various NT

[sceptic]

1NT 16 -18

 

1NT 15 - 17

 

1NT 14 - 16

 

1NT 12 - 14

 

1NT 10 - 12

 

add any I missed

 

I think sayc started as 16 - 18 and then some dropped it to 15 - 17

 

Acol is 12 -14 ( I think this is more a preemptive type bid, to take bidding space from opps)

 

 

10 - 12 (mini I think)

 

In your opinion what is best for SAYC

 

and what is best for 2/1

 

and what are your general comments if some one played one of these (it does not matter which) and they wanted to try something different, what advice would you give them i.e. benefits and concerns about each

 

I hope you understand what I am asking :)

[pclayton]

1NT 16 -18..........Blecchhh

 

1NT 15 - 17..........OK - time tested, bid with the field, play a trick better.

 

1NT 14 - 16..........Fine with a strong club; leaves a nasty 3 point range for a 2N rebid though in non-strong club system.

 

1NT 12 - 14..........Now you're talking!

 

1NT 10 - 12..........Great NV and 1st thru 3rd. You will need a rebid structure to show a 13-14 / 15 and 15/16 - 17/18. You will occasionally miss some good minor suit slams, since opener's length on the minor is frequently vague.

 

add any I missed.....you left off 11-13, 13-15 and all the 4 point ranges. No comment to these.

 

(SNIP)

 

...................Makes no difference between SAYC and 2/1. I like 12-14 the best.

[Laird]

Hi Wayne

 

When I first started playing Acol, we were encouraged to play 16 - 18 nt as a safe beginners nt, avoiding too much trouble.

Gradually 12 -14 nt was adopted as the norm when playing Acol with safeguards such as weak - take out, transfers,emergency re - double etc.

 

One successful club pair use 10 -12 nt nv and 13 - 15 nt v....but the rebid structure is pretty robust I believe involving 5 card suits and the like:-)

 

Currently I play 15 -17nt Standard American which seems ok ..but not so exciting to play as 12 - 14 and as u say doesn't have the premptive nature of 12 - 14 nt.

 

Another club pair play Standard American, with 12 - 14 nt again quite successfully at local club level.

 

Hope this is of some use from a non - expert

 

John

[jtfanclub]

In theory, what you want to do is break the balanced hands into sections. You want these sections to be three points at most, with bids that end up at 2NT 2 points at most.

 

Do you open balanced 12 counts? Would you open 9x Q97 AK4 KT943?

Turn one of those kings into a queen...would you still open it?

 

1C 1x 1NT=A to A+2.

Open 1NT: A+3 to A+5

1C 1x 2NT=A+6 to A+7

Open 2NT=A+8 or more (to some point when open 2 clubs or 3NT).

 

If you don't open either hand I mentioned, then A=13. So the best ranges are:

1C 1x 1NT=13 to 15

Open 1NT= 16-18

1C 1x 2NT=19-20

Open 2NT=21+

This is old style Goren. It works- don't knock it.

 

Most people open the 12 count I mentioned, so now the best ranges are:

1C 1x 1NT=12 to 14

Open 1NT=15-17

1C 1x 2NT=18-19

Open 2NT=20+. This has become the standard.

 

Some people open the 11 count, now the best ranges are:

1C 1x 1NT=11-13

Open 1NT= 14-16

1C 1x 2NT=17-19

Open 2NT=20+.

It increases the range of the 1C 1x 2NT, but nothing's perfect.

 

The point is, when you're talking about using 1NT to define the 'middle' range, the important thing is how cheaply you open, rather than one 1NT being a better range than the others.

 

1NT 12-14 and 1NT 10-12 are whole different animals. They define 1NT with the bottom range, not the middle range. They can't be compared easily without looking at the rest of the system.

[the hog]

This question cannot be answered without looking at the rest of the system. You cannot take one bid in isolation and say this or that is best. Such an approach is totally illogical. A bidding system is a unified entity.

 

You comment on the 12-14 Acol NT as being primarilly a pre emptive bid designed to take away space from the opponents. Wrong! It is designed to solve bidding problems of balanced weakish hands within that system. This is precisely the point I am making with the comment above.

[whereagles]

Sceptic, you missed the original precision 13-15 NT, and the 9-11 NT which is the one that comes out the most often (I speak from experience!). If you allow for a 5-card suit to be worth an extra point, you can even lower the 9-11 to 8-11. I don't think you can get any "better" than that :)

[Guest Jlall]

no diff

[inquiry]

I have played all of these ranges, and more.

 

16-18 range. This puts too much pressure on the 1minor-1any-1NT rebid, where you might have anywhere from 11 to 15 hcp modern day "agreesive opening bids." The lower the bid, the wider the range, and 5 hcp doesn't seem that wide a range, but it does cause problems. Don't play this range.

