No-trump ranges and invitations

[spaderaise]

Natural opening 1NT bids are overwhelmingly played with a three-point range, across a wide variety of systems.

 

I'm wondering about two related things: (1) in the context of a three-point range, how beneficial are invitational sequences? (2) how playable are larger ranges?

 

There's a lot of downside to invitational sequences like a traditional 1NT-2NT. 2NT is an unsatisfactory final contract - often too high or too low. In addition a sequence like 1NT-2NT-3NT gives more help to the opposition than 1NT-3NT; defenders know more about opener's count, and also opening leader knows in advance that the contract might be tight and can use this in deciding between an active and a passive lead.

 

Would you be willing to dispense with invitations over 1NT entirely, leaving responder to choose between pass and 3NT rather than inviting? If you dispensed with invitational sequences, you could find other useful meanings for the freed-up bids - have such systems of responses been developed?

 

If you do play invitational sequences, how about extending opener's range, for example to a four-point range? For example in the context of a first-seat weak no-trump, some of the value comes from preemption, and this would be increased by moving from 12-14 to 11-14, say. Of course, with this comes a loss of accuracy. Maybe the most important effects are in competitive auctions rather than uncontested ones; responder is less well placed to know what to do if second hand interferes.

 

(btw I'm interested in constructive methods here; I know that some people have played, for example, 1NT as 8-14 in third seat when opener's pass is limited to 10 points or less, but that's a different kettle of fish.)

[straube]

The wider the ranges, the more you would need to invite...which means more 2N contracts. With a 3-pt range, partner probably invites with a range of a point and a half. I know folks who play a 12-15 NT and always complain that they miss out on 15 opposite 10 games.

 

Btw, I understood that Barry Crane used to use 1N-2N as GI with or without a major. If opener had strength he could then look for a major suit fit. This allowed 1N-2C, 2D-2N etc to show that responder had less than GI strength but was hoping to hit a major. Definitely a matchpoint tactic.

[awm]

You can get rid of the "straight balanced invite" by playing 2-point ranges. However, you still need fit finding invites where degree of fit is a factor. This includes looking for major suit fits, looking for a running minor, etc. So you can't really do away with invites completely. Probably not worth the trouble of complicating you NT ranges.

[MickyB]

You can get rid of the "straight balanced invite" by playing 2-point ranges. However, you still need fit finding invites where degree of fit is a factor. This includes looking for major suit fits, looking for a running minor, etc. So you can't really do away with invites completely. Probably not worth the trouble of complicating you NT ranges.

 

Agree with this, except I'd swap "2-point" for "2.5 point" - I'd never feel the need to use a natural 2NT if my ranges were "12-bad 14" and "good 14-16", for example.

[Mbodell]

The wider the ranges, the more you would need to invite...which means more 2N contracts. With a 3-pt range, partner probably invites with a range of a point and a half. I know folks who play a 12-15 NT and always complain that they miss out on 15 opposite 10 games.

 

Btw, I understood that Barry Crane used to use 1N-2N as GI with or without a major. If opener had strength he could then look for a major suit fit. This allowed 1N-2C, 2D-2N etc to show that responder had less than GI strength but was hoping to hit a major. Definitely a matchpoint tactic.

 

I think my invite range opposite (11+)12-14 is about 1/2 to 2/3 of a point (essentially a good 11). Opposite 15-17 I might be up over a point, but if so only by the smallest amount. A point and a half seems like a wide range (assuming by range you mean the range you routinely invite with, not something like you invite with a great 8 point hand with a good 7 card suit, as well as a terrible 4333 10 count for a 2.5 point range).

[whereagles]

1. I'm wondering about two related things: (1) in the context of a three-point range, how beneficial are invitational sequences?

2. (2) how playable are larger ranges?

3. Would you be willing to dispense with invitations over 1NT entirely, leaving responder to choose between pass and 3NT rather than inviting?

