16-18 NT in a modern system?

[Kungsgeten]

I've seen many pairs today that remove the "strong, but not super strong" NT range (most commonly 18--19) from their one level opening bids. The Italian pairs play 2♣ or 2♦ as 18--19 NT and some top Swedish pairs use 2♣ as 18--20 NT or GF. The 16--18 NT range is often frowned upon as being arcane, but could it have a place in modern bridge? Perhaps something like:

 

1♣ = 12--15 NT or natural

1♦♥♠ = Natural, 4+ diamonds and 5+ major

1NT = 16--18

2♣ = Strong.

2♦♥♠ = Whatever

2NT = 19--21

 

The 19--21 range of 2NT might be too wide and not safe enough. 19--21 could be in 2♣ instead and 2NT could be 22--24, making it possible to play transfers or similar over 2♣.

 

Another option, which I'm personally interested in, would be to remove the minimum club hands from 1♣, since these are often troublesome hands when playing a short club.

 

1♣ = 12--15 NT or 15+ with clubs

1♦♥♠ = Natural. 1♦ may have longer clubs if 11--14.

1NT = 16--18

2♣ = "Polish". 11--14 with 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and a 4 card major.

2♦ = Strong.

2♥♠ = Weak

2NT = 19--21

[nullve]

I've seen many pairs today that remove the "strong, but not super strong" NT range (most commonly 18--19) from their one level opening bids. The Italian pairs play 2♣ or 2♦ as 18--19 NT and some top Swedish pairs use 2♣ as 18--20 NT or GF.

There's always a herd willing to play whatever the top pairs of their country are playing. In Norway, for example, some pairs still play 5443, apparently for no other reason than that Norway's (now actually Monaco's) top pair are playing it. I've even heard the argument: "If it's good enough for H-H, then it's good enough for me." And I can't think of a good bridge reason why so many American Precision pairs use precisly a 19-20 range for their 2N opening.* Of course, it's nice to have

 

1♣-1♦; 1N = 17-18 bal,

 

but it's also nice to be able to bid like that with 19 bal., and 17-19 is still a very manageable range. So I guess some pairs (Greco-Hampson?) have thought: "If it's good enough for Meckwell, it must be good enough for us." That said, it seems that the Meckwell/Meckwell Lite crowd agree with the said Italian and Swedish pairs that some strong balanced hands need to be taken out of the 1♣ opening, whether it's strong or nat./bal. My point is merely that this may be cultural thing and not necessarily an indication that the Italian, Swedish or American top players are onto something.

 

* That doesn't mean there can't be any or that Rodwell can't possibly have thought this through.

[WesleyC]

One issue with this idea is that most top pairs want to open light, even with balanced hands. Once you start including all 11 HCP hands, even a 4 point range for a minimum balanced 1C opening usually considered too wide.

 

As a result, the most 'technically sound' non strong club systems either use 1C as 11-13 HCP or 17-19 HCP (with x-fer responses) and 1NT as 14-16, or call it 15*-17 and simply include all the good 14 counts. Another (artificial) option is to split the balanced ranges up between both minors. These methods ARE vulnerable to preemption but in an uncontested auction, being about to describe 17-19 balanced at the 1 level is very powerful.

[kenrexford]

Many years ago, I played a funky canapé system where the structure of most openings was:

 

1♦ = strong, forcing, artificial

 

2NT = minors

 

2M = that major and either minor, light opening

 

2♦ = both majors, 5-loser hand

 

2♣ = any three suits, 10+ HCP

 

1C = light balanced, or either minor-major canapé with 5-loser hand and longer major, or exactly 15 HCP and balanced, or one-suited minor

 

1M = one-suited major or canapé with longer second suit and 5-loser hand

 

After a few of these bids and explanations, the opponents knew that we were playing a weird system. Then, 1NT as "16-18 HCP, balanced" would make everyone laugh hysterically.

 

 

 

[nige1]

For a decade, we played ROSEMARY (Acol with modified Benjamin) i.e.

• 1N = BAL 15-17
• 2♣ = ART Rule of 25. BAL 18-19 or 1-suiter (6+) or semi-2-suiter(4 5+).
• 2♦ = ART Rule of 25. BAL 22+ or 2-suiter (5+ 5+) or 3-suiter (4441/5440).
• 2N = BAL 20-21.

