No-trump ranges and invitations

[hrothgar]

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.

 

Please define the "right" contract.

 

In my book, the right contract is the one that scores best at the table, not some ivory tower notion of par...

I've seen plenty of cases where a quick bash to a subpar contract leads to great results

[straube]

Please define the "right" contract.

 

In my book, the right contract is the one that scores best at the table, not some ivory tower notion of par...

I've seen plenty of cases where a quick bash to a subpar contract leads to great results

 

I take your point, but how about giving him some credit? I interpreted "right contract" to be a contract favorable to his side.

[mycroft]

I can not believe (but am willing to be convinced) that T-Walsh is ahead of the game after 1♣-(1♥) - after 1♣-(p), sure. And 1NT, especially a weak NT, is more difficult to overcall than 1m.

 

I am not saying that weak NT doesn't have its minuses - oh, sure - but being behind the alternatives in the partscore battle when 1NT is opened is not one of them (unless, of course, we shouldn't be in it, because it isn't a partscore battle).

[RunemPard]

1N: 15-17 (no 5 card major)

- 2♣: 6-8 HCP (asking for major)

- 2♦: transfer

- 2♥: transfer

- 2♠: 6 card minor -> 2N waiting

- 2N: ACE ?

- 3♣: 9+ HCP (asking for major)(game force)...yes, we are gutsy... :)

- 3♦: STRONG (5/5 in ♣+♦)

- 3♥: STRONG (5/5 in ♥+LOWER)

- 3♠: STRONG (5/5 in ♠+LOWER)

- 3N: STOP 9-12 (no slam interest)

- Any bid of 4 shows a long suit with strength...it is an invitation to slam.

 

This is what me and my partner use for 1NT replies...it has worked very well for us.

[RunemPard]

multi post, sorry.

[Vampyr]

1N: 15-17 (no 5 card major)

- 2♣: 6-8 HCP (asking for major)

...

- 3♣: 9+ HCP (asking for major)(game force)...yes, we are gutsy... :)

 

 

This seems very strange. You are using two bids to ask for four-card majors and you still have not managed to fit in the ~3-5hcp hands. And you find your major-suit fits with GF hands at an uncomfortably high level.

[RunemPard]

3-5 HCP normally a pass...sometimes 2C w/ 5 if hoping to find a better fit than NT.

[fromageGB]

I can not believe (but am willing to be convinced) that T-Walsh is ahead of the game after 1♣-(1♥) - after 1♣-(p), sure. And 1NT, especially a weak NT, is more difficult to overcall than 1m.

 

I am not saying that weak NT doesn't have its minuses - oh, sure - but being behind the alternatives in the partscore battle when 1NT is opened is not one of them (unless, of course, we shouldn't be in it, because it isn't a partscore battle).

 

I cannot believe that 1NT (2♥) puts you in a better position than 1♣ (1♥). After the latter I can show 4 or 5 or 6 spades, distinguishing between them, and in each of those categories show strength ranges as less than invitational, invitational, or GF. I can show 4 spades with a heart stop, I can bid 2♦ or 2♣ to play, or end in 3 of a minor offering a game invitation. Of course if 4th seat ups the ante in hearts you cannot be so precise, but whatever happens, I cannot see how it can be worse than the 1NT open.

 

Although I do agree with you that some combination of hands/people will bid 1♥ over 1♣ but not 2♥ over 1NT, I think the preemptive effect of 1NT on your partner does not justify those cases.

[raspeball]

Bumping another old thread back to life (Maybe i should change my name to Lazarus?)

 

Interested to know if anybody found some useful insight on this:

 

1: Are 3 point ranges playable without balanced invites to game? Seems like there are interesting things that could be done if you can live without it?

 

2: The 2.5 point range also seems interesting, but I guess then there are some compromises that makes your system worse in other parts (Less defined openings, that are more vulnerable to competition).

[nullve]

From the perspective of a hypothetical bridge player using the best hcp method possible* it would look like most bridge players play overlapping NT ranges. say

 

1x-1y; 1N = 11-15

1N = 14-18

etc.