4. If you dispensed with invitational sequences, you could find other useful meanings for the freed-up bids - have such systems of responses been developed?

 

1. Invitational sequences are good when you have a 4 or 5 card major and pard has a fit for it. In this case you can dig some thin, but good, games.

 

2. Historically they are playable but you do lose precision. It seems that the 3-point range is the one that works best.

 

3. I play like that if I have no major. Opposite a 15-17 NT:

 

- Upgrade 9-counts to 10 and bid game. Reason: there are at least 24 together and a good chance at more.

- Downgrade 8-counts to 7 and pass. Reason: there are at most 25 together and a good chance at less.

 

I've been doing great so far :)

 

4. I (under) use 2NT as a diamond transfer. It's certainly possible to come up with better stuff.

[gwnn]

The interesting sequence that is freed up is

 

1NT-2♣

2♦-2NT

 

what can this one be used for? for example it could be asking for a 5-card minor or so. another idea could be a signoff in 3♣ - then you can bid 2♣ on 3316 or (34)06 (and 1NT-2♣, 2♦-3♣ retains its natural GF meaning). Still, perhaps it is not worth it, since it is all so deeply wired in our ancient brains that this sequence is 8-9 bal.

[straube]

I think my invite range opposite (11+)12-14 is about 1/2 to 2/3 of a point (essentially a good 11). Opposite 15-17 I might be up over a point, but if so only by the smallest amount. A point and a half seems like a wide range (assuming by range you mean the range you routinely invite with, not something like you invite with a great 8 point hand with a good 7 card suit, as well as a terrible 4333 10 count for a 2.5 point range).

 

Fair point. It's good to avoid 2N as a final contract.

[WrecksVee]

I am Rex of the Misadventures of Rex and Jay

 

We have played 1NT as 12-16 with five card majors common for many years. The main reason is so that an opening one of a suit bid is usually unbalanced except when it is 17-20. In effect this is an exaggerated KS idea to get the minimum and medium balanced hands out of the one of a suit.

 

We have used Keri per Klinger's original book. It provides the ability to locate five card majors and has been useful IMO with this range.

 

My personal rule is not invite with a balanced 9 or less. Missing 16 opposite 9 might happen but it has not as near as I can remember in playing this for about six years. GF with 12+. Invite with 10-11 tending to GF with 11 if vul. Hands with a chance at a major fit might be a bit more agressive. For the balanced invite we use 1NT-2!S with 2NT = 12-14 and 3!C =15-16. Opener can upgrade a good 14.

 

To my surprise my experience is that accuracy is over rated. Gains in bidding from knowing Opener does not have a balanced minimum and in keeping 17-20 at the one level are common in my experience. FYI as the 2NT jump rebid is not needed we use 1X-1Y-2NT to show a GF one suited hand in X. This eliminates almost all need for a fake jump shift or reverse.

[Cyberyeti]

I played 11-16 1st/2nd, 14-19 3rd/4th for a while with a fair degree of success.

 

What we did was to home hash some responses based on 4 card invitational+ red suit transfers, responding in 3 2 point ranges without 4 card support, then 3 with. 2♣ was used as something of a bucket bid to deal with weak takeouts and many other hands.

 

This has some hidden advantages in that 1x-1y-1N is 17-19 in first seat so you can happily use 1x-1y-2N as something artificial. Also if the auction goes 1N-P-P-P then opps don't know on seeing dummy whether they're trying to beat this or just prevent the second overtrick, so you get a load of free IMPs/MPs that way. I found this compensated for the auctions where you played 2N but wanted to be in 1.

 

The major problem with it is that the middle of the 3 ranges is unwieldy to handle over the transfers, the upper range is easy as you are in a GF auction, the middle range is not GF but tight for space. If I was doing this now, I'd go down to a 5 point range with the middle one narrowest.

 

Also you need 2 strengths of Lebensohl, we used X and 2N to give yourselves a chance to untangle the competitive sequences.

