Polish Club with Weak Openings

[SixOfWands]

It seems in lands without regulations about minimum NT opening strengths people play the kamikaze as 9-12 balanced typically, but 9-13 seems unworkably large.

 

It's not really rocket science...

 

When partner opens 1NT 9-13

 

Bid game with 15+

 

invite to game with 13, 14 and partner will put you into game with 11-13.

 

You miss no 26 point games and the only 25 point game you miss is...Opener 11 Responder 14

 

In this situation if you pass in SAYC some pairs will invite to show 10, 11 and some will bid 3NT and some stay in 2NT.

 

The pairs in 2NT can't beat playing in 1NT and the pairs in 3NT will beat you slightly more than half the time.

 

Overall not a disaster!

 

When we bid 24 point 3NT games we will not be alone either.

 

You do need to be disciplines and use judgement playing a mini but it does work!

[straube]

Yeah, I haven't played such a structure though I'd rather still reserve opening for better hands. Thanks for sharing your system and discussing it with us. Good luck with your development of it.

[SixOfWands]

Suppose you agree that playing such a system, you will have an advantage over the field when you hold 9-11 hcp and get to open (when other people are passing)... but you will be at a disadvantage when you hold 12-14 because, while you definitely open, partner will play you for 9-11 and you may have trouble showing your "extras" especially in competition.

 

Does this mean you're ahead of the field, since 9-11 is more common than 12-14?

 

There are two reasons this may not necessarily be the case:

 

1. If you are in second seat, quite often when you have 9-11 RHO will open in front of you. So the probability that [you hold 9-11 and RHO doesn't open] may not be much higher than the probability that [you hold 12-14 and RHO doesn't open] because RHO is certainly less likely to open when you have more points. This becomes even more extreme if you are in 3rd or 4th seat, to the degree that you probably want to play a different opening structure if partner is a passed hand!

 

2. Some hands are higher scoring than other hands, and the ones where you have more values tend to present larger scoring opportunities. Doing worse on the "important" hands in exchange for doing better on "unimportant" hands is a bad tradeoff, even if there are a few more unimportant hands. At IMPs this is obvious. At MPs it may seem strange since every hand "counts the same" -- but there is some set of hands where the opponents have an obvious contract and we have no good sacrifice, such that our opening the bidding doesn't help us at all and in fact may assist the opponents in the play. In contrast, hands where we may be able to generate a good score by declaring are much more important to bid, and these tend to be the ones where we have more values and/or more shape.

 

I do like opening light on unbalanced hands, and play such a style in my most system-heavy partnership. However, I think it is a tradeoff, and while opening light is generally good, playing a more difficult range is a minus position which must also be considered (and I do believe 9-18 is quite a bit more difficult than 11-20, and 9-13 is definitely more difficult than 11-13).

 

I'm not sure I follow these arguments but thanks for the feedback, in my view any feedback will either convince me more or less and either is a good thing.

 

Point 1 since we are considering whether it is better to open when the opportunity arises, the fact that the opponents may open is irrelavent. Given that both system have the same opponents this will happen with the same frequency.

 

Point 2 If my partner opens 9+ with 9-11 and the opponents pre-empt then I'm in a much better place than if he passed. If my partner opened 9+ with 12 points I'm not doing that badly in comparison to if he opened 12+ especially if my bid shows a five card suit. The net effect has to be positive I'd say. The 9-11 range will happen more than the 12-14 range just because it's more common being 27% compared to 20% of all hands!

 

http://www.bridgehands.com/P/Probability_HCP.htm

 

Sound reasonable?

[awm]

I'll try one more time to explain. Suppose we play this system if we are first or second to bid. Should we do the same in 3rd/4th?

 

In 4th after three passes, we know LHO has 0-11. We know partner has 0-8 since we open all 9s. RHO probably has 0-9 since people open light in 3td chair. So in 4th after three passes my minimum point count is 40-11-8-9=12. I will never have 9-11! Thus it is silly to play openings that start at 9... claiming to play 9-18 in 4th makes no sense.

 

In 3rd after two passes, RHO has 0-11 and partner has 0-8. Obviously I could have 9-11... but this would mean either LHO has quite a big hand, or both partner and RHO must be very Max. I'm much more likely to have 12-14 than 9-11.

 

We can conclude that if I play these openings in 1st/2nd, I really should not play them in 3rd/4th. Do I want to play different methods based on seat?

