay approach on one lvl. (It had some cool name in precision that I can't remember)

So 1♥ is either hearts or some GF hand. This should probably leave you better placed than separating them to two bids.

 

I'd also suggest to moving the club hands to 1♠. Aiming for that you can pass 1♠ from opener is way too small goal and it might even work at your disadvantage sometimes.

[straube]

Depends on what the "some number" starts at

 

Yeah. I should have qualified that. The nebulous diamond I like has actually fewer hand types than the 2+ that Meckwell plays. I also hope to gain imps on my other openings.

[Zelandakh]

I am not really sure what the 1C and 1D openings actually show here currently. But for what it is worth I play both 1H and 1S as artificial after 1C - 1D which helps alot if you are willing to give up on showing club-based hands at the 1-level (or show them via 1D)...

 

1C = 15+ bal, or 15+ nat, or 18+ any

... - 1D = 0-8 any

 

1H = 18-20 any, or 23+ bal

1S = 18+ 3-suited or any unbal GF

1N = 15-17

2C = 15-17 nat, using the same system as after a 2C opening

2D = Acol 2 in a minor

2M = Acol 2

2N = 21-22 bal

3C = 25-26 bal, 4-5 hearts

3D = 25-26 bal, 4-5 spades

3H = 25-26 bal, no major

 

Since you want your 1D opening to be 15+, one option would be to take a structure such as above and play 1D = 15-17 any, while 1C is essentially 18+ any. I am not convinced this makes for a good system but it would at least be playable.

[relknes]

The 2m openings have a rather wide range, and sorting this out may be difficult. For example if I have some 12-count with only doubleton in partner's minor it's not real clear how to bid over 2m. Your 1M openings obviously have the same range, but there you have more space to sort things out (and can play 1NT with two balanced hands and less than game values, which is usually a good partial). I'd have to see a good response structure before I'd be really convinced about 2m here.

Here is what I am currently thinking for the 2m bids and their followups. I am open to suggestions on how to improve this.

 

2♣ = 9-14, 5+ clubs, unbalanced, no good quality 4+ card major

.....2♦ = asking

..........2♥ = 9-11, 4 poor quality hearts

..........2♠ = 9-11, 4 poor quality spades

..........2N = 9-11, 4+ diamonds

..........3♣ = 9-11, 6+ clubs

..........3♦ = 12-14 points

.....2♥ = 15+ points, 5+ hearts, GF

.....2♠ = 15+ points, 5+ spades, GF

.....2N = 15+ points, no 5 card major, GF

 

2♦ = 9-14, 5+ diamonds, unbalanced, no good quality 4+ card major

.....2♥ = asking

..........2♠ = 9-11, 4 poor quality spades

..........2N = 9-11, 4 poor quality hearts

..........3♣ = 9-11, 4+ clubs

..........3♦ = 9-11, 6+ diamonds

..........3♥ = 12-14 points

.....2♠ = 15+ points, 5+ spades, GF

.....2N = 15+ points, no 5 card major, GF

.....3♥ = 15+ points, 5+ hearts, GF