Help
I'm playing a split / dual / 2 way range NT bid in certain seats/vulnerabilities. This is based on the old Woodson 2 way notrump bid, but tweaked to show a balanced hand of 9-11 or 15-17 points. Opener's rebid defines whether the mini or strong NT hand is held.
The Woodson 2 way NT bid was propounded with a simple response structure with only had a basic Stayman and game invite/force structure. This only adequately covered the most common hand types of responder. However it is easy enough, via relays, to allow many more hand types of both opener and responder to be specifically identified and bid effectively. However the basic issue of a splint range NT opening range remains, namely that responder has to bid something when game could be possible should opener have the strong NT hand, although on most occasions opener will have the mini NT hand and the partnership needs to bail out in a part-score as quickly as possible.
Are there thoughts on how the standard Woodson approach could be improved? [PS I do not play bridge in ACBL land, and the restriction that a NT opening must promise a minimum of 10 points to allow conventional responses to be used is not relevant to me: hence my lower range is 9-11, not 10-12].
Page 1 of 1
Split range NT opening
#1
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 2011-May-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Gold Coast, Australia
Posted 2011-September-12, 03:44
#2
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2011-September-12, 05:25
Welcome to the forums.
My only thought about this is the following:
If you want to massively improve your system, remove 1 of the NT ranges out of the 1NT opening (preferably the 9-11 range). If you want to improve your system just a little tiny bit, you can put hours of effort into finding a better structure of responses over this split range 1NT opening.
My only thought about this is the following:
If you want to massively improve your system, remove 1 of the NT ranges out of the 1NT opening (preferably the 9-11 range). If you want to improve your system just a little tiny bit, you can put hours of effort into finding a better structure of responses over this split range 1NT opening.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,541
- Joined: 2009-July-13
- Location:England
Posted 2011-September-12, 06:27
Free, on 2011-September-12, 05:25, said:
Welcome to the forums.
My only thought about this is the following:
If you want to massively improve your system, remove 1 of the NT ranges out of the 1NT opening (preferably the 9-11 range). If you want to improve your system just a little tiny bit, you can put hours of effort into finding a better structure of responses over this split range 1NT opening.
My only thought about this is the following:
If you want to massively improve your system, remove 1 of the NT ranges out of the 1NT opening (preferably the 9-11 range). If you want to improve your system just a little tiny bit, you can put hours of effort into finding a better structure of responses over this split range 1NT opening.
I find a wide continuous range rather than split range easier to handle.
Page 1 of 1