[tommylee]

We are trying Precision with a 10-13 1 NT nv 1st and 2nd seat and otherwise 11-13, all other seats and vulnerabilities. We open all 5332 and some 5422 hands 1NT. With good "escapes" we are getting some good results and is not a scary as we thought it might be. I know that conventional wisdom would argue for a higher range vulnerable and certainly in 4th seat. Still, we have not gone for any big numbers, and are wondering if anyone else has any experience with this structure. Our 14-16 balanced and semi-balanced hands are opened 1d with a no trump rebid. It may sound non-sensical but it sure feels good not to have to open balanced 11-13 hands 1 diamond.

[glen]

tommylee, on 2014-November-27, 18:37, said:

We are trying Precision with a 10-13 1 NT nv 1st and 2nd seat and otherwise 11-13, all other seats and vulnerabilities. We open all 5332 and some 5422 hands 1NT. With good "escapes" we are getting some good results and is not a scary as we thought it might be. I know that conventional wisdom would argue for a higher range vulnerable and certainly in 4th seat. Still, we have not gone for any big numbers, and are wondering if anyone else has any experience with this structure. Our 14-16 balanced and semi-balanced hands are opened 1d with a no trump rebid. It may sound non-sensical but it sure feels good not to have to open balanced 11-13 hands 1 diamond.

one thing to track is how many -200 you get vulnerable

[Cthulhu D]

The other thing to look at is if 10-13 is to wide a range on your constructive auctions. I used to play 10-13 with one partner but we decided to firm it up to 11-13 to make constructive auctions easier, and we weren't convinced that opening 10 counts was winning bridge.

You could also redefine your 4th seat range as 'to play' you could even include crisp 14-15 counts if you open all 10s.

[whereagles]

Obviously, 3rd seat vuln is the critical factor here, so I ran a sim.

Constraining North to max 10 hcp and no preempt hand; East to max 11 hcp and no preempt; and South to a 11-13 NT with 5M possible, here's what came out after 100 000 hands:

Our side has 20+ HCP = 55.4%
Our side has 19- HCP = 44.6%
Our side has 19- HCP and no major suit fit = 24.6% (usually major fits are easier to find)
Our side has 19- HCP and no fit whatsoever = 9.1%

So roughly you're ok half the time, you're in trouble the other half. A good escape mechanism helps, but in my interpretation I would say the method verges on the unsound.

[PrecisionL]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-27, 23:37, said:

The other thing to look at is if 10-13 is to wide a range on your constructive auctions. I used to play 10-13 with one partner but we decided to firm it up to 11-13 to make constructive auctions easier, and we weren't convinced that opening 10 counts was winning bridge.

You could also redefine your 4th seat range as 'to play' you could even include crisp 14-15 counts if you open all 10s.

I agree, a 4 hcp range is too wide unless you play Keri over 1NT.

Vulnerable I would play 13-15 or 14-16 to avoid those -200 bottoms.

[helene_t]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-27, 23:37, said:

You could also redefine your 4th seat range as 'to play' you could even include crisp 14-15 counts if you open all 10s.

Yes, if the pass shows 0-10 when balanced, it is probably a good idea to define the 1NT opening either as "to play opposite a balanced hand", i.e. max 14, or "interested in game opposite a max hand", i.e. 15-17. Similarly, opposite a 0-9 pass it should be either 16-18 or max 15.

That way you know whether your response structure should cater to invitational hands or not.

[tommylee]

glen, on 2014-November-27, 20:50, said:

one thing to track is how many -200 you get vulnerable

Thanks Glen. Since we ware using this as a matchpoint system any minus 200 is the kiss of death. We tend to count our successes but need to keep better track of our failures.

[tommylee]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-November-27, 23:37, said:

The other thing to look at is if 10-13 is to wide a range on your constructive auctions. I used to play 10-13 with one partner but we decided to firm it up to 11-13 to make constructive auctions easier, and we weren't convinced that opening 10 counts was winning bridge.

You could also redefine your 4th seat range as 'to play' you could even include crisp 14-15 counts if you open all 10s.

I agree that a 3 point range can be less productive in terms of constructive bidding.Many better players today who open 15-17, also upgrade some good 14's. We can leave it at a "good ten"
and use standard no trump valuation techniques to upgrade. I like the i.e. sea of defining the 4th seat bid of 1NT "to play." Never thought about that so thanks.

[tommylee]

whereagles, on 2014-November-28, 05:26, said:

Obviously, 3rd seat vuln is the critical factor here, so I ran a sim.

