[semeai]

 VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 09:33, said:

Is that right? 1NT rebid 11-17?

You gave a 15 point hand earlier. Don't presume the same bid is made with a 17 point hand.

It's nice to make a good faith effort to understand someone else's style, under the assumption that in most cases multiple styles are playable.

[VM1973]

 semeai, on 2011-August-03, 09:47, said:

You gave a 15 point hand earlier. Don't presume the same bid is made with a 17 point hand.

It's nice to make a good faith effort to understand someone else's style, under the assumption that in most cases multiple styles are playable.

In case you haven't noticed, my base assumption in life is that I'm always right and that those who disagree with me are wrong.

However, assuming that you are defending this wide NT, why don't you answer the questions I've posed?

Would you open the first hand 1♥ and then, presumably rebid 1NT?
Would you open the 2nd hand 1♥ and then rebid 1NT (or are you in the 2NT camp?)
At what point, under this system, should someone bid 4NT quantitative?
IMPs I figure it doesn't matter since Vulnerable you bid game on almost any reasonable hope of being close, but at matchpoints this kind of 4-6 point NT spread makes reaching 3NT when it's right problematic.

[semeai]

 VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 11:48, said:

In case you haven't noticed, my base assumption in life is that I'm always right and that those who disagree with me are wrong.

Good luck with that.

Quote

However, assuming that you are defending this wide NT, why don't you answer the questions I've posed?

Would you open the first hand 1♥ and then, presumably rebid 1NT?
Would you open the 2nd hand 1♥ and then rebid 1NT (or are you in the 2NT camp?)
At what point, under this system, should someone bid 4NT quantitative?
IMPs I figure it doesn't matter since Vulnerable you bid game on almost any reasonable hope of being close, but at matchpoints this kind of 4-6 point NT spread makes reaching 3NT when it's right problematic.

I tend to open 1NT on these hands, and think it is slightly better. I could live with the other way, though.

If playing a style where I don't open 1NT on balanced hands, I might also not be opening 11 counts.

I think I would rebid 1NT with 12-15/16 and bid 2NT with 17-18/19. Good 16's might be upgraded, or I might occasionally fake a new suit if the hand looked appropriate.

The four-and-a-half or five point range for 1NT is not at all ideal, but if responses to 2C include a strength separation (12-13, 14-15/16), then it won't be terrible. If you want to invite slam quantitatively, you should just bid 2C and partner will accept or decline. If you're still uncertain with the now 2-3 point range, I suppose you could now invite quantitatively above 3NT.

If I'm supposed to open 11 counts and never open 1NT on balanced hands, I'll rebid 1NT with 11-15, fake a new suit with 16, and rebid 2NT with 17+.

See:

 fromageGB, on 2011-July-30, 14:40, said:

Perhaps the problem is a reluctance to rebid 1NT?
In this neck of the woods, some Km up the river Tyne, almost everyone is happy to have a wide-ranging NT rebid, and most use 2♣ as a strength checkback.

 fromageGB, on 2011-August-03, 04:01, said:

Of course I would rebid 1NT, and with a 9+ count my partner would bid 2♣ inquiry. With this hand, the reply is a GF 3♠. No problem.

...

(By the way, "9+" in this context of this checkback means 9 with some useful shape, but 10 in a flat hand.)

This fits well enough with a 12-15/16 range for 1NT.

[gwnn]

Just a note in passing that Frances posted about
1♥-1♠; 1NT as 12-17 (or 12-16 or 11-16) that she plays (or used to play)in one of her partnerships.
She proposed something like

1♥-1♠
1NT*-2♣** (12-17; relay)
2♦=12-13 any
2♥=14-15, no 3 card spade
2♠=14-15, 3 card spade
2NT=16-17, anything

I guess there are reasons to switch some of these replies around. Not really my point, but it does seem playable (i.e., not terribly wrong) - you will usually be able to stop in a good partscore (i.e. a 5-2 fit in one of the majors) when you have a weak hand opposite a weak hand.

There is also something that seems to be often played in Iceland (I don't know how often they're played in other countries but I think awm also plays something like this):
1♥-1♠
1NT=11-14
2♣=natural OR 15-19 balanced OR 17+ any (or something similar)
2♦=11-16

after 2♣, 2♦ promises 9+ points, i.e. accepts game opposite 15-17
2♥ denies 9 points, so the 15-17 hand is OK with playing 2♥ or some other partscore.

[fromageGB]

 VM1973, on 2011-August-03, 09:33, said:

♠K10x
♠KJ10xx
♦A10x
♣xx

♠Kxx
♥KJxxx
♦Axx
♣AQ

(opponents pass throughout)
1♥-1♠
1NT-4NT (quantitative) ?