 

or worse. So even if being able to invite 3N opposite a 5-point (or wider) range might be a good idea in this absurd-looking (but common!) system, would it also be useful in this bridge player's own system with non-overlapping ranges

 

1x-1y; 1N = 12-14

1N = 15-17

etc.

 

?

 

I may not use the best hcp method possible, but I'm confident that my 3-point ranges are narrower in the above sense than those of average bridge player. Inviting 3N opposite such "narrow" 3-point ranges has always felt like a waste of bidding space, so when some say they need to be able to invite 3N opposite a 3 hcp range (in their system), then I suspect that either the hcp method they are using must be bad or they just have very little experience with "pass or bash".

 

* with the equivalent of expert judgement e.g. about "texture" baked into it

[raspeball]

From the perspective of a hypothetical bridge player using the best hcp method possible* it would look like most bridge players play overlapping NT ranges. say

 

1x-1y; 1N = 11-15

1N = 14-18

etc.

 

or worse. So even if being able to invite 3N opposite a 5-point (or wider) range might be a good idea in this absurd-looking (but common!) system, would it also be useful in this bridge player's own system with non-overlapping ranges

 

1x-1y; 1N = 12-14

1N = 15-17

etc.

 

?

 

I may not use the best hcp method possible, but I'm confident that my 3-point ranges are narrower in the above sense than those of average bridge player. Inviting 3N opposite such "narrow" 3-point ranges has always felt like a waste of bidding space, so when some say they need to be able to invite 3N opposite a 3 hcp range (in their system), then I suspect that either the hcp method they are using must be bad or they just have very little experience with "pass or bash".

 

* with the equivalent of expert judgement e.g. about "texture" baked into it

I think you would gain more from removing the balanced invitational bid after opening 1nt, than say after the sequence 1♦-1♥;1nt(Since in this sequence both opener and responder have given information regarding shape already).

 

So in one way it makes sense to have a narrower range on the 1nt opening bid, than on the second sequence.

If you like to open all 11 hcp hands, it would then make sense to have the following structure:

 

1x-1y:1nt=11-13.

1nt=14-15

 

If you play transfers over 1♣, you could split two ranges into the 1♣ opening: 11-13 or 16-18 is possible.

But then again: Is it a good idea having a system that limits the number of 1nt openers? (Does not sound to great to me..).

But if opening 1nt on a 3 point range is ok(with no balanced invites), it should be ok to have a 4 point range for the 1x-1y;1nt sequence (So if 1nt is 15-17, then 1x-1y;1nt could be 11-14), since you have room to include the balanced invite anyway here.

[fromageGB]

If you play transfers over 1♣, you could split two ranges into the 1♣ opening: 11-13 or 16-18 is possible.

Or as I play, 12-14, 17/18, 19/20 for 3 ranges.

 

But then again: Is it a good idea having a system that limits the number of 1nt openers? (Does not sound to great to me..).

Sounds great to me. Find your fits. If it's your opening, it's probably your hand, so why pre-empt partner?

[raspeball]

Or as I play, 12-14, 17/18, 19/20 for 3 ranges.

 

 

Sounds great to me. Find your fits. If it's your opening, it's probably your hand, so why pre-empt partner?

 

 

I guess you don't have a direct balanced invite? (Like 1nt-2nt, or 1nt-2♠?)

 

 

In an earlier tread you said that you used:

1nt-2♣

2x-2nt=To play. Do you still play it this way?

 

Alternative meanings for this sequence could be:

 

……..* 4 card unbid major, and 5(6)+ club gameinvitational +

……..* 4 card unbid major, and 5(6)+ club weak or gameforcing

……..* Gameforcing, ask for further description of openers shape.

[fromageGB]

Yes, no invite, just 3NT or not. I use 2NT as compulsory transfer to ♣, and 2♠ asking for 4 card minor, 2NT denial. This is useful if you judge you need 4 card support for a minor slam, and aslo when you have a "weak both minors" takeout.

