[OSH]

In my regular partnership, I'm playing:
1NT = (12) 13-15 HCP balanced
1♣ = 16+ (bal and non bal, of course)

I've been playing this for 3/4 years, I'm quite happy and big changes are not needed, but:
- 1NT opening tends to become 12-15, sometimes 11+/15, a too wide range;
- 90% of the field plays 1NT = 15-17 HCP, and when the opener has exactly 15 HCP I tend to score badly and, in any case, to play against the field.

Due to this, I would like to play 1NT = 12-14. I strongly prefer 1♦ to be natural and unbalanced, and all opening beyond 2♥ are not available for balanced hands, so the questions are:

1) How do you handle the 15 HCP balanced hand in the strong club opening? What is the range of 1♦ reply? Do you have other non-GF responses?
2) Do you have any experience (or, well, any idea) in playing a 18/20 balanced hand in the Multi 2♦? I know someone plays it, despite it seems a bit risky.

Thank you,
Marco

[gwnn]

I like 12-14 with a 15+ 1C opening. It works. There is a little crowdedness when you want tobresolvr the exact ranges of balanced hands but not a lot.

awm proposed that 1C be 15+ balanced or 16+ unbalanced, in stark contrast to expert practice, he argued that this way you can assume as responder that the 1C opener has a strong NT for a practical approximation because opener is overwhelmingly likely to be 15-17 balanced.

[Free]

Normally you use 2 NT ranges: 1 goes in the 1♦ opening, the other is opened 1NT. You can play all sorts of ranges, but I like 11-13 and 14-16 (and 17+).

Since you strongly prefer a natural 1♦ opening, you either have to adjust your style or your 1♣ opening:
- if you don't want to change your 1♣ opening, I'd strongly advise you not to open balanced 11 counts. At least you get a 12-15 range, which is playable.
- the best solution imo is to lower your 1♣ opening to 15+HCP. This way, you'll have your (11)12-14 NT, and your 1♣ opening is pretty much the same. I've played a 15+ 1♣ opening for years and it never felt weird.

As a response to your questions:
1. After a 1♣ opening showing 15+HCP, I consider 9+HCP as GF, 5-8 as semi positive, 0-4 as double negative (depends on controls or AKQ points rather than HCP). If you want to play 1♦ as negative, it shows 0-8HCP. I don't know how you continue after 1♣-1♦, but for example you can use 1♥ as a strong relay. In that case you can play something like:
1♣-1♦-1NT shows 15-17
1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT shows 18-20
1♣-1♦-2NT shows 21-22
1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2NT shows 23-24
1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-2♣-2♦-2NT shows 25+ (2♣ is very strong)
2. I have no experience with this, and I'd advise you not to play it this way

[Siegmund]

If you were more experimental, you might find 11-15 1NT more playable if you took some shapes out of it. The ultimate extension of that is 1D=11-15 promising 4CM, 1M as usual, 1NT=11-15 bal no 4CM, 2C/2D 11-15 and natural. Of course you may well find that 1D even more objectionable than the usual Precision one

[mgoetze]

Siegmund, on May 11 2010, 08:02 AM, said:

If you were more experimental, you might find 11-15 1NT more playable if you took some shapes out of it. The ultimate extension of that is 1D=11-15 promising 4CM, 1M as usual, 1NT=11-15 bal no 4CM, 2C/2D 11-15 and natural. Of course you may well find that 1D even more objectionable than the usual Precision one

I've played something like this and it worked OK. However, we did open 4315/3415/4414/4405 hands 2♦, so that the 1♦ opening still showed 2+ Diamonds.

[billwang]

With one of my regular partner, I'm playing
1NT = 12-14HCP (10-12 if you like)
1♦ = 15-17HCP balanced or
11-18HCP unbalanced

then
1♣ = 16+ unbalanced or 18+ balanced
1♣ 1♦ 1NT = 18-20HCP
1♣ 1♦ 2♦ = forcing one round
1♣ 1♦ 3♦ = some kind of convention

Play strong club opening with different points range for BAL and UNBAL hand, it's better to promise more points when you have BAL hand. This method can raise the minimum of strong club, in some aspect. You will have a comfortable situation when in competition.

