[Pigge63]

Thinking about taking up the variable NT from this system, with two variations - 11-13 (1st, 2nd NV) and 14-16 (the rest)to simplify a bit. (Otherwise: open 11 counts, 5cM, 1cl=cl or bal with no transfers, unbal d)

How does this system deal with bal 14-16 1st/2nd NV after for instance 1M-1NT? Does 2cl (Gazilli) include 14-16 bal? Cannot find it on their system card. Seems a Little awkward to me but may be the price you have to pay for the 11-13 NT.


Any other thoughts on the basic idea or this specific sequence? Thanks for your time and attention.

[nullve]

 Pigge63, on 2016-February-16, 03:39, said:

Thinking about taking up the variable NT from this system, with two variations - 11-13 (1st, 2nd NV) and 14-16 (the rest)to simplify a bit. (Otherwise: open 11 counts, 5cM, 1cl=cl or bal with no transfers, unbal d)

Variable NT ranges are not a new idea. I played 1N as 10-12/12-14/15-17 depending on vulnerability almost 30 years ago, and I remember the idea had already been around for a while. I now play 1N as 11-13 in 1st/2nd NV and 14-16 otherwise.

 Pigge63, on 2016-February-16, 03:39, said:

How does this system deal with bal 14-16 1st/2nd NV after for instance 1M-1NT? Does 2cl (Gazilli) include 14-16 bal? Cannot find it on their system card.

According to this CC, http://info.ecatsbri...dala-bocchi.pdf,

1♥-1♠/N; 2♣ = 11-15, 5H4C [meaning 5+H4+C?] or 16+, any
1♠-1N; 2♣ = 11-15, 6 S [meaning 6+ S?] or 16+, any
1♠-1N; 2♠ = 11-15, 5S4C [meaning 5+S4+C?]

But maybe they treat 5M(332) outside the 10-13/12-14 1N range as either 5M4C (with 5M3C(32))) or 5M4D (with 5M2C33) .

 Pigge63, on 2016-February-16, 03:39, said:

Seems a Little awkward to me but may be the price you have to pay for the 11-13 NT.

No, opening 1♣ (nat. or bal.) with 5M(332) works just fine.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-February-16, 06:49

[Pigge63]

Thank you for taking your time - much appreciated. I would prefer 2d as a second bid to be natural, both in relation to limited and unlimited partner. So we end up bidding 2cl will all balanced hands above our weak/mini NT range. Think one can sort things out - say 1M-1NT-2cl*-2d* (8+)-2NT (14-16 bal)-2 we still have 22hcp in the worst case.... (BTW Will not consider putting each bal hand in 1cl :-))

[vmsmith]

Good luck remembering all this. Bridge now has its own Tower of Babel. Sure hope you guys play for something worth more than a few match points or IMPs.

[newroad]

Hi Nullve et al,

My take is that switching NT ranges according to vulnerability needs to demonstrate some serious upside as there are two clear downsides

• It forces you to, in effect, play two (or more) systems, with the consequent memory effects, and assuming you agree with this
  
• One of the two systems is likely logically inferior to the other

If the upside is allegedly (reduction of penalty) risk based, then the empirical evidence from Fantoni/Nunes (notwithstanding their current difficulties) playing a WK NT, similar citations from Bill Jacobs and my own anecdotal experience (being a late convert to WK NT's) would suggest that the gain there is minimal. Clearly and separately, a 10-12 NT NV vs VUL has some pre-emptive merit: I'm not sure how to measure this other than statistically over a significant number of deals.

Conversely, and for the purposes of discussion, let's consider a 12-14 WK NT as "normal" for these 3-way NT guys, and played at equal VUL. If you then switch to 10-12 at NV vs V, you are presumably going to get range issues somewhere in your system: a mild inferiority I would presume? Similarly, if you switch to 15-17 V vs NV, then you lose some constructive benefits, e.g. if you are playing inverted minor raises, you can now no longer play 1m 2m 2NT as forcing: also a mild inferiority I would presume.

Consequently, it seems to me best to pick a NT range and then optimise ones methods around it.

Regards, Newroad

[nullve]

 newroad, on 2016-February-21, 16:56, said:

My take is that switching NT ranges according to vulnerability needs to demonstrate some serious upside as there are two clear downsides

• It forces you to, in effect, play two (or more) systems, with the consequent memory effects, and assuming you agree with this
  
• One of the two systems is likely logically inferior to the other

1. Yes. But by putting all balanced ranges outside the 1N or strong openings in the 1♣ opening, the ripple effects from switching 1N ranges will be greatly reduced.(Obviously, only the 1♣ and 1N openings will be affected, and we already know that the 1N system doesn't have to change much, if at all.)