 

I do play 2NT after failed stayman to play. I think being able to find the major fit when a couple of points lighter than you otherwise would is significant, especially matchpoints against a weak NT field where everyone will be in the major partscore beating you in 1NT.

[helene_t]

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

A sequence like

1NT-2♣

2♠-2NT

is quite essential, imho, since responder could have a hard-valued 8-count that wants to be in game (or at least invite) opposite a hearts fit, but not (at least not blast to game) without a fit.

 

It also depends on vulnerability and scoring. Someone once posted some stats suggesting that nonvul at IMPs, the balanced invite without fit has lower expected value than pass-or-blast, even without taking the disadvantage of disclosing opener's hand into account.

 

(2) how playable are larger ranges?

 

It could be made more playable by targeting your structure more towards invitational hands. Keri allows you to end in 2M on many of the invitational Stayman hands. And you could play 2♦ as a kind of inv+ Flint, a structure which you wouldn't want to play in a strong-NT system but has merits in a weak-NT system with a wide range.

 

That said, I wouldn't want to play a wide range, except maybe a wide-range weak or baby in 1st seat nonvul at IMPs.

[nige1]

Charles Outred's modifiication of Mike Bell's opening structure:

 

• 1♦ = BAL 11-13 HCP or NAT 4+ ♦.
• 1N = BAL 14-16 HCP.
• 1♣ = BAL 17-19 HCP or NAT 4+ ♣.
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 2N = BAL 20-21 HCP (Kokish see below).
• 2N = BAL 22-23 HCP..
• 2♦ = BAL 24-25 HCP. or 5-9 HCP 6 M (Multi).
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N = BAL 26-27 HCP.

 

Kokish variant...

2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ = BAL 20-21 HCP or NAT 5+ ♥ then responder rebids ...

• 2♠ = ART 4+ HCP or BAL 0-4 HCP,
• 2N = ART 0-4 HCP 5+ ♠.
• 3♣ = NAT 0-4 HCP 5+ ♣.
• 3♦ = NAT 0-4 HCP 5+ ♦.
• 3♥ = NAT 0-3 HCP 5+ ♥.

[raspeball]

Yes, no invite, just 3NT or not. I use 2NT as compulsory transfer to ♣, and 2♠ asking for 4 card minor, 2NT denial. This is useful if you judge you need 4 card support for a minor slam, and aslo when you have a "weak both minors" takeout.

 

I do play 2NT after failed stayman to play. I think being able to find the major fit when a couple of points lighter than you otherwise would is significant, especially matchpoints against a weak NT field where everyone will be in the major partscore beating you in 1NT.

 

This simulation is interesting regarding the need for having a natural 2nt available for responder after bidding stayman.

link.

 

Your assumption that it is more important to be able to check for majors in matchpoint seems to be supported by this simulations.

But it does not seems it is as valuable in IMP. So I think in teams it makes sense to use 2nt for other purposes.

 

Say you have a hand like this:

♠Kxxx

♥xx

♦ x

♣Kxxxxx

 

If opener have fit to clubs this hand could be great, but with a non fitting hand not so good.

 

You bid:

1nt-2♣

2♦/2♥-2nt=4 spades, (5)6+ clubs. Could be mildly invitational to game(Opener bids past 3♣ with club fit), or gameforcing.

 

Advantages:

….Seems like this could reach a few good games based on fit that could be hard to reach otherwise. (Agree that this is a low frequency hand).

..More ways to describe the game going hands.

 

 

 

Other sequences:

 

1nt-2♣

2♦ ?

 

2nt=As described above.

3♣=4♠,(5)6+ diamonds.Mildly invitational to game, or gameforcing

3♥=4♥/5♠

3♦=5-5 in majors? (Or other bid that you are missing in your system)

3♠=4♠ and 5♥

 

You could also swap the meaning of 3♦ and 3♠ .The advantage is that this leaves responder more room with 5 ♥ if he is slaminterested:

 

1nt-2♣

2♦-3♦(5♥,4♠ forcing game)

3♥(heart fit)