 

15-17 range. Better, and is clearly the most popular range in the USA. Now the 1 minor-1any-1NT is more narrowly defined. This is the range I play with pickup partners.

 

14-16 range, Best of the "strong NT" variety. Does cause minor headache with the 17 point range, where you might play in 2NT (1m-1any-2NT) whereas the filed is in 1NT (1Nt-Pass), but partner rates to have 6hcp, so with 17+6 = 23 you often make your 2NT anyway, so it is not as bad as the discussion with Hannie makes it seem

 

12-14 range. Not only Acol, but also kaplan sheinwold. This is a fine range and has a lot of advantages. I stretch this range to 11-14, without any significant problems. of course if you play this range, it has dramatic effects on your other 2/1 auctions. So you will need to revamp your system

 

10-12 (and 9-11), this is gambling NT system. It works well on the largest percentage of hands, and is thus good for matchpoint games, especially in weak fields. This is a way to get in the first bid, to get preemption going, to find your fit (any five card suit in partners hand will do). This in not nearly as safe at imp games where a string of part-score victories your way will not make up for the occassional disaster where you get hammered unmercifully by the opponents. So while I like it for matchpoints, I don't want to play it for imps. This means I can't play it, as I don't want to spend time developing two different systems one for imps, one for matchpoints.

 

Original Precision uses 13-15, I stretched this to 12-15 and passed the balanced 11 counts. Somehow I think 14-16 works better for precision.

 

I even played blue club for a while with a range of something like 13-17, either being 16-17 balanced, or 13-15 with clubs (3325 or 3334 if I recall correctly).

 

Most 2/1 and sayc players might be best served by lowering their 1NT requirerments one more time, from 15-17 to 14-16, but if you are happy with what you play, why change it?

 

Ben

[xx1943]

Wrong! It is designed to solve bidding problems of balanced weakish hands within that system. This is precisely the point I am making with the comment above.

Rite

 

Let me make a speach for 12-14 NT in old fashioned KS-style

 

The biggest advantage of 12-14 NT besides preempt value is that minor-suit openings show either strength (15+ when balanced) or distribution (5-4 63 7 .. and 4441).

 

Playing 12-14 NT you must be aware, that

1) you are playing against the room. You play most NT-contracts from the other side

2) it is dangerous for you because you may be doubled

3) it is very dangerous for opponents to intervene, because they may doubled.

3) You need a scientific rescue-sytem after 1NT X ??

4) You must be excellent declarer and defenders due to this close decisions.

 

IMO 12-14 NT is a great weapon. It fits perfectly with inverted minors and all modern gadgets after 1NT opening.

 

It is no problem to play 2/1 with 12-14 NT. The minimum rebids in NT must be revised.

 

Imo 2/1 is built on the good old "Kaplan-Sheinwold".

 

I would teach 12-14 NT even beginners

1) they would the according rebids at once

2) Many folks are not used to play against weak NT and have no weapons against. That gives you a tactical advantage.

 

I played Kaplan-sheinwold even in high competition with great success.

 

 

regards

 

Al

[Free]

16-18 YUK, don't bother playing this!

 

15-17 ok, nothing more, nothing less

 

14-16 works fine in all systems, and gains a lot on the 14 HCP hands, but it loses sometimes with 17 HCP. In general it still means a better result than 15-17.

 

12-14 works fine, but you need to change some stuff about rebids. It wins a lot imo opposite the 15-17 players, but you also need a good escape structure :angry:

 

11-14 is even better (you forgot this one), since I like to open 11 HCP hands :D

 

10-12 I haven't experienced with, but I think it's not great in pure natural systems (rebid problems and stuff), but in strong ♣ you won't have any problems at all. Pure preempt!

 

All by all, I like 11-14 the most. It's quite agressive (not with 10HCP like the mini, but all others are ok), it comes up a lot, and I've noticed it wins bigtime opposite 15-17 playing pairs.

[hrothgar]

In your opinion what is best for SAYC

Standard American Yellow Card is a SYSTEM

 

Its a pretty piss poor system. However, its one saving grace is consistancy. It refers to a specific set of agreements. As such, SAYC dictates a specific NT opening range. SAYC also dictates a number of other things. (For example, 1m - 2NT as a forcing response)

 

Its fine and dandy to ask which NT range works best with 5 card majors combined with a natural NT response. However, please don't refer to this as SAYC.

[hrothgar]

Imo 2/1 is built on the good old "Kaplan-Sheinwold".

Amusing theory.

Completely erroneous, but that's what makes the comment so funny.

