We love 1NT in Israel

[Flame]

Iv notices, playing in israel and also watching turnaments and bidding contest that Israelies open 1NT more frequently then others, we like this bid, and when in doubt we bid 1nt, we bid it with any 5 card major, you wont hear israly saying I had a balance 16 hcp but the points wernet NT oritented, if we have the strengh and shape we open 1nt.

About strengh, you will see ppl strech it and bid 1nt with some 14 and some 18, iv seen our best pair bid 1nt on 18 hcp including 3 aces and 2 kings!, on a bidding contest. we strech it for the shape too, you will see some 6331 and 5-4 ,even 5 higher then 4 as bid by doron yadlin on the final of NEC cup today, with 5 diamond and 4 clubs.

I think the idea beind this is 1nt is the "best" bid, it give more information about you hand then any other bid, its also the easiest bid, everyone remember their system over 1nt, but its much harder over 1 opening.

Its also make life better in competition field, making it harder for the opps to get into the aution. I can tell you that bidding in israel are preety premative, you wont see all the nice gadgets that you see in other places. having less gadgets makes it harder to show you hand after non 1nt opening.

The bad side is probebly slam bidding, but those are pretty rare.

What do you think ?

[Walddk]

and 5-4 ,even 5 higher then 4 as bid by doron yadlin on the final of NEC cup today, with 5 diamond and 4 clubs.

 

The bad side is probebly slam bidding, but those are pretty rare.

What do you think ?

I think most of us, for more reasons than one, would like to open 1NT as often as possible. Opener's shape is revealed in one bid, and the subsequent auction is a lot easier than after 1 of a suit, because most established partnerships have the necessary tools to get to the right contract.

 

As to the off-shape 1NT (5422 and 6322), it cuts both ways. You mention Doron Yadlin's 1NT in the NEC Cup Final with 2254. That didn't impress me much, since the Israelis missed a laydown 6♦.

 

I can't understand why one would open 1NT when one has no rebid problem after 1♦-1major. 2245 with 15-16 is a different story.

 

Roland

[mila85]

I don't know Israeli players but lots of people on BBO tends to open 1nt because they want to be a declarer...

It's better when I play a stupid contract (my cardplay is perfect, opps are loosers) than when a partner plays a normal one (he can't take a simple finesse). :ph34r:

(Of course I don't think that this is a problem of the best Israeli pairs)

[pbleighton]

I open a lot more hands 1NT when I am not vulnerable than when I am vulnerable. I use a 10-13 range NV and a 12-14 range vul, and I'm much more likely to open 5422s and even 6m322s NV.

 

Playing 1NT NV, not doubled, when the field is elsewhere is a big winner overall. Vulnerable, it's much more of a mixed bag.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

i never open 4522 hands 1nt... it's a system thing... but even playing 2/1 i hated that distribution for 1nt, which is why i went to 1H showing 4+ instead of 5+ pcs.. and i use 12-14/15 all the time now, tho in the past i used 10-13

[Free]

A while ago, I heard a very interesting theory about good bids and bad bids. Consider this:

 

A strong 1♣ opening sucks. I think most people agree with this. Another fact related to a strong 1♣ opening is that it has an enormous amount of different response schemes to, and an enormous amount of different defenses against it. Especially the first part is important imo, since if you'd have a good opening, then there would be a good response scheme as well.

 

If you connect these two facts, then you have a nice theory that a good opening doesn't have a lot of different response schemes, and not many different defenses as well.

 

Lets test that theory on the 1NT opening :rolleyes: :

- against strong NT, you have 100's of defenses against it.

- after a strong NT, you have quite a lot of different response schemes as well

According to the theory, 1NT is a poor opening ;)

 

Remember, it's just a theory B)

[Walddk]

A while ago, I heard a very interesting theory about good bids and bad bids. Consider this:

 

A strong 1♣ opening sucks. I think most people agree with this. Another fact related to a strong 1♣ opening is that it has an enormous amount of different response schemes to, and an enormous amount of different defenses against it. Especially the first part is important imo, since if you'd have a good opening, then there would be a good response scheme as well.

 

If you connect these two facts, then you have a nice theory that a good opening doesn't have a lot of different response schemes, and not many different defenses as well.

 

Lets test that theory on the 1NT opening :rolleyes: :

- against strong NT, you have 100's of defenses against it.

- after a strong NT, you have quite a lot of different response schemes as well

According to the theory, 1NT is a poor opening ;)

 

Remember, it's just a theory B)

Please tell your friend, or whoever it is who has this theory, that she should read your signature very carefully :)

 

Roland

[pbleighton]

Free -

 

1NT is the George Bush of bridge openings.

