[SteelWheel]

In this July's The Bridge World, Swedish pro Ulf Nilsson has a small article where he presents an interesting idea: Playing responder's 1NT to opener's 1♣ (std or 2/1--i.e., either natural or cheaper/better minor out of range for a strong notrump) as natural, but invitational (approximately 10.5-12 HCP as opposed to the more common 6-10, or 8-10 if playing Walsh or Roth/Stone, or 5-7.5 as in K/S)--four-card majors may be bypassed, depending on judgement. His brief discussion of the rationale for this idea is very persuasive--the primary reason is his belief that providing a preemptivish call that immediately reveals (to opener, at least) the partnership's general playing strength is more important than immediately revealing the presence/absence of four-card majors (with less than invitational values, four carders may still be bid, and one can infer that Nilsson does not suggest that five-baggers be suppressed in this method).

This idea is very interesting to me--seems like the kind of thing one might even be able to "sell" to a partner who doesn't go in for all that much in the way of modern bidding theory (i.e., strong club, Polish or other multi-meaning club systems, or even just weak notrump type systems)--and on the face of it, seems to have a lot to recommend it.

Did anyone else read this and find it as intriguing as I? Also, while this idea seems sound, it leaves one wondering how one copes with opening 1♦ openings as neatly. It also appears that there is probably an entire system that Nilsson has in mind, of which this is one small aspect. If so, are there system notes around somewhere on the 'net?

[Free]

I haven't read this article yet, but I know Ulf gets articles published on quite a regular basis (one of the most popular is 1M openings unbalanced). So yeah, I think it fits in a bigger picture.

It's been a while since he was on the forum (as far as I remember), so perhaps you could PM him to speed things up.

[paulg]

Ulf is ulven on the forums and BBO.

A previous BW article discussed putting all balanced hands into the 1♣ opener. Although this is fairly popular, Ulf's article went further than most in recommending putting balanced hands with a 5-card major into the 1[c] bid too. It would not surprise me if balanced hands with six diamonds also made it in.

When your one diamond opener is so demonstrably unbalanced you can do some interesting things with the response structure and the value of an invitational 1NT response is probably low.

[Zelandakh]

I have not seen the article but I always thought (over 1C) 1S = 1nt response or GF diamonds, 1NT = INV, 2C = inverted, 2D = INV was a perfectly normal response structure. There are some other variations on this too but 1NT as invitational here is hardly new.

Similarly I play 1D and 1M openings as always unbalanced without having read any of Ulf's analysis, albeit in a strongish club framework. There are pros and cons attached with the method. With my methods the upside fairly clearly outweighs the downside, within a 2/1 strong NT system this is less clear.

[fromageGB]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-July-12, 02:58, said:

I have not seen the article but I always thought (over 1C) 1S = 1nt response or GF diamonds, 1NT = INV, 2C = inverted, 2D = INV was a perfectly normal response structure. There are some other variations on this too but 1NT as invitational here is hardly new.

Similarly I play 1D and 1M openings as always unbalanced without having read any of Ulf's analysis, albeit in a strongish club framework. There are pros and cons attached with the method. With my methods the upside fairly clearly outweighs the downside, within a 2/1 strong NT system this is less clear.

I think playing an unbalanced diamond and a balanced club (OK, a diamond shortage also opens 1♣) pays handsomely in a 2/1 strong NT framwork too. I am surprised it has not caught on with the majority.

As for the 1♠ = 1NT response, that implies transfer walsh, and again I am surprised at how rare that is in F2F club play.

[Mbodell]

 fromageGB, on 2011-July-12, 05:39, said:

I think playing an unbalanced diamond and a balanced club (OK, a diamond shortage also opens 1♣) pays handsomely in a 2/1 strong NT framwork too. I am surprised it has not caught on with the majority.

As for the 1♠ = 1NT response, that implies transfer walsh, and again I am surprised at how rare that is in F2F club play.

transfer walsh is mid-chart in the ACBL, so that definitely makes it less common here.