And remove the minimum balanced hand from 1♦ opening, you also raise the minimum of 1♦ opening. The only disadvantage of this method is when you open 1♦ with big balanced and opponents interfere.

[OSH]

- Free / gwnn

Ty. I was worried about 1♣ being 15+ balanced or 16+ unbalanced, and 1♦ = 0-8, I would need to define with accuracy how to handle 7-8 HCP when opener is unbalanced (we are almost always in game zone). I don’t see, in the system, the need to lower also the unbalanced hands in 1♣ to 15+, but I can try, because I’m not sure I can afford the unbalanced hands in 1♣ being stronger than the balanced…
I play 1♣-1♦-1♥ as strong relay, my problem was not to define the hand after the negative response, but after the positive ones.
Just for information, after the strong club (16+ by now) I’m still playing an old idea of my former partner Chamacho (colourfirst, what is that?):
1♦ = 0-7
1♥ = 8+, 0-2 controls, unbalanced (or semibalanced with a major)
1♠ - 1NT = 3 – 4 controls, unbalanced
2♣ = 5 controls, unbalanced, at least a 4 card majors
2♦ = MULTI: 5 controls, unbalanced, without a 4-5 card majors OR 6 card weak Major
2♥ = 11-13 balanced (or semibalanced with a minor)
2♠ = 8-10 balanced (or semibalanced with a minor)
It can have a lot of flaws, but I’m content with it, especially considering that my pard want to keep it (very) simple!
The idea behind the questions was to add the 8-10 balanced hands to the 1♥ response, and to play 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT (15-17) forcing only to 2NT. But in this case I need to find a way for the 18-20 balanced. Increasing 1♦ to 0-8 is simpler for sure, and doesn’t need any other major change in the system. My first thought was that, in this way, this reply would be a bit too busy.
The idea to add the (18)19-20 balanced in the multi 2♦ is not mine, of course: I remember (hope I’m not wrong!) a couple of hands from L-V and some Italian Juniors starting in this way. Montgomery also, in the Revision System, plays a “weak 2NT opening” with a (18)19-20 count, and gives an interesting explanation of the reasons. From his pages, it seems that also the R-M Precision opens 2NT on 19 point hands. Well, if you have to play that, I agree that a direct 2NT is better than a multi 2♦, but it doesn’t fit my system.

- Siegmund / mgoetze / billwang

I see the point in your suggestions. Yesterday, I started to explain my problem to my pard, and the answer was: “Well, I hope you don’t want to change all the system for that %$£”% balanced 15 count!!!”. So, thank you, but I’m not, well… we are not ready for this!

PS: A strong balanced hand in the multi 2♦ is quite common in Italy, so this is not considered a big change.

[gwnn]

12-15 is really bad. (11)12-14 is good. I hated hated hated hated hated 12-15, particularly passing with 10 counts. My partner did it always without a thought, I did it with a pain in my heart and tears in my eyes. Of course partner had 15 always when I passed and I had always 12 when my partner passed.

[CamHenry]

One quick point: while I get the impression from your last post that you're playing in Italy, you will need to look at the system regulations. I play a strong minor system in England, and the EBU rules are that it has to show at least 16+ points - even if you give full information, 15+ is not allowed unless it's a very distributional hand (10+ cards in the longest suits, for example).

If your local authorities will let you play your 1C as 15+ if balanced, then that may well solve some of your difficulty!

[jdonn]

Agree with others, I played 12-15 a few years and it's really too wide. (12)13-15 is really the same because you want to open with 12 almost always and even 11 a lot.