 

George Bush is a MUCH better bridge opening than President.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

A strong 1♣ opening sucks. I think most people agree with this. Another fact related to a strong 1♣ opening is that it has an enormous amount of different response schemes to, and an enormous amount of different defenses against it. Especially the first part is important imo, since if you'd have a good opening, then there would be a good response scheme as well.

a strong club only sucks relatively :rolleyes: ... it's (or something like it is) a necessary evil for one who believes limited strength bids are superior to (almost) unlimited ones... however, even if there are many different response schemes, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sheer number of them limits the effectiveness of any one of them... iow, there may be many response structures because *all* are 'good', within the framework of a certain philosophy

 

If you connect these two facts, then you have a nice theory that a good opening doesn't have a lot of different response schemes, and not many different defenses as well.

here's another theory... the more defenses required to combat a bid proves that the bid itself is effective, or at least worrisome... as for response structures, those depend on what information a pair determines is most important... many schemes only mean that different people feel differently about the importance of things like hcp vs. shape vs. controls

 

but if a person can agree that there's a converse relationship that links the level of a bid to its strength, then 1nt played weaker than 'normal' and 1c played stronger than 'normal' makes sense... the higher the opening (within limits), the more preemptive the bid... constructive bidding is not at a premium with those... the lower the bidding, with strength, the more room for constructive bidding

 

George Bush is a MUCH better bridge opening than President.

and we know this how? i think we'll probably have to look back thru the eyes of history to judge whether or not this is true

[pbleighton]

"and we know this how? i think we'll probably have to look back thru the eyes of history to judge whether or not this is true"

 

Theoretically, yes, but the traveller is looking pretty bad so far :rolleyes:

 

Peter

[Free]

A while ago, I heard a very interesting theory about good bids and bad bids.  Consider this:

 

A strong 1♣ opening sucks.  I think most people agree with this.  Another fact related to a strong 1♣ opening is that it has an enormous amount of different response schemes to, and an enormous amount of different defenses against it.  Especially the first part is important imo, since if you'd have a good opening, then there would be a good response scheme as well.

 

If you connect these two facts, then you have a nice theory that a good opening doesn't have a lot of different response schemes, and not many different defenses as well.

 

Lets test that theory on the 1NT opening  :rolleyes: :

- against strong NT, you have 100's of defenses against it.

- after a strong NT, you have quite a lot of different response schemes as well

According to the theory, 1NT is a poor opening  ;)

 

Remember, it's just a theory  B)

Please tell your friend, or whoever it is who has this theory, that she should read your signature very carefully :)

 

Roland

It's not a girl or a woman, it's a man, and he's a good bridge player as well...

[Rebound]

I guess I'm just not good enough to know the difference. I think the strong club opening is great. And defences to it don't bother me a bit. We have our defences to the defences lol... but we digress... Regarding off-shape NT openings, it strikes me funny that one would express the benefit of opeining NT as often as possible is it gives partner a picture of your shape? Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems a contradiction that you can get a picture of partner's shape after an off-shape NT opener.

[pbleighton]

"Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems a contradiction that you can get a picture of partner's shape after an off-shape NT opener."

 

You should open 5422s if that is your agreement to do so. This gives a picture.

 

Peter

[Walddk]

You should open 5422s if that is your agreement to do so. This gives a picture.

 

Peter

I'm not against opening off-shape 1NTs as such, as long as they are parts of your partnership agreements. Let me use the Italian top pair Fantoni-Nunes as an example.

 

Playing 12-14 NT and playing 1 of a minor as 14+ hcp, they simply have to open 1NT on 2254, 2245, 2362, 2326, 3262 and 3226 when they are in the 12-13 hcp range. That's fine, because they can control the subsequent auction.

 

However, I doubt that the average tournament player can, and that's why I think the off-shape NTs should be avoided. Even a world class pair like the Yadlin brothers were not able to get to the slam most people would bid if they opened a natural 1♦ with 2254.

 

At the other table Zmudzinski opened 1♦ and after a 1♠ overcall, Balicki simply bid 4NT. Bridge is difficult enough as it is; there is no reason to make it even more complicated.

 

Roland

[joker_gib]

You should open 5422s if that is your agreement to do so. This gives a picture.

 

Peter

I'm not against opening off-shape 1NTs as such, as long as they are parts of your partnership agreements. Let me use the Italian top pair Fantoni-Nunes as an example.

 

Playing 12-14 NT and playing 1 of a minor as 14+ hcp, they simply have to open 1NT on 2254, 2245, 2362, 2326, 3262 and 3226 when they are in the 12-13 hcp range. That's fine, because they can control the subsequent auction.

 

However, I doubt that the average tournament player can, and that's why I think the off-shape NTs should be avoided. Even a world class pair like the Yadlin brothers were not able to get to the slam most people would bid if they opened a natural 1♦ with 2254.

 

At the other table Zmudzinski opened 1♦ and after a 1♠ overcall, Balicki simply bid 4NT. Bridge is difficult enough as it is; there is no reason to make it even more complicated.

 

Roland

Totally agree with you Roland ! :)

 

I only open 1NT off-shape if I foresee some rebid problems !

 

I don't really see an advantage to open 5♦4♣ with 1NT as you have natural bids to describe your hand.

[mgoetze]

Iv notices, playing in israel and also watching turnaments and bidding contest that Israelies open 1NT more frequently then others, we like this bid, and when in doubt we bid 1nt,

[...]

The bad side is probebly slam bidding, but those are pretty rare.

What do you think ?

 

I think 1NT is good because it is so limited.

 

I think this is why you should be playing a strong club system, then you get the same advantage for 1D, 1H, 1S, 2C, 2D, etc. as well.

 

I just love the Precision 2D opening (11-15 points, and originally 4414, though we also play it with 4405, 4315, 3415, 4306 and 3406). I almost always know exactly where I want to play when my partner opens it, and if the opponents err, it is very easy to punish them.