 

Even in 2nd seat this case can be made. The frequencies you are using apply in 1st chair only.

[the hog]

A 10-12 NT is a winner, especially NV vs Vul, or even at = Green. Meckwell played it for a long time, and Bocchi and Duboin played it for some years, so Straube's argument is incorrect. Having said this, a 9-13 range is too wide. The problem lies in playing 2NT and going down when the filed is in one, making.

[SixOfWands]

I'll try one more time to explain. Suppose we play this system if we are first or second to bid. Should we do the same in 3rd/4th?

 

In 4th after three passes, we know LHO has 0-11. We know partner has 0-8 since we open all 9s. RHO probably has 0-9 since people open light in 3td chair. So in 4th after three passes my minimum point count is 40-11-8-9=12. I will never have 9-11! Thus it is silly to play openings that start at 9... claiming to play 9-18 in 4th makes no sense.

 

In 3rd after two passes, RHO has 0-11 and partner has 0-8. Obviously I could have 9-11... but this would mean either LHO has quite a big hand, or both partner and RHO must be very Max. I'm much more likely to have 12-14 than 9-11.

 

We can conclude that if I play these openings in 1st/2nd, I really should not play them in 3rd/4th. Do I want to play different methods based on seat?

 

Even in 2nd seat this case can be made. The frequencies you are using apply in 1st chair only.

 

I'm not bothered about fourth seat it hardly ever happens and yes you can pass. You don't have to bid 9-13 1NT just because it's in the system!

[glen]

It's not really rocket science...

 

invite to game with 13, 14 and partner will put you into game with 11-13.

 

You miss no 26 point games and the only 25 point game you miss is...Opener 11 Responder 14

...

What about Opener 13 Responder 12?

[straube]

A 10-12 NT is a winner, especially NV vs Vul, or even at = Green. Meckwell played it for a long time, and Bocchi and Duboin played it for some years, so Straube's argument is incorrect. Having said this, a 9-13 range is too wide. The problem lies in playing 2NT and going down when the filed is in one, making.

 

I didn't say that no one played it. I said that I didn't see many top pairs playing it. Meckwell used to play 10-12 first second favorable only. That's pretty limited usage and they've since abandoned the 10-12 so hardly a ringing endorsement.

 

Here's from an old interview with Rodwell when they were actually using it...

 

http://www.bridgematters.com/rodwell.htm

Edited June 1, 2012 by barmar
Replaced copied interview with link to web site

[kreivi68]

A 10-12 NT is a winner, especially NV vs Vul, or even at = Green. Meckwell played it for a long time, and Bocchi and Duboin played it for some years, so Straube's argument is incorrect. Having said this, a 9-13 range is too wide. The problem lies in playing 2NT and going down when the filed is in one, making.

 

According to Pietro Campanile Kamikaze is winner. He has done statistical

analysis on hands in Bermuda Bowl and EC to figure out which NT range is the best.

 

http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20other%20tidbits%20pdfs/Which%20NT%20range%20is%20the%20winner.pdf

 

Any comments on this article?

 

T.

[Zelandakh]

I'd be interested to see a post of your system if you get one together,

There are lots of posts regarding various parts of my system dotted around these forums (some would probably say too many!). Essentially it is based on sysmmetric relay but using a mutli-way strong club. Basics:

 

1♣ = 15+ natural or 15+ balanced or 18+ any

... - 1♦ = most non-GF hands

... - ... - 1♥ = 18-20 any or 23+ bal

... - ... - 1♠ = 18+ 3-suited or any unbal GF

... - ... - 1NT = 15-17 bal or 4414

... - ... - 2♣ = 15-17, 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and 4M

