[PhilG007]

There has been an increasing trend to open 1NT on 10-12 points in any position and at any vulnerability. This is known as the Mini No Trump.
It's allowed in ACBL sponsored tournaments under certain conditions but any conventional responses,even Stayman,are barred.
My question is, does this particular gadget have any merit? Does it confer any long-term advantage on its operators?

[nullve]

http://www.bridgebas...ero-or-villain/

[hrothgar]

PhilG007, on 2018-January-21, 03:15, said:

There has been an increasing trend to open 1NT on 10-12 points in any position and at any vulnerability.

Don't think that this is true

Quote

It's allowed in ACBL sponsored tournaments under certain conditions but any conventional responses,even Stayman,are barred.

I KNOW that this is not true

Quote

My question is, does this particular gadget have any merit? Does it confer any long-term advantage on its operators?

Some times

[Tramticket]

nullve, on 2018-January-21, 03:21, said:

http://www.bridgebas...ero-or-villain/

Well spotted!

[PhilG007]

hrothgar, on 2018-January-21, 03:45, said:

Don't think that this is true



I KNOW that this is not true



Some times

See the article about it in the ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge p 283

[PhilG007]

Tramticket, on 2018-January-21, 04:39, said:

Well spotted!

I forgot I had posted this Forgot the fait accompli was Chose Jugee. Well it was good to
get further feedback

[hrothgar]

PhilG007, on 2018-January-21, 06:47, said:

See the article about it in the ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge p 283

Yeah....

Here's the thing. The ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge has no official bearing on ACBL convention regulations.

The ACBL Convention Charts do, and these are quite clear that the restrictions with respect to using conventional responses only kick in if your NT opening was bid holding 9 or fewer HCPs (not applicable to a psyche)

So, I think that I will spare myself a few dollars and, instead, conclude that either

A. Your source material is badly flawed OR
B. You're not very good at reading

[FelicityR]

The Mini No Trump, like the Mini Skirt has had its day! It has become unfashionable As long as defenders have good methods to deal with it, I find it isn't such a problem to deal with. I think it's been around in Great Britain over thirty years. It might catch out a few unprepared club players but at tournament level it's a liability. The mean thrust of weak bids is distribution not balanced hands. Given that most players play a 15-17NT nowadays, I believe that the 12-14 weak No-Trump will go the same way too over time.

[steve2005]

you can now delete duplicate posts on bbo. one of these discussions should have been nipped in the bud

[steve2005]

repost: 1NT 10-12 is always allowed in ACBL with no restrictions. What is not allowed is a range including 9 or less. Then restrictions apply.

[ggwhiz]

FelicityR, on 2018-January-21, 08:48, said:

As long as defenders have good methods to deal with it,

I LOVE playing against it and although the opportunities are rare I've never lost to it in any setting greater than 2 boards. Even when they open a suit, declarer play and often defense becomes nearly double dummy after a very few tricks.

[barmar]

PhilG007, on 2018-January-21, 03:15, said:

It's allowed in ACBL sponsored tournaments under certain conditions but any conventional responses,even Stayman,are barred.

This is not true. 10 HCP is the minimum where conventional responses are allowed, so mini is fine.

However, they've stated in unofficial documents that you're not allowed to upgrade weaker hands to 10 points if you use this. If you do that, you're presumed to have agreed to a lower minimum, and then conventions are disallowed, and claiming you're playing 10-12 is also misinformation.

[JonnyQuest]

hrothgar, on 2018-January-21, 07:32, said:

Yeah....

Here's the thing. The ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge has no official bearing on ACBL convention regulations.

The ACBL Convention Charts do, and these are quite clear that the restrictions with respect to using conventional responses only kick in if your NT opening was bid holding 9 or fewer HCPs (not applicable to a psyche)

So, I think that I will spare myself a few dollars and, instead, conclude that either

A. Your source material is badly flawed OR
B. You're not very good at reading

These ACBL Convention Charts must be especially difficult to find online, else there would be no confusion.
Oh, wait a minute, my niece just found it (she is two). Never mind.

[PhilG007]

hrothgar, on 2018-January-21, 07:32, said:

Yeah....

Here's the thing. The ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge has no official bearing on ACBL convention regulations.