[mycroft]

I don't really remember the last time I invited playing a 15-17 NT. I play my invites playing 14-16 as "go on 16 or 15s-that-are-16" just so that the hands that "the field" are going to be going 1NT-3NT we at least are there (with the down side that some hands that go 1x-1y-1NT-P play 1NT-2NT).

 

I notice playing Keri with a weak NT that we're inviting a bit more than I remember with a Stayman base - but we still have never had the "points invite".

 

1NT-3NT is one of the worst auctions to lead into; 1NT-2NT-3NT is still blind, but "make a passive lead" screams out now.

[Mbodell]

I notice playing Keri with a weak NT that we're inviting a bit more than I remember with a Stayman base - but we still have never had the "points invite".

 

That makes sense that when you can invite in the major and play it at the 2 level you use it more often. I agree the straight range ask is rarer as it really means I don't have a 4+ card major and I'm invite strength (or obviously, single suit slam or other quant slam hands).

[fromageGB]

I'm a believer in the 2 point 1NT range, because then you can happily dispense with invitations in most cases, and after an opening 1NT you can play in 2NT if there is no major fit after Stayman. Very important.

 

We play 1NT = 15/16, and using transfer walsh a sequence 1♣ 1♦/♥!(ie shows a major) 1NT = 17/18 (denying 4 card support). Then simple transfers allow you to play a 5-3 or 6-2 fit at the 2 level if you want to.

 

We find it useful to be able to stop in 2NT because you need to find a major fit at the 2 level when there are not values for game. Playing a 3-point range NT means that you have to have the 2NT bid after stayman as a game invitation, which means that you have to have a stronger hand to use staymen than you would with our 2 point range. This is more important in the UK - where people playing a 12-14 NT will be bidding 1♣ 1♥ 2♥ pass on a 15/16 opposite a 7 count. Playing 15/16 we bid 1NT 2♣ 2♥ pass, whereas a classical 15-17 pair would bid 1NT pass. Not good in matchpoints. You need to be able to play in 2M.

[awm]

The interesting sequence that is freed up is

 

1NT-2♣

2♦-2NT

 

I do not actually think this is true. Sometimes I have a 4441-type where I want to be in game opposite a 4-card major but am not so excited about 3NT. Usually these hands are a point or so short of game values, like a 8-count opposite 15/16. It would be good to be able to bid stayman on these hands and then retreat to 2NT if no major fit materializes.

 

Opposite the 3-point range my tendency is to assume the lower end for these hands. This means I occasionally can miss a game when I have this pattern and opener both has a fit and is max, but this combination is rare. Over the two-point range if the above sequence is not "to play" I have to either pass these hands (missing game when there is a fit) or force a bad game with no fit.

 

The sequence that does become available is 1NT-2NT (natural) or however you play that. If you play it by bidding stayman, you avoid giving extra information on a few hands and get to play 1NT instead of 2NT, but you don't really even save a sequence.

[fromageGB]

I agree with awm. Playing a 2 point NT range, Stayman then 2NT is not an unused sequence waiting for a meaning, but is just natural, to play. As Adam says, playing a 2 point range also has a slight advantage where the bidding otherwise goes 1NT 2NT(natural) pass (or equivalent vis Stayman), and we bid 1NT pass. However, I have not seen this in practice, as the huge majority here play weak NT to my 15/16.

 

A sequence that is perhaps available for another meaning is 1NT redtransfer completedmajor 2NT. You could argue that if you are not inviting game you are merely giving a choice between 2NT and 3M, but I am not convinced this is a good idea. At the moment I am using it as a 9 count invitation but I am sure there must be better uses.

[whereagles]

I'm a believer in the 2 point 1NT range, because then you can happily dispense with invitations in most cases (...)

 

Everybody's a believer in the 2 point range. It's just that if you play such a narrow range you're gonna end up with a somewhat messed up system of 1x bids. The 3 point range is more a compromise than anything else.