VM - No, not exactly. Both the hands you give are outside the range I would use for 1♥ 1♠ 1NT.

The first is almost subminimum for a 1♥ open, and we like to have 12 hcp. On this, I would stretch it, but if playing 8/9-11 5 card 2♥ open (as I used to), I would prefer that. However when it is a choice between a 6-10 weak 2♥ which can be 5 card, or a 1♥, I think 1♥ is more descriptive. BUT , the 1NT rebid is 12-16 and I would not rebid 1NT on this hand. 2♠ would be my preference rebid after a natural 1♠ (though personally I play KI inversion).

The second is too good for 1NT, and I would bid 2♣ gazzilli, or if not playing that, 2NT natural (17-18) as most round here would.

12-16 is a common NT rebid range here, and we split the range into 12-14 and 15/16 after the subsequent 2♣ checkback. This is easily handled, as a hand that wanted to invite if opener had 14 or a good 13 would not bid 2♣ but a natural 2NT. Opener would pass this if minimum, but if going to game would bid 3♠ with 3 of them.

Really this treatment is just normal acol with 5 card majors, as anyone would play. The strength of the 1NT open is not relevant if you open a major. I play 2/1 in the same way.

So, to continue to your last question, there is never a need for a 1♥-1♠ 1NT-4NT quantitive invitation. A hand that wanted to do that would bid (as Semeai says) 2♣, and over the 3 point range reply make a slam suggestion.

The 1♥-1♠ 1NT-4NT sequnce can't exist in a partnership that would not bid 1♠ with very strong hands, but in a scratch partnership I would take it as ace asking in spades.

[the hog]

 fromageGB, on 2011-August-03, 04:01, said:

Of course I would rebid 1NT, and with a 9+ count my partner would bid 2♣ inquiry. With this hand, the reply is a GF 3♠. No problem.

Have a wide-ranging 1NT rebid - why restrict to 12-14?

Edit: I can see why you would restrict to 12-14 if a 1NT open included all shapes of 15-17, but if it doesn't, for example if it does not usually include a 5 card major, then I see no reason for a restriction. (By the way, "9+" in this context of this checkback means 9 with some useful shape, but 10 in a flat hand.)

"Of course I would rebid 1NT, and with a 9+ count my partner would bid 2♣ inquiry. With this hand, the reply is a GF 3♠. No problem."
Fromage, your partner might, mine wouldn't. If the rebid ostensibly shows 12-14, then a 2c checkback here is losing bridge.

[VM1973]

 fromageGB, on 2011-August-03, 14:21, said:

VM - No, not exactly. Both the hands you give are outside the range I would use for 1♥ 1♠ 1NT.

The first is almost subminimum for a 1♥ open, and we like to have 12 hcp. On this, I would stretch it, but if playing 8/9-11 5 card 2♥ open (as I used to), I would prefer that. However when it is a choice between a 6-10 weak 2♥ which can be 5 card, or a 1♥, I think 1♥ is more descriptive. BUT , the 1NT rebid is 12-16 and I would not rebid 1NT on this hand. 2♠ would be my preference rebid after a natural 1♠ (though personally I play KI inversion).

The second is too good for 1NT, and I would bid 2♣ gazzilli, or if not playing that, 2NT natural (17-18) as most round here would.

12-16 is a common NT rebid range here, and we split the range into 12-14 and 15/16 after the subsequent 2♣ checkback. This is easily handled, as a hand that wanted to invite if opener had 14 or a good 13 would not bid 2♣ but a natural 2NT. Opener would pass this if minimum, but if going to game would bid 3♠ with 3 of them.

Really this treatment is just normal acol with 5 card majors, as anyone would play. The strength of the 1NT open is not relevant if you open a major. I play 2/1 in the same way.

So, to continue to your last question, there is never a need for a 1♥-1♠ 1NT-4NT quantitive invitation. A hand that wanted to do that would bid (as Semeai says) 2♣, and over the 3 point range reply make a slam suggestion.

The 1♥-1♠ 1NT-4NT sequnce can't exist in a partnership that would not bid 1♠ with very strong hands, but in a scratch partnership I would take it as ace asking in spades.

Well, having never played ACOL I can't give much opinion. Still, it seems strange to use 2♣ checkback on hands that contain 5 spades as well as hands that do not.

[Chris2794]

 VM1973, on 2011-August-02, 11:43, said:

Your analysis is probably pretty good... as long as the 5cm is the spade suit.