[ulven]

I've used this treatment in various system frameworks since the mid 90's. The gains are fairly frequent and you don't need any further notes to use it. The point is to use it vs the opening bid that includes the weak balanced handtype to stay low. I even used it vs the nebulous 1D in a strong club system in the 2008 Europeans (you can probably find my CC in ecats document store).

Although the article used the 10-12 range (at Rubens suggestion) I've always used 11-13 myself, with my partnerships opening almost all 11's. Btw, I did notice at the US 2011 Trials that Garner-Weinstein also plays 1C-1NT as 11-12. You can also do some extended stuff with the 1NT reply to an always unbalanced 1D-opening, which I do in my current system, but this particular treatment is not the one I use. I'll be in Toronto if anyone wants to discuss more.

[ I submitted a batch of articles to The Bridge World last year. Most have now reached publication (think there's one on cuebidding technique left), so maybe I'll write some more this fall. Seeing that someone likes them helps motivation. :-) ]

[Free]

Keep writing Ulf!

[xxhong]

You may miss some pretty good games with distributions, playing this style, like AKxx KQxx xxx xx vs QJxx Jxx x AKxxx. Normal sequences would find 4S rather easily.

 SteelWheel, on 2011-July-11, 11:08, said:

In this July's The Bridge World, Swedish pro Ulf Nilsson has a small article where he presents an interesting idea: Playing responder's 1NT to opener's 1♣ (std or 2/1--i.e., either natural or cheaper/better minor out of range for a strong notrump) as natural, but invitational (approximately 10.5-12 HCP as opposed to the more common 6-10, or 8-10 if playing Walsh or Roth/Stone, or 5-7.5 as in K/S)--four-card majors may be bypassed, depending on judgement. His brief discussion of the rationale for this idea is very persuasive--the primary reason is his belief that providing a preemptivish call that immediately reveals (to opener, at least) the partnership's general playing strength is more important than immediately revealing the presence/absence of four-card majors (with less than invitational values, four carders may still be bid, and one can infer that Nilsson does not suggest that five-baggers be suppressed in this method).

This idea is very interesting to me--seems like the kind of thing one might even be able to "sell" to a partner who doesn't go in for all that much in the way of modern bidding theory (i.e., strong club, Polish or other multi-meaning club systems, or even just weak notrump type systems)--and on the face of it, seems to have a lot to recommend it.

Did anyone else read this and find it as intriguing as I? Also, while this idea seems sound, it leaves one wondering how one copes with opening 1♦ openings as neatly. It also appears that there is probably an entire system that Nilsson has in mind, of which this is one small aspect. If so, are there system notes around somewhere on the 'net?

[glen]

 xxhong, on 2011-July-14, 11:09, said:

You may miss some pretty good games with distributions, playing this style, like AKxx KQxx xxx xx vs QJxx Jxx x AKxxx. Normal sequences would find 4S rather easily.

If one reads the complete article, you would see the sequence 1♣-1NT;-P would not be used on that example.

Ulf question: near the end of the article was "a minor inefficiency" a deliberate pun and/or an edit by Rubens?

[ulven]

 glen, on 2011-July-14, 11:27, said:

If one reads the complete article, you would see the sequence 1♣-1NT;-P would not be used on that example.

Ulf question: near the end of the article was "a minor inefficiency" a deliberate pun and/or an edit by Rubens?

Edit by Rubens (probably intended pun by him).

1C- 1NT
2C - 2H
2S - 3S etc

Unbalanced hand should not pass 1NT, unless minimum 4441.
But note that with your example, AKxx KQxx xxx xx, you can (should) still reply 1H.

[zenko]

I have been trying out that method too, and seems very promising, one thing to mention that it really works better in strong club / 14-16 NT system. You can play 14-16 nt and "natural" club, but than you haved to jump around with 17 or play transfers over 1 club which may be a deal breaker.