Help
I picked up Jxx KQTx Ax Jxxx the other day, MP's, w/r first seat. I couldn't resist opening 1C promising 2+ cards in our system. But I heard myself think 'wouldn't it be great to be playing strong NT/4 card majors now? Of course 'stealing' with these hands works much better when we are NV and missing some 5-3 fits will probably happen less often as opps are less likely to preempt when their opps are NV. So why not 4 card majors NV (14-16 NT) and 5 card majors V (15-17 NT)? It might also be fun to play a system similar to what was described in Woolsey's Matchpoints, i.e. you decide whether you open 1m/1M with 4/4, natural follow-ups, etc. This has been probably done before but I don't remember any threads discussing it.
Page 1 of 1
4/5 card majors depending on vulnerability
#1
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2013-October-06, 06:01
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#2
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 767
- Joined: 2005-October-26
Posted 2013-October-06, 10:03
Varying system by seat or vul is not rare. I recently started playing 5cM/weak NT 1-2 and 4cM/strong NT 3-4 with one partner and 4cM/strong NT 1-3 with another. 4cM in general is lots of fun to play.
If you put an accurate skill level in your profile, you get a bonus 5% extra finesses working. --johnu
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,705
- Joined: 2006-May-18
- Gender:Not Telling
Posted 2013-October-07, 16:51
You can also try stealing by opening 1NT. Once upon a time, playing a strong NT vulnerable and a weak NT not vulnerable was very popular.
(-: Zel :-)
#4
- Csaba the Hutt
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,027
- Joined: 2006-June-16
- Gender:Male
- Interests:bye
Posted 2013-October-08, 07:08
Zelandakh, on 2013-October-07, 16:51, said:
You can also try stealing by opening 1NT. Once upon a time, playing a strong NT vulnerable and a weak NT not vulnerable was very popular.
Sure but opening a weak NT is not so interesting (it has indeed been done a lot before) and it comes at other costs (missing 4-4 fits, making it difficult to show a strong NT in competition, etc). Getting this KQTx in the bidding is quite attractive don't you think?
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#5
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 463
- Joined: 2009-August-03
Posted 2013-October-08, 07:59
gwnn, on 2013-October-08, 07:08, said:
Sure but opening a weak NT is not so interesting (it has indeed been done a lot before) and it comes at other costs (missing 4-4 fits, making it difficult to show a strong NT in competition, etc). Getting this KQTx in the bidding is quite attractive don't you think?
Then don't you upgrade the suit to a 5-card suit and hope?
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,679
- Joined: 2008-April-06
Posted 2013-October-09, 05:24
I would have thought your preferences for 4 or 5 card majors were independent of vulnerability, but then I am not aware of the preempting tendency you quote, or maybe you hold no strong opinion. On the hand itself, I am sure I have opened that 1♣ as well and always will. Looks like a 12 count to me.
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,290
- Joined: 2004-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, England
Posted 2013-October-09, 07:11
Not a ridiculous idea, but -
a) I suspect strong+4 is pretty good 1st NV at MP, but that weak+5 is better 1st NV at IMPs.
b) I would sooner play strong+5 than strong+4 or weak+5 when 2nd NV, there's just so much less gain to preempting in 2nd.
c) Strong+4 isn't an easy system to play well. For a start, you really need methods to divide 1S:2S into two ranges.
d) I'd sooner just play a better, more aggressive system than strong+5 at all positions+vuls. You are probably aware that my two favourite systems are both based on a 14-16 NT; one opens 1D on all 11-13 NTs, the other opens four-card heart suits on 11-13 NTs. While neither of these methods can match the Hacketts or the mini-NT brigade for aggression, I'd back them to get most of it back in other areas, even just looking at 1st NV openings. Having said that, Wank and I do play an 11-13 NT 1st NV [all 14-16 NTs open 1D].
a) I suspect strong+4 is pretty good 1st NV at MP, but that weak+5 is better 1st NV at IMPs.
b) I would sooner play strong+5 than strong+4 or weak+5 when 2nd NV, there's just so much less gain to preempting in 2nd.
c) Strong+4 isn't an easy system to play well. For a start, you really need methods to divide 1S:2S into two ranges.
d) I'd sooner just play a better, more aggressive system than strong+5 at all positions+vuls. You are probably aware that my two favourite systems are both based on a 14-16 NT; one opens 1D on all 11-13 NTs, the other opens four-card heart suits on 11-13 NTs. While neither of these methods can match the Hacketts or the mini-NT brigade for aggression, I'd back them to get most of it back in other areas, even just looking at 1st NV openings. Having said that, Wank and I do play an 11-13 NT 1st NV [all 14-16 NTs open 1D].
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,240
- Joined: 2012-June-25
Posted 2013-October-09, 07:30
MickyB, on 2013-October-09, 07:11, said:
Having said that, Wank and I do play an 11-13 NT 1st NV [all 14-16 NTs open 1D].
Obviously in that scenario it is better to open 1♣ with 14-16 and 1♦ with 17-19.
The reason is that you can handle a 0+ 1NT response over 1♦ via a two way 2♣ relay (natural or Mexican) - responder passes that with 0-5 with 5+ clubs, thereby getting you out of 1♦, but if you hold 14-16bal nothing really works.
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,290
- Joined: 2004-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, England
Posted 2013-October-09, 07:38
Deleted
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,290
- Joined: 2004-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, England
Posted 2013-October-09, 07:44
PhilKing, on 2013-October-09, 07:30, said:
Obviously in that scenario it is better to open 1♣ with 14-16 and 1♦ with 17-19.
The reason is that you can handle a 0+ 1NT response over 1♦ via a two way 2♣ relay (natural or Mexican) - responder passes that with 0-5 with 5+ clubs, thereby getting you out of 1♦, but if you hold 14-16bal nothing really works.
The reason is that you can handle a 0+ 1NT response over 1♦ via a two way 2♣ relay (natural or Mexican) - responder passes that with 0-5 with 5+ clubs, thereby getting you out of 1♦, but if you hold 14-16bal nothing really works.
My methods allow the 17-19 NT to frequently stop low; For example, in 1NT when responder has no major, or in 2M when we have a 4-4 fit. Is this possible if you switch the ranges? It seems far from obvious that it is better to do so. Even if we concluded it was, it fits with my philosophy of not wanting to play completely different systems and different conditions, given how clear-cut it is that opening 1D with 11-13 NT and 1C with 17-19 NT is better than the other way around
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,240
- Joined: 2012-June-25
Posted 2013-October-09, 08:06
MickyB, on 2013-October-09, 07:44, said:
My methods allow the 17-19 NT to frequently stop low; For example, in 1NT when responder has no major, or in 2M when we have a 4-4 fit. Is this possible if you switch the ranges? It seems far from obvious that it is better to do so. Even if we concluded it was, it fits with my philosophy of not wanting to play completely different systems and different conditions, given how clear-cut it is that opening 1D with 11-13 NT and 1C with 17-19 NT is better than the other way around
Sure - the 17-19 can stop. After all, I have three ways of raising the major to two after opening 1♣.
Page 1 of 1