Holding:

♠Kxx
♥KJxxx
♦Axx
♣Ax

You open 1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass-??

Do you:
A) Rebid 1NT showing 12-14 HCP
B) Bid 2♠
C) Bid 3♠
D) Bid 2♦
E) Bid 2♥
OR
F) Fake a heart attack and be rushed to the hospital?

Have you considered playing Gazilli after 1♥ - 1♠? So a 2NT rebid would show 15-17 and 2NT via 2♣ 18-19. (Same story after forcing 1NT)

[gwnn]

Chris2794 I believe the Gazzilli version in my post above is preferable to your version, because it lets us stop in 2♥ or 2♠ when opener has 15-17 opposite nothing.

i.e.

1♥-1♠
2♣*-2♥= I have two hearts and I want to play here opposite a strong NT
       2♠ = I have 5 spades and less than 2 hearts and I want to play here opposite a strong NT

[Zelandakh]

When Gazilli is a B/I convention but splinters is not then, well, I think I really must have seen everything! Of all the many solutions to this problem I think Gazilli is the last one I would suggest to a beginner.

[gwnn]

The problem with this reply Zelandakh is that I mentioned Gazzilli but it wasn't me who said that splinters are not a "B/I convention". Anyway, I think the simplest for a B/I is to open all 15-17 hands 1NT (which is something that I thought I made clear by my first post here

I said:

Just open 1NT

, well maybe not). However, it is false to say that it is impossible to make a system work where you open all such hands 1M, which seems to be what VM1973 is sustaining. I thought it would be OK to sketch a possible system that accommodates this.

Secondly, I am reluctant to say things like "no no, B/I should not play this or that convention. it is too high level for them, they should stick to friendlier, simpler systems". There are B/I people who really like to know about one system or another and want to learn about them. While it is probably true that learning these systems will not make their results improve significantly, if at all, perhaps that is not at all what they are after.

Finally, I think Aberlour in particular is a clever guy, and he is able to tell on his own which conventions he wants to play, and will not automatically adopt any structure that is proposed here. If he thinks one or another structure is too complicated, he will not play it, with or without some other clever people telling him "this is complicated! don't play it!".

[fromageGB]

 the hog, on 2011-August-03, 20:38, said:

"Of course I would rebid 1NT, and with a 9+ count my partner would bid 2♣ inquiry. With this hand, the reply is a GF 3♠. No problem."
Fromage, your partner might, mine wouldn't. If the rebid ostensibly shows 12-14, then a 2c checkback here is losing bridge.

Dear Hog, I think you are missing the point. The 1NT rebid is ostensibly 12-16. There is no implication at all that it is 12-14. Different methods to your usual, of course.

[fromageGB]

 VM1973, on 2011-August-04, 07:54, said:

Well, having never played ACOL I can't give much opinion. Still, it seems strange to use 2♣ checkback on hands that contain 5 spades as well as hands that do not.

This is normal. When the bidding goes 1♥ 1♠ 1NT, opener is not denying having 3 spades, he is just saying he does not have 6 hearts, he does not have a 4+ second suit, and that he is balanced with a hcp count of 12-16. 2♣ checkback inquires about the strength, but also about possible spade support. The normal replies would be
12-14, 3 spades = 2♠
12-14, <3 spades = 2NT
15/16, 3 spades = 3♠
15/16, <3 spades = 3NT
This is playing 5 card majors (many acol players do). If you were playing 4 card majors, add to the above the rebids of 2 and 3♥ if opener has 5.

[fromageGB]

 gwnn, on 2011-August-05, 07:26, said:

Secondly, I am reluctant to say things like "no no, B/I should not play this or that convention. it is too high level for them, they should stick to friendlier, simpler systems". There are B/I people who really like to know about one system or another and want to learn about them. While it is probably true that learning these systems will not make their results improve significantly, if at all, perhaps that is not at all what they are after.

I remember years ago when I would class myself a B/I I really ejoyed learning new ways of doing things, got a kick out of trying them out with a regular partner, and had a lot of fun. It is by discussing and trying different approaches that you get a better feel of the game - and you are better placed when you come across those ideas played by others.

As an example, I remember with my partner we learned and played a multi 2♦ simply because we didn't know what to do when we came across it. Having tried it for years, we have now abandoned it and moved on to other things. Any keen B/I should be encouraged to do learn and develop new ideas (in regular partnership), though perhaps more I than B, of course.

[the hog]

Regardless, I think a 12-16 range is far too great, and i have played this for a while until we decided it was not goo systemically. You get too high on minimum responding hands that have to bid 2C and lose imps when others play at the 1 level and breaks are bad.

[gwnn]

At the risk of posturing as a search genius, I would like to link to Frances' post that I accidentally found today:

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__127994

[the hog]

 gwnn, on 2011-August-06, 03:45, said:

At the risk of posturing as a search genius, I would like to link to Frances' post that I accidentally found today:

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__127994

Yes, I remembered that post before i posted. Flint in Tiger bridge recommended a similar range and Crowhurst recommended a 12-16 NT rebid in his Acol book. I don't care, as I said we played this for a while and the losses especially at MPs whne you went 1 off because responder was forced to make a gt, were just too great when you got bad breaks. there are other and in my opinion, better ways of handling these hands. Even at Imps those 5 Imp losses were not good.

[gwnn]

I think we both agree that this is a non-optimal method but something that is probably playable?

[FrancesHinden]

As other people have pointed out, there is no consensus on what is 'right' (unlike, say, on the best use of double of a weak two opening). If you are deciding what you want to play, or want to understand the arguments, here are some statements which (IMO at least) are facts rather than opinions. I am assuming a strong NT.

- Both majors are not the same: 1NT with 5 hearts is better than 1NT with 5 spades because it pre-empts the easy 1S overcall or take-out double of 1H.
- Even if you play 'perfect' methods, both approaches will show some gains and some losses. There is definitely no proof that one way is more successful than the other.
- Bidding is easier if you open all hands in range with 1NT, because that is a huge lump of hands taken out of your 1 major opening. [NB: easier, not necessarily better or worse]
- There are some hands with a 5-card major that everyone opens 1NT (e.g. Qx Kxxxx KQx AJx)
- There are some hands with a 5-card major that everyone would like to open 1M (e.g. AKxxx xx Axx Axx)

- Bidding is harder if open open 1M on these hands. If you play "strong" 2/1s (SA strength or 2/1 FG) opener is more or less forced either to invent a minor suit rebid on a 3-card suit or play some artificial system after 1M - 1NT (or 1H - 1S). (This is less of a problem playing a lighter Acol style when 1M-1NT denies a decent 9-count).

Next, some observations:
- Some pairs choose to solve their system problems by dumping all the relevant hands in the 1NT opening. Fantoni & Nunes most obviously: their whole system depends on them opening all 12-14 hands that are even vaguely balanced 1NT.
- Many many pro-client pairs will open 1NT with a 5-card major because, as mentioned, it makes the auctions easier. So will irregular partnerships. So if you just look and see what the 'majority' of people do, in North America at least, I think they'll be opening 1NT (in France they all play SEF when you open 1 major). If you want to know what approach experts take, you have to look only at expert partnerships, and even then restrict yourselves to those who are obviously interested in system, and even then think about the rest of their system: have they made a decision to open 1NT because it's better, or because it's the least bad thing to do given other preferences? Gitelman & Moss are a prime example of a top, established, expert pair who open 1NT on pretty much anything in range.

And, finally, in case anyone cares, what I think:

In an irregular partnership I stick every hand that looks at all suitable into the 1NT opening.

In a regular partnership I usually don't open 1NT in 1st or 2nd seat. I do it more often in 3rd (and sometimes 4th) particularly with 5 hearts. In one partnership I have a way to look for a 5-3 fit after opening 1NT, in the other I don't.
I play 2C as artificial after 1M - 1NT, with 15+ balanced as one option. I also play artificial methods after a 2/1.

I play a wide-range rebid after 1H - 1S as gwnn has already described (it's about 11-16), with opener showing 3 ranges. It's not as bad as people seem to think. If responder has a doubleton heart or 5 spades you can play in the 5-2 (or 5-3) major suit fit, exactly as you often do after 1S - 1NT (forcing). With a 4153 you can pass opener's 2D rebid, but have to live with playing 2NT opposite the middle range which isn't great. The nasty shape is 4135 when you either have to play in a horrible 2NT contract or give up on game opposite a maximum. I think it's worth it so that I don't have to open 1NT on all hands with 5 hearts and 15-17 balanced.

[gwnn]

Frances, what I would be afraid of is a distributional hand with 5 spades, say 10 points and a singleton, where I would be happy to give game a shot if I knew partner had 3 card support, even if they're 12-13, but I'd like to play in 2♠ if they have only 2 spades. If my partner merely tells me that they have 12-13, I will be forced to bid 2♠ and we will miss some nice games. This seems to be a problem regardless of the zone you put in the 2♦ rebid, and of course best is to give us most room for a parking space when partner is weakest (4153 like you said), but I would be a little scared.