... - ... - 2♦ = strong 2 in a minor

... - ... - 2M = strong 2

... - ... - 2NT = 21-22 bal

... - ... - 3♣ = 25-26 bal with 4-5 hearts

... - ... - 3♦ = 25-26 bal with 4-5 spades, 2-3 hearts

... - ... - 3♥ = 25-26 bal with 2-3 hearts, 2-3 spades

... - 1♥ = 4+ spades and not qualified for 2♥/2♠2NT responses, GF

... - ... - 1♠ = relay

... - ... - others = 15-17

... - 1♠ = 0-3 hearts, 0-3 spades, GF

... - ... - 1NT = relay

... - ... - others = 15-17

... - 1NT = hearts or hearts and clubs, GF

... - ... - 2♣ = relay

... - ... - others = 15-17

... - 2♣ = hearts and diamonds, GF

... - ... - 2♦ = relay

... - ... - others = 15-17

... - 2♦ = 4+ hearts, 0-3 spades, bal or 3-suited, GF

... - ... - 2♥ = relay

... - ... - others = 15-17

... - 2♥ = 4-5 spades, 2-3 hearts, bal, GF

... - ... - 2♠ = relay

... - ... - others = 15-17

... - 2♠ = 4-5 spades, 0-1 hearts, GF

... - ... - 2NT = relay

... - ... - others = 15-17

... - 2NT = running suit

1♦ = (9)10-17, 4+ diamonds, unbal

... - 1♥ = INV+ relay

... - ... - 1♠ = min, 0-3 spades or 4441/4450 (1NT GF relay, others natural and invitational)

... - ... - 1NT = 4+ spades (2♣ GF relay, others natural and invitational)

... - ... - 2♣ = max, 4+ clubs, GF

... - ... - 2♦ = max, 6+ diamonds, no side suit, GF

... - ... - 2♥ = max, 4 hearts, GF

... - ... - 2♠ = max, 4441, GF

... - ... - 2NT = max, 4450, 0-3 controls, GF

... - 1♠ = weak, nat

... - 1NT = weak with hearts

... - 2♣ = weak, nat

... - 2♦ = weak raise

... - 2M, 3♣ = 6+ suit, up to 7 hcp

... - 2NT = mixed raise

... - 3♦ = preemptive raise

1♥ = (9)10-17, 5+ hearts, unbal

... - 1♠ = INV+ relay

... - ... - 1NT = min, 0-3 spades (2♣ = GF relay, others = natural and invitational)

... - ... - 2♣ = 4+ spades (2♦ = GF relay, others = natural and invitational)

... - ... - 2♦ = max, 4+ clubs, GF

... - ... - 2♥ = max, 6+ hearts, no side suit, GF

... - ... - 2♠ = max, 5+ diamonds, GF

... - ... - 2NT = max, 4 diamonds, 5 hearts, GF

... - ... - 3♣ = max, 4 diamonds, 6 hearts, 0-1 spades, GF

... - ... - 3♦ = max, 2641, GF

... - ... - 3♥ = max, 3640, GF

... - ... - 3♠ = max, 1741, GF

... - ... - 3NT = max, 7+ hearts, spade void, GF

... - ... - 4♣ = max, 2740/1840, 0-3 controls, GF

... - 1NT = weak with spadess

... - 2m = weak, nat

... - 2♥ = weak raise

... - 2♠ = mini-splinter or in-between splinter

... - 2NT = GF raise

... - 3♣ = limit raise

... - 3♦ = mixed raise

... - 3♥ = preemptive raise

1♠ = (9)10-17, 5+ spades, unbal

... - 1NT = INV+ relay

... - ... - 2♣ = min, 0-3 hearts (2♦ = GF relay, others = natural and invitational)

... - ... - 2♦ = 4+ hearts (2♥ = GF relay, others = natural and invitational)

... - ... - 2♥ = max, 4+ clubs, GF

... - ... - 2♠ = max, 6+ spades, no side suit, GF

... - ... - 2NT = max, 5+ diamonds, GF

... - ... - 3♣ = max, 4 diamonds, 5 spades, GF

... - ... - 3♦ = max, 4 diamonds, 6 spades, 0-1 hearts, GF

... - ... - 3♥ = max, 6241, GF

... - ... - 3♠ = max, 6340, GF

... - ... - 3NT = max, 7141, GF

... - ... - 4♣ = max, 7+ spades, heart void, GF

... - ... - 4♦ = max, 7240/8140, 0-3 controls, GF

... - 2m, 2♥ = weak, nat

... - 2♠ = weak raise

... - 2NT = mini-splinter or in-between splinter

... - 3♣ = GF raise

... - 3♦ = limit raise

... - 3♥ = mixed raise

... - 3♠ = preemptive raise

1NT = (11)12-14 bal or 4414

... - 2♣ = Puppet Stayman

... - 2♦ = 5+ hearts

... - 2♥ = 5+ spades

... - 2NT = 5 spades, 4 hearts, INV

... - 3m = natural, SI

... - 3♥ = 4414, GF

... - 3♠ = 4441, GF

2♣ = 10-14, 6+ clubs or 5 cluns and 4M

... - 2♦ = 4+ hearts

... - 2♥ = 4+ spades

... - 2♠ = range ask, INV+

... - 2NT = 5 spades, 4 hearts, INV

... - 3♣ = weak raise

... - 3♦ = natural, sign-off

... - 3♥ = slam try in diamonds

... - 3♠ = slam try agreeing clubs

 

 

That is probably (more than) enough details to be getting on with. Obviously there is a lot more detail, especially in relay structure and relay breaks. I doubt this is actually very useful for you though. The aims of this system are much more about being constructive (particularly trying to get more closely defined ranges) while using a response structure that supports light openings.