 

With invitational hands you can deal with the 3 point range very easily: either evaluate downwards and pass 1NT or upwards and bid 3NT. If you talk to most experts, in practice they hardly ever use 2NT invitations. In fact, 1NT-2NT is probably best used as an invite with a 5 card minor (Hxxxx or better) because long minor based are the 23 hcp 3NTs you want to be in.

 

But hey, if you do wanna play 2 point ranges here's an idea:

 

1C-1x-1NT: 12-13

1D-1x-1NT: 14-15

1NT: 16-17

1C-1x-2NT: 18-19

1D-1x-2NT: 20-21

2NT: 22-23

 

etc. You can lower this 1 hcp and start opening 11-counts if you want. This scheme is actually quite playable, though you lose some precision as to minor-suit lengths.

[fromageGB]

Everybody's a believer in the 2 point range. It's just that if you play such a narrow range you're gonna end up with a somewhat messed up system of 1x bids.

 

I don't believe an opening 1NT with a 2 point range, as with my 15/16, does mess up the 1 bids. After I open 1♣ I can have a 3 point range balanced 12-14 rebid, such as 1NT, but that does not mess with anything. By opening 1♣ you can find your major fits. On the contrary, it is the 3 point range 1NT open that messes the 1 bids, because you preempt the ability to find major fits.

[whereagles]

Ok. You probably have to lower the 2NT opening to 19-20, though. No biggie.

[mycroft]

so, 15-16 means that you now have 17-22 (say) to work out. In "standard", the ranges are 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20-21, 22-whatever. I don't know if one wins by pulling the 2-point range to the more common 15-16 rather than 18-19; I do know that with a balanced 17 playing Precision I always feel a little uncomfortable about the anti-field nature of the continuations; I'm sure that somewhere in your NT ladder there's one of those.

 

Of course, the other disadvantage of opening 1♣ is that their 1-level overcall is more descriptive and safer than their 2-level overcalls after 1NT. I get that *a lot* (obviously) playing 12-14 NT; but the 17s are going to be a problem for you as well.

[Statto]

(2) how playable are larger ranges?

We play a natural 1♦ and 12-15 1NT. 2♠ is a range enquiry which might be invitational in NT, weak take-out to a minor, or interested in some slam. 2NT is still free for another use. It seems perfectly playable B-)

 

I think to make best use of an invitational NT bid the 1NT range should be at least as wide as standard. If you can roll 12-13 counts into 1♦..1NT and have 14-15 1NT (or vice versa) then you don't need invitational bids. Maybe a 2½ point range is playable with no invitation available other than by round-the-houses/constructive methods. If a 3 point range didn't need an invitational bid then it would surely have been dispensed with by now in some partnerships, though perhaps it has...

[blackshoe]

The reason for two point ranges over 2NT is that there isn't any room to explore for the best game. That's less of a problem over 1NT, so I'm not so sure that two point ranges are really necessary there.

 

In Romex, 1x-1y-1NT is 12-16, and 1x-1y-2NT is 17-18. Two way Checkback works well with the wide ranging 1NT rebid. Romex doesn't have a natural 1NT opening, 1NT is artificial and may include a balanced 19-20 (in which case you rebid 2NT, or 3NT if necessary). 21-22 is shown by opening 2♦ (artificial) and rebidding 2NT, 23-24 by opening 2♣ (artificial) and rebidding 2NT, 25-26 by opening 2NT (which is natural and forcing), or optionally by opening 2♣ and using Kokish. 27-28 is shown by opening 2♦ and jumping to 3NT (forcing to 4NT) and 29-30 by opening 2♣ and doing the same thing.

 

In table form:

 

12-16: Open 1x (usually 1m) and rebid 1NT (Rebids after 2 way Checkback will divide the range into 12-14 and 15-16).

