[Flame]

bearmum, on Apr 22 2004, 09:01 AM, said:

Flame, on Apr 22 2004, 10:42 AM, said:

Please give ressons to support either range.
I'll give one resson for now, I dont like it when i open a strong NT i tell my opponents that they dont have a game and make things much easier for them, if i open a 12-14 they still have to look for game and cant just show shape.

Interesting Flame - WHY do you thing that opening 15-17 NT tells opps they dont have a game? -----IF in 1ST position MAYBE your pard has a COMPLETE bust(?) in which case opps HAVE a possible game on an KNOW where 15-17 points are


Opening 12 - 14 NT MIGHT allow opps to show points AND/OR dist if you open in 1st position ( my reg P in f2f bridge play a LOT of ACOL {12-14 NT openers} and play CAPPELLETTI against them - NOV vul Capp COULD be 4/4 in the suits shown[ and is on our CC] AND that has worked out well for us ) BUT I can see where it MIGHT not work in casual partnerships


I think that the RANGE of opening NT bids NOT as important as the structure of the REST of possible bids over 1NT

When one of my opponents have a balanced 15-17 all my bidding system will never seek for game because game is very rare, we might get tro game when we are pushed. yes we might miss a game in few years but wev gain alot more.

[Flame]

Brain when you play vs a weak field you should try to play with the field unless you have a good resson not to, for this resson playing mini NT against a weak field is a mistake.
In general i try to make my system to work for me in the best field possible, i like to make convention that will work (for me ) in the world championship.

[BrianEDuran]

Free, on Apr 22 2004, 09:06 AM, said:

I don't get the logic in this Brian... If you're an intermediate player in the club, you will get swings against the bad players, and sometimes against the strong players to. But if you're a good player, you'll suddenly not get swings against weaker players?

Medium vs Good = possible positive swings
Medium vs Bad = positive swings
Good vs Bad = negative swings??
Good vs Medium = negative swings??

Why would good players get more bad swings, and medium players more good swings against weaker players??

[QUOTE]


As a strong play your potential gain for a positive swing is less then an average player's. Lets say you are going to score 60% as your norm per board, you can only gain 40% by a positive swing. If you are an average player, scoring 50% on most boards, well a positive swing can gain you 50%. Thus, the up and down side for Good and Medium player are not the same.

The Good players are already likely to win with there 60-65% game. They do not need to string together a few positive swings inorder to win the game, they've already won. If a Good player is going to get a 60% game, playing the mini their scores might now be 55%-70%, for a Medium player, the scores might be 40-60%. (I give the good players a little extra since they are good ) It doesn't strike me as a good idea for strong players to risk winning, only to win by more, and possible not place. While the Medium player either needs some luck or string to gether a couple positive swings to win the event.

Thoughts?
Brian

[Flame]

Brian, your beggining of the analyse is very well but you didnt continue with it.
a good pair will normally have 60-65%, so they can gain 35-40% or lose 60-65%, if they use something like mini NT they dicress their ways to influence on the board, because many times the result will be set because of system differences, for example if they get to play 1nt while the rest of the field is playing 3H then its less up to them if they will get a good or bad score here.

[hrothgar]

Here is an hand that Free and I played last night. its noteworthy because RHO opened a 15-17 NT and we were able to make game. To add insult to injury, we played in 2S make 5!!!!

Scoring: IMPS

---

Free passed as dealer and RHO opened a 15-17 NT (a bid that I heartily approve of - if you open 1D your going to run into all sorts of probems)

I overcalled 2S, showing 6 spades and got to play their when Free sensibly passed. Only a few players were able to bid to 4S over a 1D opening. No one reach 4S over 1NT.

[EricK]

hrothgar, on Apr 22 2004, 04:15 PM, said:

Here is an hand that Free and I played last night. its noteworthy because RHO opened a 15-17 NT and we were able to make game. To add insult to injury, we played in 2S make 5!!!!

Scoring: IMPS

---

Free passed as dealer and RHO opened a 15-17 NT (a bid that I heartily approve of - if you open 1D your going to run into all sorts of probems)

I overcalled 2S, showing 6 spades and got to play their when Free sensibly passed. Only a few players were able to bid to 4S over a 1D opening. No one reach 4S over 1NT.

If they are vulnerable, you do even better by passing! INT is down 5 isn't it?

Eric

[1eyedjack]

One of the characteristics of this sort of debate is that you wheel out a list of points in favour and a list of points against a particular treatment, and provided that you end up with more points in favour than against you win. Life is not like that.

You could list 15 "points" in favour of treatment A and 1 in favour of treatment B and still treatment B may be superior even if you have not missed any points in favour of either treatment. For each "point" you have to multiply the frequency of the event by the swing that results, and add the net weighted result together.