The advantage of this was that 1-openers were limited, rather like Precision.

Charles Outred's new BALMIN system defines

• 1♣ = BAL 17-19 or NAT 4+ ♣s, shapely.
• 1♦ = BAL 11-13 or NAT 4+ ♦s, shapely.
• 1N = BAL 14-16.
• 2♣ = GF or BAL 22+ (With control responses and reverse Kokish).
• 2N = BAL 20-21.

This seems to work too :)

[Caitlynne]

Aside from the fact that playing a 19-21 2NT is Neanderthal bidding, there is nothing truly wrong with that structure.

 

However, there are theoretical reasons from responder's perspective why a 15-17 NT is superior to a 16-18 NT range.

 

What you seem to be suggesting is a KS style could be short 1C opening with a Precision 2C opening. That is playable, and you could de-Neanderthalize your 2NT opening if you played a Mexican 2D opening (strong balanced hand) while assigning some other useful meaning to 2NT (e.g., 22 to 23 balanced or perhaps unusual for both minors).

 

However, another alternative is to actual make your 1C opening closer to a genuine Polish Club opening, allowing the balanced hands it covers to be minimum or strong sandwiching around your 1NT opening.

[steve2005]

The importance of your opening 1N range is overrated. Almost any method is playable.

What is more important is how your NT range fits into the rest of your system.

Precision is quite willing to the use of a 2D bid just fill a whole in there system, I see no reason why you shouldn't be willing to adjust your 1N range if it improves your system as a whole.

A lot of people use 1C for one balanced range and 1D for another range.

Romex doesn't even use a natural 1N bid, instead uses 1N as a strong forcing bid.

[straube]

I want to open 1N more often than I can with 16-18.

[steve2005]

I want to open 1N more often than I can with 16-18.

Opening more often is a valid reason and major reason for he initial increase in popularity of 15-17 1N bids. Also, it fit with opening min balanced hands on 12-14.

Now, many people open min balanced hands on 11-13, so 14-16 makes more sense. Again increased probability of opening 1N is an advantage.

 

But having your NT ladder being nice should not be the ultimate goal of your NT ranges. It's how your NT bid fits in with the rest of your system that counts.

I won't go into details, most people don't look at their system as a whole when deciding their NT ranges, but their can be valid reasons why a NT range can fit into your system without having a high probability of opening or a nice NT ladder. What NT range is best for you depends on what is best in your system, not what has higher probability.

 

 

[straube]

What NT range is best for you depends on what is best in your system, not what has higher probability.

 

This just seems to go to far. One's system should be designed with a goal of having a frequent 1N opening because it's so often a good contract, has preemptive value and describes a balanced hand of a given range so well. Many feel these considerations are so important as to choose 12-14 or even lighter.

 

Personally, I like a 14-16 NT which is less frequent than 12-14 but a lot more than what's being considered here. Frequency is a design goal but so are other things...like informing partner that I have an above average balanced hand but one not strong enough to act alone in competition, safety, forcing a hopefully difficult choice of using double as penalty or takeout, promising enough to support constructive auctions (and not waste bidding space) while not too much so that we never get to actually play 1N.

[fromageGB]

One's system should be designed with a goal of having a frequent 1N opening because ..(it) has preemptive value and describes a balanced hand of a given range so well.

Much as I hate to argue with a distinguished theorist, I am disagreeing with this quite strongly. Bids such as 1♣ followed by 1NT describe a balanced hand of a given range just as well, and the preemptive value is exactly the reason why a frequent NT is bad for you. When you open a normal (whether 12-14 or 15-17 or 16-18 etc) range who's hand is it expected to be? Yours or the opponents? Opening 1NT is preemptive, but it is preempting your hand's chances of finding the right contract.

 

Unless partner has enough strength to invite, dialogue has been thrown out of the window. This is certainly acceptable in IMP scoring, where an odd IMP is neither here nor there, but it becomes significant at MPs. Another case for different bidding methods depending on scoring methods. A matchpoint system should be designed with some regard for finding the best part score. This necessitates an infrequent 1NT open.