Constraining North to max 10 hcp and no preempt hand; East to max 11 hcp and no preempt; and South to a 11-13 NT with 5M possible, here's what came out after 100 000 hands:

Our side has 20+ HCP = 55.4%
Our side has 19- HCP = 44.6%
Our side has 19- HCP and no major suit fit = 24.6% (usually major fits are easier to find)
Our side has 19- HCP and no fit whatsoever = 9.1%

So roughly you're ok half the time, you're in trouble the other half. A good escape mechanism helps, but in my interpretation I would say the method verges on the unsound.

Thanks for your efforts to run a "'sim". I have never done that but i do believe in numbers. The system was designed to be edgy and pushy, but maybe we are running too close to the line of "unsound."

[tommylee]

helene_t, on 2014-November-28, 07:30, said:

Yes, if the pass shows 0-10 when balanced, it is probably a good idea to define the 1NT opening either as "to play opposite a balanced hand", i.e. max 14, or "interested in game opposite a max hand", i.e. 15-17. Similarly, opposite a 0-9 pass it should be either 16-18 or max 15.

That way you know whether your response structure should cater to invitational hands or not.

Having reread these ideas about the 1NT bid being to "play, it appears that you are suggesting it for both 3rd and 4th seat. Is that correct? How about to"play" unless responder has a 5 card major to transfer too.

[tommylee]

Some commentator suggested that any success is based on the fact that pairs don't have agreed ideas on how to accurately get back into the best contact starting at the 2 level. The also suggested that my competition may not be the best defenders. I concede both issues. We are totally blown away by how many players do not have an agreed systems for action over weak 1NT openers. In particular it often seems that there is no clear understanding about whether double is take out or penalty and whether that answer changes when the opening no trump is weak. To the extent that represents weak opponents I concede it.
The other factor at work here is plain and simple "greed." Nothing fires an opponent up as much as the fact that you are trying to steal the hand from them. This almost invariably brings out the testosterone and impairs judgement. We do use our escapes from time to t ime, but most often it is unnecessary as the opponents jump in and save us. These are human factors that will not show up on a simulation.

[helene_t]

tommylee, on 2014-November-28, 10:52, said:

Having reread these ideas about the 1NT bid being to "play, it appears that you are suggesting it for both 3rd and 4th seat. Is that correct? How about to"play" unless responder has a 5 card major to transfer too.

Yes but "to play" is most attractive in 3rd nonvul. You might play it as strong in 4th and in 3rd nonvul.

Yes, responder doesn't have to pass. But as I see it the point of "to play" is that you don't need a constructive structure. So no transfers. Just natural takeouts in all four suits.

[Trick13]

Having played a variable range (11-13 NV, 13-15 VUL) for decades, I started playing 11-13 in all positions and vulnerabilities about 12 months ago. MUCH prefer it. We upgrade good 10s, in 3rd it is more like 10-14, and in fourth 11+-14 (suitably announced). We also include 5332, some 6322, 5422, and 4441. We open about 13.8% of hands 1NT.

Playing about 3 sessions a week, we have so far had 8 bad results (-200 or worse), all when vulnerable. But you can also get -200s playing 14-16 or 15-17 ... maybe you don't notice these so much because NT bids in these ranges are much less frequent. Our good results far outweigh the bad, and our results when we don't open 1NT are improved as well because all the weak balanced junk is included in 1NT (the 'nebulous' precision 1D bid in particular benefits from this).

I think of it as a pre-empt, Every time you open a weak NT and 'get away with it' - and that's going to be 98% of the time - you are getting at least an average result and frequently better. And it is much more exciting.

Of course you have to consider your whole system. It's perfect for precision, but no good for standard or 2/1.

[nige1]

tommylee, on 2014-November-27, 18:37, said:

We are trying Precision with a 10-13 1 NT nv 1st and 2nd seat and otherwise 11-13, all other seats and vulnerabilities. We open all 5332 and some 5422 hands 1NT. With good "escapes" we are getting some good results and is not a scary as we thought it might be. I know that conventional wisdom would argue for a higher range vulnerable and certainly in 4th seat. Still, we have not gone for any big numbers, and are wondering if anyone else has any experience with this structure. Our 14-16 balanced and semi-balanced hands are opened 1d with a no trump rebid. It may sound non-sensical but it sure feels good not to have to open balanced 11-13 hands 1 diamond.

When you know that partner has 0-9 HCP, you are offering an unnecessary hostage to fortune in seat 3 by opening 1N with 11-13 HCP, especially vulnerable.

IMO, If you play an ultra-weak notrump in seats 1&2 , then you should beef-up your notrump in seats 3&4. In some partnerships, I play 10-12 HCP in seats 1&2 but 15-17 HCP in seats 3&4. (You might be a bit more aggressive in seat 4)

I'm told that Meckwell played a 10-12 notrump in seats 1&2, for a while. You could find out what they did in other positions

[whereagles]

I doubt of the 98%... sim points at 90%, at best.