As a separate issue, the problem of whether to play a system "with the field" depending on your own competence is one that I find interesting. It is my observation that unless you are the only good pair in a fundamentally weak field, to actually win an event requires a certain amount of luck. If you are playing in a "snowball" event, where consistently good results over an extended season wins the trophy (without having to win any individual event on the way), then relying on your skill alone and bidding "with the field" probably works. But if there is no prize for second place in a one-off event then no matter how good you are, provided that the two methods being considered are comparable in technical merit, you are better off using a system against the field, as you will need SOME luck to win, however good you are (there will usually be a handful of pairs with comparable skill even if not the whole room). Sure, the luck provided by the system will blow you away on occasion, but in the other 50% of like events that luck element will give you the edge over your peers who are in the same skill bracket.

[dogsbreath]

hi
I think there is a 'cultural' thing here .. weak no trump 'works' well against pairs who are accustomed to strong NT and v-versa. weak nt works well in Acol, but very few play 'pure' Acol .. benji acol is indistinguishable from SAYC and is purely for wimps. Real men play 10-12 NT with mandatory redoubles. (twice the frequency of 12-14 NT !! .. now lets play poker )
Rgds Dog

[Trpltrbl]

I play 10-12 NT NV in 1st,2nd and 3rd seat all others are 12-14 NT. As long as you play nice runout system, you win more then you lose. But I have noticed when I started playing in USA there were very very few pair who played weak NT, now it's getting a lot more. And the remark about opening 15-17 NT and telling opps there is no game is ludicrous. I have been in many games, making, when opps opened 1 NT. Another great thing where ZARpoints come in real handy.

Mike

[Wayne_LV]

I have played 12-14 1NT with Meckwell Escapes and have found the advantage to be minuscule to non existent. The disadvantages are 1) added complexity of escapes 2) Necessity to alert every 1NT opening. I currently play 1NT with 5 card majors allowed and 3♣ as Puppet Stayman. This allows an opening bid of 1NT with hands containing no rebid if opened 1 of a major. As for the 12-14 point balanced hands, I find an opening bid of a minor followed by a rebid of 1NT along with Checkback Stayman to find the 5-3 or 4-4 fits in a major suit by the responder works well.

[DozyDom]

Wayne_LV, on 2018-November-18, 11:03, said:

I have played 12-14 1NT with Meckwell Escapes and have found the advantage to be minuscule to non existent. The disadvantages are 1) added complexity of escapes 2) Necessity to alert every 1NT opening. I currently play 1NT with 5 card majors allowed and 3♣ as Puppet Stayman. This allows an opening bid of 1NT with hands containing no rebid if opened 1 of a major. As for the 12-14 point balanced hands, I find an opening bid of a minor followed by a rebid of 1NT along with Checkback Stayman to find the 5-3 or 4-4 fits in a major suit by the responder works well.

I regret to say this, Wayne, but I was literally 4 years old the last time anyone posted to this thread. All but one general election in my lifetime happened after the last comment. The housing bubble has popped. The UK has a Supreme Court now. The US's first black President came and went. I'm sorry... but the world has moved on.

[Wayne_LV]

DozyDom, on 2018-November-18, 12:15, said:

I regret to say this, Wayne, but I was literally 4 years old the last time anyone posted to this thread. All but one general election in my lifetime happened after the last comment. The housing bubble has popped. The UK has a Supreme Court now. The US's first black President came and went. I'm sorry... but the world has moved on.

I failed to look at the date of the last post. The world may have moved on but bridge is timeless and I was bored. Thanks for the update.

[nige1]

DozyDom, on 2018-November-18, 12:15, said:

I regret to say this, Wayne, but I was literally 4 years old the last time anyone posted to this thread. All but one general election in my lifetime happened after the last comment. The housing bubble has popped. The UK has a Supreme Court now. The US's first black President came and went. I'm sorry... but the world has moved on.

I was a youthful 63-year old when this post started and there have been many previous threads on the same topic but the debate is still open.


It is good strategy to open 1N whenever possible. A 1N opener defines the hand narrowly in terms of shape and strength. 1N is hard to defend. Auctions like 1N-3N give little away. The limited nature of the opener simplifies the subsequent auction. Responder is in charge and can usually place the contract quickly. Conventions like Stayman and transfers also minimize information leakage while keeping the auction on familiar tram-rails. "SOS" escape schema reduce the risk of losing large penalties.

Eric Crowhurst argued that vulnerability is an important factor.

Non-vulnerable, the side that wins the race to 1N has a distinct advantage, especially at match-pointed pairs. Thus:

• 5, 6, 7, or 8 tricks in 1N, score -100, -50, +90, or +120 when we declare.
• 8, 7, 6, or 5 tricks in 1N, score -120, -90, +50, or +100 when they declare.

The weaker our notrump, the more opportunities we have to open it. Hence, non-vul, there is a good argument for playing a weak 1N (e.g. 9-11, 10-12, 11-13, or 12-14) . Contracts are easier to make when the points are split between the 2 hands (e.g. 3N with 12 opposite 12 rather than 21 opposite 3).

Vulnerable, the danger of penalties, especially doubled penalties, suggests we adopt stronger ranges (13-15, 14-16, or 15-17). In practice, most pairs agree 14-16. Although, on the CC, many still describe this as 15-17

Some pairs vary the strength according to table-position. Stronger in 3rd seat because that is the most risky position.

But all such variations in strength affect our whole system and so impose a considerable memory-burden,