[straube]

Much as I hate to argue with a distinguished theorist, I am disagreeing with this quite strongly. Bids such as 1♣ followed by 1NT describe a balanced hand of a given range just as well, and the preemptive value is exactly the reason why a frequent NT is bad for you. When you open a normal (whether 12-14 or 15-17 or 16-18 etc) range who's hand is it expected to be? Yours or the opponents? Opening 1NT is preemptive, but it is preempting your hand's chances of finding the right contract.

 

Unless partner has enough strength to invite, dialogue has been thrown out of the window. This is certainly acceptable in IMP scoring, where an odd IMP is neither here nor there, but it becomes significant at MPs. Another case for different bidding methods depending on scoring methods. A matchpoint system should be designed with some regard for finding the best part score. This necessitates an infrequent 1NT open.

 

I wish you would find the use of sarcasm beneath you. Here are a few quotes I looked up that have helped me understand some of the thinking behind NT ranges. The quote from Rodwell is from Bridgematters and I also learned a lot from Fred Gitelman's defense of strong NT....

 

Edgar Kaplan on the philosophy for weak nt "high, preemptive bidding for the weaker hands' keep-it-low, precise bidding for the stronger hands"

 

Eric Kokish "Weak nts bury your fits but they also bury their [the opponents'] fit"

 

Eric Rodwell "I don’t like 16-18. I like to open 1NT more frequently than 16-18 would allow. We did play against a pair using 16-18 recently but you hardly see it anymore on the tournament scene, although it is still popular among casual players."

[steve2005]

There's always a herd willing to play whatever the top pairs of their country are playing. In Norway, for example, some pairs still play 5443, apparently for no other reason than that Norway's (now actually Monaco's) top pair are playing it. I've even heard the argument: "If it's good enough for H-H, then it's good enough for me." And I can't think of a good bridge reason why so many American Precision pairs use precisly a 19-20 range for their 2N opening.* Of course, it's nice to have

 

1♣-1♦; 1N = 17-18 bal,

 

but it's also nice to be able to bid like that with 19 bal., and 17-19 is still a very manageable range. So I guess some pairs (Greco-Hampson?) have thought: "If it's good enough for Meckwell, it must be good enough for us." That said, it seems that the Meckwell/Meckwell Lite crowd agree with the said Italian and Swedish pairs that some strong balanced hands need to be taken out of the 1♣ opening, whether it's strong or nat./bal. My point is merely that this may be cultural thing and not necessarily an indication that the Italian, Swedish or American top players are onto something.

 

* That doesn't mean there can't be any or that Rodwell can't possibly have thought this through.

The problem with Precision isn't uncontested auctions it's contested auctions especially with 16-20 balanced or 15-20 balanced if you open 15's.

One solution which is basically the same as the OP is to use 1N=16-18 and 2N=19-20 and allow upgrades for good 15's or really great 18's.

Now if opps interfere opener can show 21+ balanced and possibly collect a nice penalty or bid to normal contract.

 

Just have to put up with the other changes necessary for these methods.

 

 

 

[straube]

The problem with Precision isn't uncontested auctions it's contested auctions especially with 16-20 balanced or 15-20 balanced if you open 15's.

One solution which is basically the same as the OP is to use 1N=16-18 and 2N=19-20 and allow upgrades for good 15's or really great 18's.

Now if opps interfere opener can show 21+ balanced and possibly collect a nice penalty or bid to normal contract.

 

Just have to put up with the other changes necessary for these methods.

 

Is this what you're thinking about?

 

12-15, open 1D/1H and rebid 1N

16-18, open 1N

19-20, open 2N

21-22, open 1C, rebid 1N

[Kungsgeten]

The post is not really about the merit of a 16--18 NT opening, but rather its use as a possible solution to remove the "open one of a suit and rebid 2NT" hands from the one level (instead of using two nebulous minor openings, or including a 18--19 opening at the two-level). The main problem would probably be that 2NT is already a slam killer, and you probably do not want to open it more frequently? Having 2♦ or 2♣ as 18--19 NT saves a lot of bidding space for finding the best contract, compared to a 19--21 2NT.

 

Now for those who want to open 1NT more often, ofcourse the NT ranges at the one level could be swapped but then you wind up with a very infrequent 1♣ opening (at least if also using a Polish 2♣) and your 1♣ opening almost becomes forcing:

 

1♣ = 15--18 NT or 15+ with clubs

1♦♥♠ = Natural

1NT = 12--14

2♣ = 5+ clubs, 11--14. 6+ clubs if no major.

2♦ = Strong forcing.

2M = Weak

2NT = 19--21

[nullve]

The post is not really about the merit of a 16--18 NT opening, but rather its use as a possible solution to remove the "open one of a suit and rebid 2NT" hands from the one level (instead of using two nebulous minor openings, or including a 18--19 opening at the two-level).

Maybe, just maybe,

 

1♣ = nat. or 14-16 bal.

1N = 11-13 or 17-19 (i.e. a slightly sounder version of Woodson's two-way notrump)

[lycier]

The post is not really about the merit of a 16--18 NT opening, but rather its use as a possible solution to remove the "open one of a suit and rebid 2NT" hands from the one level (instead of using two nebulous minor openings, or including a 18--19 opening at the two-level). The main problem would probably be that 2NT is already a slam killer, and you probably do not want to open it more frequently? Having 2♦ or 2♣ as 18--19 NT saves a lot of bidding space for finding the best contract, compared to a 19--21 2NT.

 

Now for those who want to open 1NT more often, ofcourse the NT ranges at the one level could be swapped but then you wind up with a very infrequent 1♣ opening (at least if also using a Polish 2♣) and your 1♣ opening almost becomes forcing:

 

1♣ = 15--18 NT or 15+ with clubs

1♦♥♠ = Natural

1NT = 12--14

2♣ = 5+ clubs, 11--14. 6+ clubs if no major.

2♦ = Strong forcing.

2M = Weak

2NT = 19--21

 

What you said should belong to two way club system.

[straube]

1♣ = 15--18 NT or 15+ with clubs

1♦♥♠ = Natural

1NT = 12--14

2♣ = 5+ clubs, 11--14. 6+ clubs if no major.

2♦ = Strong forcing.

2M = Weak

2NT = 19--21

 

Wondering if you would like something like this...

 

1D-10-14, natural unbal

1H-10-14, 5-cd

1S-10-14, 5-cd

1N-12-14 bal or 4414

2C-10-14, natural unbal

2D-18-19 bal

2M-wk

2N-minors

 

1C-15+

.....1D-0-8 now TOSR continuations (which are more extensive than detailed below)

..........1H-19+

...............1S-0-4

....................1N-23+ GF (or strong 2C equivalent)

....................2X-natural

....................2N-20-22

..........1S-a 5-cd minor

...............2C-p/c

...............1N-asking, some values

....................2m-natural, weak

..........1N-15-17 bal or 4441s

..........2C-majors

...............2D-asks longer

..........2D-a 6-cd major

..........2M-5M/4m

..........2N-minors

[Kungsgeten]

What you said should belong to two way club system.

 

Yes, it is similar and since I myself play two-way club in my most developed partnership I am interested in those structures. However I believe this is more similar to a "natural" short club system (typically with transfer responses). You could even make 1C forcing and add most 15+ NT hands, thus making it identical to Fantunes 1C opening. 2D would then be GF unbal and not clubs as longest suit. The next step would be to include all game forcing hands into 1C instead of the 2D opening, and now we've basically ended at the Nightmare system :)

[Kungsgeten]

Wondering if you would like something like this...

 

Its probably a fun system to play, though the philosophy seems rather aggressive and thus a Mexican 2D seems out of place :) When I was a junior there was a (and still is) a girl whos favourite system was like this. Me and a friend called it Bollnäsklövern (Bollnäs Club, Bollnäs is the town she's from). 15+ 1C, 8+ doubles and attitude leads :)

[straube]

I've never played Mexican 2D and don't like getting so high both for safety reasons and preempting our auction. I don't like balanced 2N openings either but both Mexican and 2N openings can get the message to partner before an auction gets competitive. When I read this...