 

K-S and Eastern Scientific both use 5 card majors and a forcing NT.

However the core of the systems are completely different.

[luke warm]

1NT 16 -18: probably nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't come up often enough

 

1NT 15 - 17: the one i usually play, but only because most people insist on it

 

1NT 14 - 16: played it maybe once

 

1NT 12 - 14: my usual (this and 12-15)

 

1NT 10 - 12: my favorite (except it's 10-13)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the main thing to remember is, just as ron said, you can't simply change your nt range and be happy... each range has a bearing on the whole system, and each has an optimum system in which it functions best (imo)

 

i played 10-13 within a 2/1 framework and i'll have to say it works very well.. unlike most, i played it at all vulnerabilities and in all seats except 4th... it allows 1x/1y/1nt to show 14-16, and is great with some form of checkback (or keri), as most are

 

the 12-14 is probably played by the majority of weak nt people... the nt rebid then becomes 15-17 (this is within a framework of 5 card major system)

 

"In your opinion what is best for SAYC and what is best for 2/1"

 

i guess 12-14 is best for both since it combines frequency of occurance with relative safety... just be aware that you can't simply play a 15-17 today and tell pard "hey, let's play a 12-14 nt, ok?" tonite

[Flame]

Could it be that in few yearts ppl will look at the 10-12 and say its an old fashion we prefer 7-9 hcp ?

[luke warm]

sure, as long as acbl says it's ok... :angry:

[inquiry]

Rumor has it that Zar (Zar Petkov of Zar Points) is about to publish his bidding system geared towards using Zar-based evaluation. Since the 26 zar points to open light often requires considerable distributional value, it will be interesting to see what range he puts on his 1NT opening. In one of his articles he states he uses 1NT for an opening bid with enough hcp to open, but not enough ZAR points. This suggest maybe an 11 to 14 or 12 to 15 range... soemthing like that.

 

I look foward to seeing his approach.

 

Ben

[Chamaco]

The issue of the various ranges of NT is discussed (among other Notrump bidding issues) in Danny Kleinman's "The NoTrump zone", which I found a useful reading, regardless of agreeing or not on many points.

 

He favours 16-18, maybe I'll find the time later to write his arguments, now I am out for some wine drinking (cheers Ron :blink: ).

[MickyB]

I only skimmed it, but I think he said good 15-18? Wanting to break 12-18 into two equal ranges.

 

Personally I think 15-17 and 12-14 are close constructively, with 10-13 best 1st NV.

[paulg]

A consideration for some on the best 1NT range would include the type of competition and the field that you are playing.

 

This is particularly true for matchpoint pairs - if you believe that you are better than the field then you should be playing the same 1NT as them (12-14 in the UK, 15-17 in the USA) so that you end up in similar contracts and beat the field with your dazzling play. Alternatively, if you wish to take a risk then play an uncommon range - this will randomise your auctions relative to the field and generate swingier results.

 

Paul

[DrTodd13]

I started 10 years ago with 16-18, quickly followed by 15-17. If you make me pick one single range then I'll pick 14-16 which requires that 3 point range jump rebid with 17-19 but I'm aggresive so I like that. I've also played 13-15 in precision context and 12-14 and 10-12 in SA-based contexts. In a SA-based context, I really think that optimal is either or 2 or 3 range system. With my current competition pd we play 12-14 non-vul and 14-16 vul. I have also added a 10-12 or 10-13 range in there when nv vs vul. With my lunch time pd, we play a restricted 9-13 in the context of a forcing pass system. It is a fun system but kind of ridiculous sometimes when you end up in a pretty hairy 21 or 22 pt 2N contract. Again though, it is aggresive and therefore fun.

 

Todd

[HeartA]

I am in favor of 15-17 range for 1NT oening. Since 2NT opening (including 1x-1y-2NT) deprives the space for invitation for game (3NT or 4M), it is not good to have a big range. I play 18-19 for 1x-1y-2NT and 20-21 for direct 2NT.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I think both 15-17 (including good 14) and 16-18 (including good 15) are fine if you don't open all 11 counts, because these hands are often difficult to rebid, both in two-player bridge and in four-player bridge.

But I do prefer 16-17 (including good 15) from a constructive point of view, since responder has MUCH more room on a one-bid followed by 1N than on a direct 1N.

 

It has already been somewhat discussed in this thread.

[xx1943]

Amusing theory.

Completely erroneous, but that's what makes the comment so funny.

 

K-S and Eastern Scientific both use 5 card majors and a forcing NT.

However the core of the systems are completely different.

 

I guess "Eastern Scientific" is 2/1.

 

Then there are only two possibilities:

 

Either I don't know enough about 2/1 or .......................... :angry: