[the hog]

Prof Kerr's analysis, (I assume you know who he is?), was conducted by analysing 3 WC. Admitedly his data is rather dated now.. However I guess the standards of the players would be a bit closer given that it was WC that were analysed.
Anyway, who on earth is DavidC?

[655321]

Agree that playing a strong club and passing 11-12 balanced hands is very poor.

[the hog]

655321, on 2013-May-12, 19:36, said:

Agree that playing a strong club and passing 11-12 balanced hands is very poor.

Evidence?

[Zelandakh]

I play a strong club system where many balanced 11s are passed and almost all balanced 12s are opened - does that mean I can be the referee for this little spat?

[655321]

the hog, on 2013-May-12, 21:18, said:

Evidence?

Hog, haven't you read the thread? PhilKing provided you with a link with some evidence, but my opinion (yes, just an opinion!) is based on a combination of what I think works for me, what the top players actually do, and the logic of the thing (playing a strong club allows you to open light without partner becoming over excited, so deliberately passing a fair chunk of openable hands makes no sense).

Saying it is silly to claim that passing these hands is wrong is, well, silly, and your having read a 30-odd year old analysis claiming that passing these hands is the way to win imps doesn't influence me at all, sorry!

[MickyB]

chasetb, on 2013-May-11, 23:51, said:

If you put all your bal. 16s into 1♣ and the opponents interfere, you are shooting yourself in the foot. It's almost as bad with balanced 17s. I wish I had hard data, but you technically haven't shown any, and I have this blog by David C. In particular, look at Balanced-Hands-Show-Strength, parts 1 and 2.

Could you explain how DavidC's blog supports your opinion? My reading of it produced the opposite conclusion, i.e. that 16-17 NTs are precisely the hands that are well placed having opened a strong club, knowing that they have left nothing unshown.

[straube]

MickyB, on 2013-May-13, 04:29, said:

Could you explain how DavidC's blog supports your opinion? My reading of it produced the opposite conclusion, i.e. that 16-17 NTs are precisely the hands that are well placed having opened a strong club, knowing that they have left nothing unshown.

Well they haven't shown the balanced nature of their hand. He might say that these hands (balanced 16 and possibly balanced 17) are not worth two bids so I guess he'd prefer to open them 1N (14-16 or possibly 14+-17-) which does both jobs. Grouping a balanced 16 in with a club has another downside imo which is that the playing strength tends to be less than for unbalanced hands; it might occur to opener that "All I have is a balanced 16 here. Hope partner doesn't stretch in competition".

[MickyB]

straube, on 2013-May-13, 07:17, said:

Well they haven't shown the balanced nature of their hand. He might say that these hands (balanced 16 and possibly balanced 17) are not worth two bids so I guess he'd prefer to open them 1N (14-16 or possibly 14+-17-) which does both jobs. Grouping a balanced 16 in with a club has another downside imo which is that the playing strength tends to be less than for unbalanced hands; it might occur to opener that "All I have is a balanced 16 here. Hope partner doesn't stretch in competition".

If partner stretches to bid a suit in competition, a misfitting 16-count is clearly worse than a balanced 16-count. Admittedly a balanced 16-count is the worst hand opposite a takeout double.

"Nothing unshown" was an overbid, but opening a 16+ 1C on a balanced 16-count clearly doesn't violate DavidC's principle, "balanced hands show strength".

[straube]

MickyB, on 2013-May-13, 10:46, said:

Admittedly a balanced 16-count is the worst hand opposite a takeout double."

That's one of the things I was thinking about. We play (for example) 1C (2H) dbl as takeout with 5+ hcps. If partner has an unbalanced hand there is usually no problem; he'll have a fit somewhere or can pass for penalties.

Certainly the danger exists for misfits when partner stretches. When a fit is found, the extra playing strength of an unbalanced hand tends to compensate for sometimes being a point or two shy of the minimum balanced hands.

Anyway, I think there's a reason why (say) Meckwell would open a distributional hand lighter than a balanced hand and why they might open 1C lighter with a distributional hand than a balanced hand.

[mikestar13]

I've played a similar style for years: 1NT = 12-15, 1♦ = 4+♦, 2♣ = 5+♣, etc. Passing balanced 11's is only a small loser; the worst auctions come from passing a 2♣ opener when responder could have found a better partial after a 1♦. I've found the more accurate competitive sequences after 1♦ to offer some compensation. It is probably true that 1♦ = 2+ is better if played well, but it requires significantly more work to play well. (Obviously NOT a problem for
the Meckwells of the world.)

[Kungsgeten]

mikestar13, on 2013-May-13, 18:37, said:

the worst auctions come from passing a 2♣ opener when responder could have found a better partial after a 1♦.

Isn't it possible to play 1D as 3+ (almost always 4+) and 2C as 6+, if using Precision 2D? But I guess in that case you'd systematically have to open 1NT on 5422 with 5 clubs and 4 of a major, which may not be desirable. Just thought that the auction you described would happen less often..

[chasetb]

MickyB, on 2013-May-13, 04:29, said:

Could you explain how DavidC's blog supports your opinion? My reading of it produced the opposite conclusion, i.e. that 16-17 NTs are precisely the hands that are well placed having opened a strong club, knowing that they have left nothing unshown.

Sorry this is a little late, I've been busy the past few days. I'm not denying that to an extent, you have shown 15-17 HCP balanced hands as a one-bid if you open it a Strong 1♣. The problem is in the interference, as shown in DBT12 - Strength Showing Openings; I should have mentioned this one as well in my first post, sorry about that. Millenium Club and Nightmare Club are excellent in this category, because if the hand is in the 15-17 HCP range, it is either balanced or Clubs. Decisions are far easier in competition, because it's a more homogenous bid at the minimum strength level. I would say you lose out on the wider range for the 1M bids, and since I have never seriously played a Weak NT, I tend to shy away from them. AUC is similar, but 4414 hands and 5+ Club / 4M hands are also opened 1♣, so you dilute it somewhat.

Precision can be an issue, because assuming playing it as 16+ any, not only do you have most balanced hands 16+ , you also have 5+ of a suit, usually unbalanced, 6+ of a suit, balanced or unbalanced, etc. Say the auction goes 1♣ - (1M) - X showing 5-7 - (2M), and you are balanced with 16 or 17 HCP, and a doubleton in their suit. To make it interesting, we'll also give you a 5-card suit. Do you X and end up in the wrong suit, or find out that all the point are in the wrong places or suits? Do you compete only to find that it's a misfit and they can't even make 2M? Do you pass, only to find that you really should have competed?

In DBT 12, DavidC states that 16-17 balanced hands can be difficult to show if you don't get them off your chest immediately, and my experience, albeit a tad limited because of almost always playing a Strong NT, seems to agree. This is why I think 14-16 is a huge winner over 13-15 : you open the bidding more, and those pesky balanced 16 hands are no issue. If I wasn't convinced that 14-16 is better than 15-17 as well, then I would move the range back (opening 1NT more and making more games when 14 opposite 10 being more frequent than losing out when opening a balanced 17 1♣ and dealing with competition when partner has 5-7).

Kungsgeten, on 2013-May-14, 08:53, said:

Isn't it possible to play 1D as 3+ (almost always 4+) and 2C as 6+, if using Precision 2D? But I guess in that case you'd systematically have to open 1NT on 5422 with 5 clubs and 4 of a major, which may not be desirable. Just thought that the auction you described would happen less often..

If you play what I do, with 1NT being 14-16, 1M being 5+, and 2♣ usually 6+ (could be 5 if you are willing to play a 5-1 fit), then 1♦ on two will happen often enough. Imagine hands with 11-13 balanced, and your other three suits containing 443, 5♣33, 5♣-42. It's even worse than that, because 1st/2nd/3rd favorable I don't mind opening 1♦ on a balanced 10 count.

[mikestar13]

Kungsgeten, on 2013-May-14, 08:53, said:

Isn't it possible to play 1D as 3+ (almost always 4+) and 2C as 6+, if using Precision 2D? But I guess in that case you'd systematically have to open 1NT on 5422 with 5 clubs and 4 of a major, which may not be desirable. Just thought that the auction you described would happen less often..

Indeed, if the rest of the structure suits the partnership, the modification you suggest works well. I have played it with partners who want 2♣ to be 6+ and I rather like it myself. I've not found 1NT on 4M-2OM-2♦-5♣ hands to be that much of a problem. I often open 1NT on 2=4=5=2 hands as well (when not good enough for a reverse).