 

Having 2♦ or 2♣ as 18--19 NT saves a lot of bidding space for finding the best contract, compared to a 19--21 2NT.

 

I thought you might like the opening. As far as aggressiveness (10-14 you mean?) you could adjust to taste. Could be 12-17 if you like. I was primarily trying to

address your balanced ranges...which are difficult because you want your 1D to be natural and unbalanced. I think the club has to start at 15 if 1N is 12-14 if it's to handle

the balanced ranges.

 

Well, that was probably my best shot at combining openings that you like with a strong club approach. My other thought was...

 

1C-16/17

1D-natural unbal OR 15-16 bal

1M-5-cd

1N-12-14

2C-natural unbal

2D-short diamond?

 

but that's probably a non-starter for the 1D opening. I think it would properly load the 1D opening and if partner raised diamonds expecting the unbalanced hand, opener would have some values to fall back on. 1D-3D auctions would more seldom make sense, have to be narrower. Good luck anyway

[PrecisionL]

My two cents:

 

1) 2NT if natural should be 21-22 hcp. 19 is too weak and I teach to upgrade or downgrade 20 hcp hands depending on As.and Ks rather than unsupported Qs and Js. In one partnership I have been playing 2♣ as balanced and 18-20 with good results in pair competitions.

 

2) Defenses to 1NT have evolved so well that opponents can bid better over your 1NT than over your 1 of a suit opening bid. (IF they don't play 2-suited overcalls over 1 of a suit opening bids.)

[nullve]

Defenses to 1NT have evolved so well that opponents can bid better over your 1NT than over your 1 of a suit opening bid. (IF they don't play 2-suited over calls over 1 of a suit opening bid.)

That's an intriguing observation.

[perko90]

I've seen many pairs today that remove the "strong, but not super strong" NT range (most commonly 18--19) from their one level opening bids. The Italian pairs play 2♣ or 2♦ as 18--19 NT and some top Swedish pairs use 2♣ as 18--20 NT or GF. The 16--18 NT range is often frowned upon as being arcane, but could it have a place in modern bridge?

No. The 16-18 1NT was from the Goren age when a minimum balanced opener had at least 13 HCPs more often than not. With a 12 HCP min, having a 4-point range on the 1NT rebid (12-15) is a bit unwieldy. And no matter how you slice it, a 1NT opener, regardless of range, is an advantage to the opening side. So, a more frequent 15-17 is also more desirable. Now with that said, you can still remove hands that would jump rebid NT from the 1m openings, with a Mexican 2♦ showing 18-19.

 

Another option, which I'm personally interested in, would be to remove the minimum club hands from 1♣, since these are often troublesome hands when playing a short club.

There's not enough info here to track why you think minimum club hands are troublesome in short club systems. But regardless, moving these hands up a level to 2♣ does not make them easier. They are more difficult. PC borrowed the 2♣ treatment from the original Precision. But there's a reason modern Precision has shied away from including the 5C + 4cM hands in 2♣. It's because those auctions are really troublesome. Perhaps you can give some examples of what you find troublesome about starting these type of hands with a 1♣ bid so we can explore it more in depth.

[rhm]

PC borrowed the 2♣ treatment from the original Precision. But there's a reason modern Precision has shied away from including the 5C + 4cM hands in 2♣. It's because those auctions are really troublesome.

I have never understood why Polish club kept with the original precision 2♣ opening.

In Polish club removing 5C + 4cM from 2♣ is easy.

You can even keep the unbalanced diamond if you like.

Open 5♣-4M-2-2 (12-14) with 1♣ and rebid your major or 1NT depending on what responder bids.

Open 5♣-4M-3-1 with 1♣ if your singleton is in diamonds (you do this with 4441♦ and 440♦5♣ anyway) and otherwise 1♦.

The case where you have only 3 cards in diamonds when you open 1♦ is rare and has never created problems for me.

You will have to raise with 5♣-1♦-4♥-3♠) a 1♠ response, but is this necessarily bad?

 

Removing 5C + 4cM from 2♣ has much more stringent consequences in Precision. It forces you to play 1♦ as nebuluos with at most 2 cards.

 

Rainer Herrmann