2. I'm actually assuming that the 11-13 (14-16) NT "system" is inferior V (NV), because that's equivalent to the 11-13 (14-16) NT "system" being superior NV (V).

 newroad, on 2016-February-21, 16:56, said:

If the upside is allegedly (reduction of penalty) risk based, then the empirical evidence from Fantoni/Nunes (notwithstanding their current difficulties) playing a WK NT, similar citations from Bill Jacobs and my own anecdotal experience (being a late convert to WK NT's) would suggest that the gain there is minimal.

I suppose that's true at IMPs, and I'd really want that to be true at MPs (my favourite form of scoring) as well, but my experience (also purely anecdotal, alas) suggests there will be too frequent -200s (kisses of death) for 11-13 NT to be the best choice V.

 newroad, on 2016-February-21, 16:56, said:

Clearly and separately, a 10-12 NT NV vs VUL has some pre-emptive merit: I'm not sure how to measure this other than statistically over a significant number of deals.

Conversely, and for the purposes of discussion, let's consider a 12-14 WK NT as "normal" for these 3-way NT guys, and played at equal VUL. If you then switch to 10-12 at NV vs V, you are presumably going to get range issues somewhere in your system: a mild inferiority I would presume? Similarly, if you switch to 15-17 V vs NV, then you lose some constructive benefits, e.g. if you are playing inverted minor raises, you can now no longer play 1m 2m 2NT as forcing: also a mild inferiority I would presume.

My impression is that Bocchi-Madala have a fairly conservative, rule of 20-ish, opening style, into which the 12-14 and 15-17 NT ranges fit very well. And I know from my own system (where Rule of 19 + 11-13/14-16 NT replaces Rule of 20 + 12-14/15-17 NT) that it's possible to switch rather seemlessly between NT ranges like that in uncontested auctions, and that range issues are more likely to crop up in contested auctions like

1♣-(P)-1♥-(2♦),

where it's not obviously right to play e.g. X or 2♠ the same way when 1♣ is nat. or 12-14 bal as when it is nat. or 15-17 bal.

Switching to a 10-13 (or 10-12) NT range is bound to cause serious range issues, though. E.g. 1♣-1y; 1N as 14-17 (if that's what they play) is inherently bad because of the 4-point range, so the question more naturally arises whether they gain more than they lose by making the switch. And, yes, that must be hard to measure.

[newroad]

Hi Nullve.

Your point on MP vs IMP's is valid. I hardly play any MP's, so am from the opposite side of the fence in that respect.

I'm not sure I agree with system being equally applicable with different NT ranges. The weaker the range, the more case for natural responses IMO. Whether this is justifies a move away from transfers when going from 15-17 to 12-14 is dubious. However, with 10-12 say, I think there is a case for playing 2M (and maybe 2D) as natural - perhaps with a relay 2C to handle most/all promising hands.

I have a similar concern with other constructive auctions. I don't doubt that you can move ranges without major issues (say, going from a 12-14 optimised method to a 15-17 one) but the losses at the margin are real. In effect, the best reason for playing a WK NT IMO is that partner knows you haven't got one when you open 1 of a suit, meaning that most constructive auctions can be just that little bit more optimised and optimistic. I mentioned the Inverted Minor case earlier - similar considerations arise in 2/1 (game forcing being my preference) auctions in the modern style, i.e. 5M332's included.

Regards, Newroad

[nullve]

 newroad, on 2016-February-23, 03:45, said:

I'm not sure I agree with system being equally applicable with different NT ranges. The weaker the range, the more case for natural responses IMO. Whether this is justifies a move away from transfers when going from 15-17 to 12-14 is dubious. However, with 10-12 say, I think there is a case for playing 2M (and maybe 2D) as natural - perhaps with a relay 2C to handle most/all promising hands.

Agree.

 newroad, on 2016-February-23, 03:45, said:

In effect, the best reason for playing a WK NT IMO is that partner knows you haven't got one when you open 1 of a suit, meaning that most constructive auctions can be just that little bit more optimised and optimistic.

The problem is that you will open 1N a lot, so if the weak NT V is bad when you open it, you may not be able to weigh up for that elsewhere. In other words, it's not clear that replacing the strong NT V with a weak one is what I (tentatively) call a "utilitarian sacrifice" in this thread:

http://www.bridgebas...ces-in-bidding/