17-18: Open 1x and rebid 2NT

19-20: Open 1NT and rebid 2NT

21-22: Open 2♦ and rebid 2NT

23-24: Open 2♣ and rebid 2NT

25-26: Open 2NT, forcing to at least 3NT. Optionally, open 2♣, and use Kokish relay (2♣-2♦-2♥ (relay)-2♠ (forced)-2NT.

27-28: Open 2♦, rebid 3NT

29-30: Open 2♣, rebid 3NT

 

Some Romex players use the mini-NT, in which case it's:

 

10-12: Open 1NT

13-16: Open 1x (usually 1m) and rebid 1NT

17-18: Open 1x and rebid 2NT

19-20: Open 2NT

21-22: Open 2♦ and rebid 2NT

23-24: Open 2♣ and rebid 2NT

25-26: Open 2♣ and use Kokish relay (2♣-2♦-2♥ (relay)-2♠ (forced)-2NT).

27-28: Open 2♦, rebid 3NT

29-30: Open 2♣, rebid 3NT

[gwnn]

We play a natural 1♦ and 12-15 1NT. 2♠ is a range enquiry which might be invitational in NT, weak take-out to a minor, or interested in some slam. 2NT is still free for another use. It seems perfectly playable B-)

The problem is when you have a 10 count and the field is in game with 15 opp 10. You can say it is not a problem - maybe not for you, I played this for more than a year and this happened several times and it was always unnerving when I opened 1N on 15 or I passed 1N on 10.

[fromageGB]

Ok. You probably have to lower the 2NT opening to 19-20, though. No biggie.

 

 

so, 15-16 means that you now have 17-22 (say) to work out. In "standard", the ranges are 12-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20-21, 22-whatever. I don't know if one wins by pulling the 2-point range to the more common 15-16 rather than 18-19; I do know that with a balanced 17 playing Precision I always feel a little uncomfortable about the anti-field nature of the continuations; I'm sure that somewhere in your NT ladder there's one of those.

 

Of course, the other disadvantage of opening 1♣ is that their 1-level overcall is more descriptive and safer than their 2-level overcalls after 1NT. I get that *a lot* (obviously) playing 12-14 NT; but the 17s are going to be a problem for you as well.

 

The ranges are not a problem with a 15/16 1NT open if you play transfer walsh as I do, with rebids that show a balanced hand with different bids for 12-14, 17/18 and 19. 2NT open is 20/21, upwards via 2♣ as normal.

 

After a club open, and partner "transfers" to show a major, we complete the transfer at the 1 level with 2 or 3 cards in that major and 12-14, break transfer and rebid 1NT with 17/18 and rebid 2NT with 19. So when there is no 4-4 major fit for immediate support the strengths are shown. And of course, when responder has longer majors, there are transfers over the NT, and other things. When partner has no major we play a reply of 1♠ as a transfer to 1NT, with balanced hands as well as other options, and opener rebids 1NT with 12-14, 2NT with 17/18, and an artificial relay of 2♥ to 2♠ to 2NT with 19. So again the 17/18 is distinguished from 19.

 

19 is not enough to open 2NT in my view, as it destroys investigative bidding, as well as being bad when partner passes, so 2NT should only be used when you could miss game if partner passes your opening 1 bid. If you open 1♣ with 19 and partner passes, you have not missed game.

 

On the question of weak NT vs strong NT, with either you open a minor when not in range. While so opening a minor playing a weak NT may be overcalled less often than so opening a minor playing strong NT, we play "system on" (X="I would have bid that", ie a transfer) so opener stll has the ability to show the strength ranges. However, even if you take that as a downside, I think a far bigger downside is that the weaker the 1NT the bigger the devastation it causes to your own bidding. At least with 15-17, responder is going to find major fits with 8+, and he rates to have 8+ half the time. WIth 12-14 responder rates to have 9 points, and he needs 11+ to find the major fits. Therefore considerably more than half the time he has to pass and you fail to find the majors. Give me a strong NT over a weak NT any day.