[mohitz]

gwnn, on May 11 2010, 10:20 PM, said:

12-15 is really bad. (11)12-14 is good. I hated hated hated hated hated 12-15, particularly passing with 10 counts. My partner did it always without a thought, I did it with a pain in my heart and tears in my eyes. Of course partner had 15 always when I passed and I had always 12 when my partner passed.

This has been my experience as well heh

[OSH]

CamHenry, on May 11 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

One quick point: while I get the impression from your last post that you're playing in Italy, you will need to look at the system regulations.  I play a strong minor system in England, and the EBU rules are that it has to show at least 16+ points - even if you give full information, 15+ is not allowed unless it's a very distributional hand (10+ cards in the longest suits, for example).

If your local authorities will let you play your 1C as 15+ if balanced, then that may well solve some of your difficulty!

You are right (about the country).
Here, I've always seen strong club openings played with 15+ without problems.
The last Appendix System Law, valid from the start of 2010, states clearly that:
- the average hand has 10 HCP;
- the strong hand must have at least one K more than the average hand: 13 HCP;
- a system where the 1♣ (or 1♦) opening is always strong is not HUM.

(Maybe I'm wrong somewhere, but) It seems that I can't play a "strong heart" system nor a 1♣ opening that can be natural with clubs or strong. And I can't open 1♣ a hand like AKQJ1098765 2 2 2.

[akhare]

gwnn, on May 11 2010, 11:50 AM, said:

12-15 is really bad. (11)12-14 is good. I hated hated hated hated hated 12-15, particularly passing with 10 counts.

11-14 (with the right amount of discretion when vul. of course) is a really attractive option if one doesn't wish to play a split NT range. The downside is that it pushes the balanced 15 counts into the 1♣ opening, presumably including 5M332s as well.

The other alternative is to play a split range with 1N = 14-16 and 1♦ including the 11-13 balanced. The nice thing about it that you can off load the 14-16 5332 hands (including 5M) into 1N.

It's also possible to play 1N = 10-12 as well, with 1♦ including the 13-15 balanced, but the 1M openings now include 5M332 hands in the 11-15 range.

In any case, either of these options are better than 12-15 for sure ...

[PrecisionL]

I have also found problems with a 12-15 NT. In one Strong Club partnership the 15 hcp hand goes in the 1♦ opening (which use to promise a 4-cd major) and in another partnership we play 11-14 or 14-16 V NT.

Thus, 1♣  is now 16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced. We like this change!

[mycroft]

I play Precision; in my regular partnership, we have 10-12 (with 1D, then 1NT: 13-"okay 16", and 1C starting at "good 16") and 14-16 (with 1D... 11-13, and 1C starting at 17). I feel good about everything except the 13-"okay 16" rebid - it's too wide. But the benefits of a 10-12 opening are worth it (to us, for now).

I formulated a "standard Precision" for our area - we play 15-17 NT (and 1C start at 18 balanced). There are lots of reasons for this, but the two big ones are: a) you don't play anti-field (in North America), and since most of the players for this are "intro to Strong Club" types, that's one less thing they have to "think different" for Precision.

[awm]

Currently I play 14-16, which seems like a pretty effective range. This requires that some balanced hands open 1♦, and my minor suit opening structure is pretty different from what was suggested in the original post.

If you want to have a natural 1♦ opening (and thus only one balanced range outside the strong club), you really want to play 1NT=12-14. Otherwise you will either have a very wide notrump range (which leads to missing games and/or playing 2NT way too often) or you will have to be disciplined about passing almost all balanced 12s (which sometimes works out, but is very anti-field).

One observation is that having 1♣ always start at the same strength isn't necessarily right. For example, two and three-suited hands sometimes suffer a lot when you open a strong club and get interference. It can be tough to get your suits in. With these hand types you want to open in a suit as often as possible, since it will take several calls to describe your pattern. Balanced hands and one-suited hands are much less problematic; balanced hands you can usually just pass in competition (if fairly minimum) and one-suiters you just bid your suit if the level is at all appropriate. One-suiters with clubs are actually problematic if you don't open 1♣, since the 2♣ opening is going to get passed by responder a lot more frequently than the 1M opening, and having a wide range in that opening is hard to cope with.