The ACBL Convention Charts do, and these are quite clear that the restrictions with respect to using conventional responses only kick in if your NT opening was bid holding 9 or fewer HCPs (not applicable to a psyche)

So, I think that I will spare myself a few dollars and, instead, conclude that either

A. Your source material is badly flawed OR
B. You're not very good at reading

Oh dear oh dear You've just brought a tear to my glass eye(!)

[helene_t]

I don't have enough experience with this to have a qualified opinion, but my feeling is that if I could afford to take the 1NT opening out of my constructive system, I could think of more exiting ways of using it. Playing 2♣ as some kind of preempt while moving the strong hands to 1NT to get one badly needed extra step of bidding space for the monster hands, for example.

I am also a bit concerned of making declarer's life easier when we end up defending after I have denied a balanced 10-count by passing in first seat.

Maybe I would agree to play it in a short pairs session where we were underdogs and needed a high variance strategy to end in the prices. But then again, under those circumstances almost any crazy system would do. Two juniors from the Leeds club once won a congress pairs by playing a "never open in 1st and 2nd seat" system. (Yes I know it's illegal but Yorkshire can be quite liberal sometimes).

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2018-January-22, 17:00, said:

I don't have enough experience with this to have a qualified opinion, but my feeling is that if I could afford to take the 1NT opening out of my constructive system, I could think of more exiting ways of using it. Playing 2♣ as some kind of preempt while moving the strong hands to 1NT to get one badly needed extra step of bidding space for the monster hands, for example.

Interestingly, Romex has always had a strong artificial 1NT bid. Most recently, Romex has become a "two-card" system: Romex when vulnerable at MPs (or any vulnerability except favorable at IMPs), "Romex Forcing Club" otherwise. On the latter card, 1NT is 10-12 balanced. Best of both worlds?

[PhilG007]

helene_t, on 2018-January-22, 17:00, said:

I don't have enough experience with this to have a qualified opinion, but my feeling is that if I could afford to take the 1NT opening out of my constructive system, I could think of more exiting ways of using it. Playing 2♣ as some kind of preempt while moving the strong hands to 1NT to get one badly needed extra step of bidding space for the monster hands, for example.

I am also a bit concerned of making declarer's life easier when we end up defending after I have denied a balanced 10-count by passing in first seat.

Maybe I would agree to play it in a short pairs session where we were underdogs and needed a high variance strategy to end in the prices. But then again, under those circumstances almost any crazy system would do. Two juniors from the Leeds club once won a congress pairs by playing a "never open in 1st and 2nd seat" system. (Yes I know it's illegal but Yorkshire can be quite liberal sometimes).

Perhaps I should say here that those pairs that do play the Mini No Trump are likely to be well versed in escape routes like wriggle,sos redpuble etc
should it be doubled for penalties.

[Cthulhu D]

I kind of wonder if a 11-13 NT isn't a better solution.

[rmnka447]

FelicityR, on 2018-January-21, 08:48, said:

The Mini No Trump, like the Mini Skirt has had its day! It has become unfashionable As long as defenders have good methods to deal with it, I find it isn't such a problem to deal with. I think it's been around in Great Britain over thirty years. It might catch out a few unprepared club players but at tournament level it's a liability. The mean thrust of weak bids is distribution not balanced hands. Given that most players play a 15-17NT nowadays, I believe that the 12-14 weak No-Trump will go the same way too over time.

I'm not sure that the weak no trump(12-14) is necessarily dying out over here. The vast majority of players here use the strong NT (15-17), but there may notably be more players playing weak no trump here now. 30 or 40 years ago, we could literally go for months and not run into anyone playing them like we do. But now almost every tournament we play in, there are some pairs playing them. That might be because we are playing against top level competition more, but it sure is noticeable.

[steve2005]

blackshoe, on 2018-January-23, 16:45, said:

Interestingly, Romex has always had a strong artificial 1NT bid. Most recently, Romex has become a "two-card" system: Romex when vulnerable at MPs (or any vulnerability except favorable at IMPs), "Romex Forcing Club" otherwise. On the latter card, 1NT is 10-12 balanced. Best of both worlds?

I think the original Romex idea was a god thought. 1N as your strong bid and keep most similar/simple.
Where original Romex fell down was the wide range 1NT rebid. But i suspect you can get around this with some of the modern trends in bidding.
Also, Romex had 3 strong bids 1N, 2C & 2D with 2N being so strong it never came up.
Something using 2C/2D/2N as weak or intermediate bids would make more sense.