[Zelandakh]

The ranges are not a problem with a 15/16 1NT open if you play transfer walsh as I do, with rebids that show a balanced hand with different bids for 12-14, 17/18 and 19. 2NT open is 20/21, upwards via 2♣ as normal.

It sounds like you use up your 3NT rebid for 19hcp hands. This tends to be a real slam killer opposite a good hand. A few years ago most of the England team was playing this in the BB and they missed so many slams on this sequence it was unbelievable.

 

On the question of weak NT vs strong NT, with either you open a minor when not in range. While so opening a minor playing a weak NT may be overcalled less often than so opening a minor playing strong NT, we play "system on" (X="I would have bid that", ie a transfer) so opener stll has the ability to show the strength ranges. However, even if you take that as a downside, I think a far bigger downside is that the weaker the 1NT the bigger the devastation it causes to your ownopponents's bidding. At least with 15-17, responder is opponents are going to find major fits with 8+, and they rates to have 8+ half the time. WIth 12-14 responderopponents rates to have 9 points, and they needs 11+ extra shape to find the major fits. Therefore considerably more than half the time he has they often have to pass and you they fail to find the majors. Give me a strongweak NT over a weak NT any day.

FYP. A weak NT hides the fits for both sides. It usually leads to an auction where the opening side is better placed to contest the part score. Where a weak NT hurts our bidding more is having to accomodate the stronger hands after a 1X opening and an overcall. Playing a strong NT you can just pass the balanced minimum hands. You can mitigate this somewhat by lumping all the stronger balanced hands into 1C (ie unbalanced diamond) but you can never make this go away completely. Weak NTers usually either believe the part-score wins when they open 1NT compensate for the downsides in other auctions or the system has other compensating factors. For example, in 4 card major systems such as Acol you gain the additional benefit of being able to raise more aggressively playing a weak NT than a strong NT.

 

Your mileage may vary of course but I do not believe anyone can categorically say that a weak NT is worse (or better) than a strong NT in a generic one size fits all way.

[fromageGB]

It sounds like you use up your 3NT rebid for 19hcp hands. This tends to be a real slam killer opposite a good hand. A few years ago most of the England team was playing this in the BB and they missed so many slams on this sequence it was unbelievable.

 

You appear to have not read my post - a 2NT rebid shows a 19 count. I agree you should not have a bid higher than this, because you need to find majors even if you are not slamming.

 

FYP. A weak NT hides the fits for both sides. It usually leads to an auction where the opening side is better placed to contest the part score. Where a weak NT hurts our bidding more is having to accomodate the stronger hands after a 1X opening and an overcall. Playing a strong NT you can just pass the balanced minimum hands. You can mitigate this somewhat by lumping all the stronger balanced hands into 1C (ie unbalanced diamond) but you can never make this go away completely. Weak NTers usually either believe the part-score wins when they open 1NT compensate for the downsides in other auctions or the system has other compensating factors. For example, in 4 card major systems such as Acol you gain the additional benefit of being able to raise more aggressively playing a weak NT than a strong NT.

 

Your mileage may vary of course but I do not believe anyone can categorically say that a weak NT is worse (or better) than a strong NT in a generic one size fits all way.

 

Weak notrumpers of course believe in it (those that have thought about it, not the majority that were just taught that way so do it by inertia), but I fail to understand the argument of preempting to hide the fits for both sides. The argument seems to be that as I have more than my average share of the points, the expectation is that it will be our hand rather than theirs. So therefore prempt. Why ? You are preempting yourselves more than the opponents. I agree the self-preemptive effect is still bad for the strong NT, but an important point is that you have a strong NT less frequently than a weak NT, so playing a strong NT you are self-destructing less often. And when you play a 15/16 NT, it is marginally less often than than 15-17.

 

I will oppose your argument that a weak NTer wins the part-score battle by giving a counterargument that by playing transfer walsh (and an unbalanced diamond) you are in a better position to get to the right contract, even after oposition bidding.