Putting these together, I think it makes some sense to let the 1♣ opening start at 15 for balanced and one-suited hands, but start somewhat higher (perhaps 17) for two and three-suited patterns.

Replying to such an opening isn't that hard either -- you can just play 1♦ 0-8 and everything else game forcing (with transfers or whatever you want).

[mikegill]

Agree that if you're going to try this, you need to play 12-14, and I think you need to play 2n = 19-21. 15-19 is too big a range for minimum balanced hands imo, and 15-18 might be too big too. Sure you feel comfortable passing when they interfere and you have 15, but then you draw a 19-count and you feel you have to bid. I'm also not a fan of playing weak NTs when vul. I see where you're going with this - you can really clean up the stuff after 1♦ if you have the 1N rebid free and you actually promise diamonds, but I think the havoc it will wreak on your bidding of (easy in standard) balanced hands will be too much to overcome.

I agree with awm, I think the 14-16 fits the best. Combined with strong 2N, this makes bidding balanced hands in competition over 1c or 1d easy. When you open 1d with 11-13 bal, you have an easy pass, raise or X, and when you open 1c, 17-19 usually has an easy pass (or t/o double if short and the level is low enough), and if you have 22+ bal you have an easy bid 2N/3N/X. You don't have to worry about showing extras with a balanced hand under 22 HCP.

[awm]

I'll mention that I'm not a believer in "strong 2NT" even though I know Meckwell play it.

The issue is that your 2NT opening preempts your own side a lot. There's a reason this bid is called the "slam killer." The breakdown I see looks something like:

(1) If opponents are passing anyway, then you do much better opening 1♣ with these hands.
(2) If opponents would bid over 1♣, then these hands can be somewhat awkward. However, you occasionally can extract a big penalty, and if your methods are geared towards showing most semi-positive hands directly (a good strategy in any case) then you normally do fine on the strong 2NT hands. You also sometimes get a "warning" of a danger suit for 3NT when the opponents bid it and can preference 5m in such cases.
(3) Occasionally you can get out a level lower by opening 1♣ when partner has real trash, or let the opponents play the hand in a partial instead of going down in 2NT.
(4) Eliminating the "strong 2NT" does free up the 2NT opening for a preempt, which can be pretty effective.

Some of these points are masked by the fact that most of the (2/1) field plays a strong 2NT. If we open a strong 2NT and miss an excellent 6-minor contract, we will often push the board when the opposition makes the same opening. Arguably if you're as good as Meckwell, you'd like to push these hands since you expect big pickups elsewhere and just want to avoid going down in a "good but unlucky" slam that the opponents didn't bid.

[straube]

I can see how opening in a suit with a 2-suited hand can win (vs opening a strong club) but I'd rather open a 3-suited hand 1C and at least get my strength message out. 3-suited hands can be difficult to describe if partner doesn't suggest one of my suits. Of course, a 3-suited hand with a 5M is less difficult...

I've always wondered at the frequency of the 1D opening if it shows diamonds and an unbalanced hand (in a strong club context). I imagine it's very frequent, but is it significantly less frequent than when 1D can be a balanced 11-13 (for example) as well? I think this opening makes it difficult to show the balanced ranges. So I guess when one opens 1D with as natural unbalanced, one deserves to win...but how big and at what cost?

Personally, I don't like opening 1C with 15 balanced because it makes it harder to get into a GF. Opening 1C with 15 unbalanced is not as bad because (hopefully) unbalanced hands can often produce more tricks.

[dake50]

1NT intended to bottom other bids? bal mins not in 1D,1M eg. So, 12-14.
Or 1NT intended to preempt on its own? So, 10-12.
I prefer 1NT preempt: 10-12. But 4cM openers means no/seldom 4cM in 1NT. Invites jump 3-minor, 2-minor quits.