[straube]

According to Pietro Campanile Kamikaze is winner. He has done statistical

analysis on hands in Bermuda Bowl and EC to figure out which NT range is the best.

 

http://www.migry.com/Articles%20and%20other%20tidbits%20pdfs/Which%20NT%20range%20is%20the%20winner.pdf

 

Any comments on this article?

 

T.

 

1) Likely the 10-12 NT being tabulated was opened at only certain seats and vulnerabilites.

 

2) We don't know whether more imps were lost when the partnership opened balanced hands outside their NT range. It may or may not be that a weak/Kamikaze NT is a net winner.

[glen]

... large amount of copyrighted text ...

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

...

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

...

[straube]

http://www.bridgematters.com/rodwell.htm

 

All better?

[glen]

http://www.bridgematters.com/rodwell.htm

 

All better?

No

[barmar]

No

I replaced the interview with the link in the earlier post. I hope that's acceptable to you.

[straube]

Is this fair use?

 

BridgeMatters: Why do you think it has shifted? And what does it feel like to now be in the minority?

 

Chip Martel: I’m not sure why that is the case. I don't know enough about the history. Certainly, weak-NT systems were more of the in thing when I was starting to play bridge. Later, other developments affected the popularity of the weak NT. For example, weak-NT systems don’t fit that well with strong club systems, where something like a 14-16 NT range works better and allows you to open lighter hands.

 

or...

 

http://www.bridgematters.com/martel.pdf

[glen]

I replaced the interview with the link in the earlier post. I hope that's acceptable to you.

Yes it is, and feel free to quote the highlights, individual paragraphs etc., such as

 

BridgeMatters: What do you think of the 10-12 notrump openings?

 

Eric Rodwell: I am relatively timid about playing them—I like to play them white vs. red [i.e. not vulnerable vs. vulnerable]. They are definitely too dangerous vulnerable . . . I know there are a few intrepid souls who play them at any vulnerability.

 

...

 

BridgeMatters: Why don’t you like the 10-12 notrump white vs. white?

 

Eric Rodwell: . . . I like them more for IMPs than matchpoints. At matchpoints, it is a frequency thing, and you are burying too many of your fits. ... The weaker the opponents, the more effective bids like the 10-12 notrump are going to be.

 

--- ---

 

Btw a bunch of years ago, Rodwell played against a 10-12 all-the-time semi-pro pair (semi-pro means they are paid to play, but have regular jobs too) in a Vandy match. After the match he went with them to the bar, where he peppered them with system questions. Rodwell is always considering what works best.

[straube]

Glen,

 

So I started wondering what gave you the right to say it was ok to quote individual paragraphs from Bridgematters as opposed to sections of it as I did in my first post.

 

I figured it out.

 

Thanks for your work at Bridgematters. I've very much valued particularly the Rodwell interview and the one I discovered just today with Martel.

[rhm]

A 10-12 NT is a winner, especially NV vs Vul, or even at = Green. Meckwell played it for a long time, and Bocchi and Duboin played it for some years, so Straube's argument is incorrect. Having said this, a 9-13 range is too wide. The problem lies in playing 2NT and going down when the filed is in one, making.

But I really wonder why did they stopped playing it, particularly at favorable, if this is a winner?

Arguing that they as professionals had to remember two structures does not make much sense if you are convinced you have a winning method.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[glen]

... But I really wonder why did they stopped playing it, particularly at favorable, if this is a winner? ...

According to my studies of Meckwell results at the top levels, the 1NT 10-12 fav was only a marginal winner, while the 14-16 fav with frequent upgrades from 13 was a bigger winner. Likewise Meckwell used Multi but it didn't generate a lot of great results, and they don't play it anymore (though they continue to collect defenses against Multi from unprepared opponents). Rodwell likes to tweak the system for best advantage.