[akwoo]

Unless you're playing in a top flight game at an NABC, you get a lot out of opponents being unfamiliar with it, particularly if you don't tell the opponents about it before the start of the round. (You are not required to.) A lot of folks haven't seen it much or at all and might just panic when they here the announcement '11-13' out of the blue. Also, your average opponents won't have agreements against it, so they won't know how strong a double is, how strong their 2-level interference is, whether whatever system they are playing against a 15-17 1N is on, and so on. You can definitely steal a couple boards a session out of it if you're inclined to take full advantage. (I know we missed one game in a sectional once because I forgot to tell partner (who had never seen it before in his life) that doubling 1N still showed roughly 15-17.)

So I think it's worth keeping in 3rd seat in a weaker field just for the confusion it engenders, if you're inclined to play that game. In 4th seat, it can't engender quite the same confusion, so maybe it's not worth it there.

In addition, in weaker fields, a lot of opponents will bail you out of bad 1N contracts because they are scared of defending 1N when they seem to have a perfectly good place to play and don't realize just how profitable a stack of 100's is. Also, most people defend by instinct without counting the declarer's hand, and if they've been defending against 15-17 1N openings all their life, their instincts are going to be all wrong and they're going to slip up a trick or two quite frequently.

Of course, you do have to consider whether you think it's ethical to play a system that you might think is inferior just because it confuses the opponents.

[Cthulhu D]

Given the positive effects on the 1D opening and the fact that the strong club oblivates the need for the strong NT double which is the usual downside of this sort of thing, it's not at all clear that the opening is inferior.

[blackshoe]

akwoo, on 2014-November-29, 17:11, said:

Of course, you do have to consider whether you think it's ethical to play a system that you might think is inferior just because it confuses the opponents.

Hm. If you're actually considering playing a system, you should have a firm opinion on whether it's inferior. IOW, no "might" involved.

I probably wouldn't ever consider whether something might confuse the opponents as a criterion for playing whatever it is. If I thought it was inferior, I wouldn't play it, if I thought it was superior, or at least not inferior, I probably would play it — if I could find a willing partner. If I had no opinion, I'd probably at least give it a try. I would, though, insist that we follow the disclosure rules as best we can.

[Cthulhu D]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-29, 22:17, said:

Hm. If you're actually considering playing a system, you should have a firm opinion on whether it's inferior. IOW, no "might" involved.

I probably wouldn't ever consider whether something might confuse the opponents as a criterion for playing whatever it is. If I thought it was inferior, I wouldn't play it, if I thought it was superior, or at least not inferior, I probably would play it — if I could find a willing partner. If I had no opinion, I'd probably at least give it a try. I would, though, insist that we follow the disclosure rules as best we can.

It's worth considering that at-least a component of 'superior' is how difficult it is for opponents to find their strain and level (including doubling you when it is right) correctly once you've bid. For example, I would not play assumed fit preempts if I knew my opponents would always pass. The 11-13 NT is valuable in part for its preemptive value.

The preemptive value of any bid is enhanced by opponents unfamiliarity with the method, and this makes it very difficult to determine in practice whether your methods are superior (particularly for case C methods in your categorization above). If you open a natural 3C and opponents do something bad/unlucky, you'll write that up to 'preempts work.' If you open 3C as both minors weak and opponents do something bad/unlucky, is that because they are unfamiliar with the method or because preempts work?

To give a worked example. My regular partner and started playing assumed fit preempts (2D: diamonds + major and 2H: Both majors) in both a strong club field and in restricted events on the basis that it was worth a go, and should atleast be funny. Overall our results are outstanding - but the results are much better in the restricted events than in the strong club field, but both are plus EV over the alternative uses for the bid (I anticipate that a weak 2 in hearts is going to be more plus EV in the weaker field as well, but how much?).

We are one of four pairs I have ever encountered playing the method (one appears to have adopted it after playing against us regularly, our team mates and a visiting youth pair I played against when I qualified for the ABF youth events).

I am unable to determine for sure if our very good results are because opponents are unfamiliar with the method, or because the method is good.

NB: The unfamiliarity factor can be overstated though as weird 2 level openings and beloved in Australia. Just not to many people open 4/4 ones.

[whereagles]

akwoo, on 2014-November-29, 17:11, said:

In addition, in weaker fields, a lot of opponents will bail you out of bad 1N contracts because they are scared of defending 1N when they seem to have a perfectly good place to play and don't realize just how profitable a stack of 100's is.

That's not my experience in weak fields. In weak fields it goes

1NT pass pass pass

or

pass pass 1NT pass
pass pass

and you're 1-3 down vs nothing, for a systemic zero.