[32519]

What unusual agreement do you and partner have that's raking in good results? After suffering enough bad results with the 2NT 20-21 HCP balanced opening, we now use the 2NT opening promising 5/5 in the majors and 8-12 HCP as used by the Blue Team Club.

Taking into consideration that hands are pre-dealt for tournaments and the bigger club matches, this bid has already surfaced 7 times for us this year. We got a good board on every one of those 7 occasions, the last one when the opponents were cold for 5NT, 5♦ or 5♣. They stopped short of game.

What about you?

[Mbodell]

10-12 nt.

There are obviously a lot of impacts to this, and it fits better into a strong club framework IMHO, but I feel like this is a huge overall winner at my level.

[kgr]

HESO: (High Even, Second Odd). From a sequence we lead highest from an even number of cards and second from an odd number of cards. We play Obvious switch, and lavinthal on all first cards. Therefor we very seldom give parity and HESO helps to get an idea of the distribution
BUNI: Bicolor and UNIcolor overcalls. e.g: (1S)-2C = 4cH and longer clubs, this is too much too explain in a short post. It increases the number of hands on which you can compete.

[CamHenry]

Mbodell, on 2013-April-18, 01:03, said:

10-12 nt.

There are obviously a lot of impacts to this, and it fits better into a strong club framework IMHO, but I feel like this is a huge overall winner at my level.

9-11 NT for me! Again, this is in a strong minor framework, but it means that your third seat 1NT can be 9-15 because you're not likely to be missing game (as a shapely 8-count would already have opened in first seat). The looks of consternation when you announce (or alert, or whatever; depending on jurisdiction) your 1NT range are classic.

[paulg]

Mbodell, on 2013-April-18, 01:03, said:

10-12 nt.

There are obviously a lot of impacts to this, and it fits better into a strong club framework IMHO, but I feel like this is a huge overall winner at my level.

As I've said before, our team mates rake in the points with their weak notrump when playing in the ACBL. A big factor is that even good players seem unable to take a penalty when they should, mainly because they double too light.

[Lord Molyb]

Really? Our 10-13 NT has only been average so far

[GreenMan]

Years ago my regular partner and I installed the 10-12 1NT. The first tournament event we played in, it came up a number of times and we finished first. Then it rarely came up again and we had so-so results thenceforth.

[CamHenry]

Lord Molyb, on 2013-April-18, 19:22, said:

Really? Our 10-13 NT has only been average so far

One of the difficulties of a wide-ranging 1NT is that it's more dangerous to invite (as the minimum is lower) but more necessary to invite (as a 12-count wants to play game opposite a maximum 10-13, for example). That's why you can open a wider range facing a passed hand.

[the hog]

Tutti Frutti 2 bids

[Cyberyeti]

CamHenry, on 2013-April-19, 01:16, said:

One of the difficulties of a wide-ranging 1NT is that it's more dangerous to invite (as the minimum is lower) but more necessary to invite (as a 12-count wants to play game opposite a maximum 10-13, for example). That's why you can open a wider range facing a passed hand.

The benefits of a wide range no trump are often when you don't open it, it defines the other sequences. We used to play 11-16 in first and second, 14-19 in 3rd and 4th with 4+ card inv+ transfers and lots of bells and whistles and this worked very well.

How do you fancy hearing 1N-P-P-P and seeing dummy's 8 count at pairs wondering whether you're trying to beat this or trying to prevent the second overtrick. The only reason I don't play that now is that my partner moved away. Some of the fringe benefits were that 1/2 1x-1y-1N was 17-19 so you didn't have the awkward 2N rebid, and the 15-20 1N overcall (11-16 in protective seat) was if anything even better than the opener.

If I was to play it now, I'd tighten it up to a 5 point range, we used to divide the responses to the transfers into 3 2 point ranges, and the awkward one was the middle range which was not GF opposite the inv+ transfer, so narrowing that would make it easier.

[lalldonn]

For the past several years I have played different systems over weak 2 bids depending if we were vul or not - usually something like ogust nv something like feature v. I do this with any partner who will agree. I'm sure i'm not the first but it's a bit surprising to me that more people don't do it since the style changes so much with the vul.

[aguahombre]

One unusual agreement we have used with great success is predicated on an agreement that many people use.

1C (P) 1D (1M)
X...our only "support" double, and it shows 4 diamonds. This allows for a possible 3-card diamond response (say, 3-3-3-4 and 6-7 or 11-12 pts), and 2D to be true reverse strength as it would be in our uncontested auction.

Possible hands for opener are 2-2-4-5 minimums which now cannot rebid 1NT, and (3-1) 4-5's with minimum strength which no-longer have to rebid 2C. Another possibility would be (3-2) 4-4 minimums (without the major stopped) which we open 1C instead of 1D.

[barmar]

lalldonn, on 2013-April-19, 08:40, said:

For the past several years I have played different systems over weak 2 bids depending if we were vul or not - usually something like ogust nv something like feature v. I do this with any partner who will agree. I'm sure i'm not the first but it's a bit surprising to me that more people don't do it since the style changes so much with the vul.

You can have your cake and eat it. With a couple of partners, I play Step Ogust: the next suit bid is Ogust. This leaves 2NT available to ask for a feature.

I don't know if we've ever availed ourselves of the feature option. The other benefit is that it saves bidding space, similar to Kickback. Although I also play Mexican 2♦ with one of these partners, so we have less worry about space.

[Phil]

We sit across the table from one another don't say anything.

Very unusual and it rakes in good results.

[ggwhiz]

We changed our responses to 2nt after a weak 2 to show range plus shape.

3c = dreck 3d = med with shortness (then 3h asks for it) 3h = medium flat 3s = max with shortness (3nt asks for it) and 3nt = max flat.

It breaks even, probably 90% of the time with anything else but the rest have most often worked ie. after my weak 2 and a 3nt response to partners ask catching them with long semi-solid clubs getting us into the slam zone or choosing the best game on some 6-1 fits when pard can guess well that your shortness is opposite their hoped for source of tricks or gamble 3nt when you don't have shortness.

Well, I guess that second one is closer to the break even category but we have a comfort level in choosing the strain. We are always happy with the anti-field contracts that happen until foul splits give us a bottom.

[dustinst22]

Phil, on 2013-April-19, 09:49, said:

We sit across the table from one another don't say anything.

Very unusual and it rakes in good results.

After your suggestion of implementing this, I'm actually pretty surprised how much it's changed things.

[PhilKing]

Phil, on 2013-April-19, 09:49, said:

We sit across the table from one another don't say anything.

Very unusual and it rakes in good results.

It's a common agreement - it's just unusual to stick to it.

[CSGibson]

Mid-chart only agreement, but we had a lot of success with the following:

1M-2C*

2C being either a bad 3 card limit raise for the major (including decent constructive raises up to quacky & unshapely limit raises), a 4-3-3-3 13-15 hand with 3 pieces in the major, or a game force with clubs.

We had extensive agreements as to the follow-ups, but the upshot is that we got to raise 1M to 2M fairly aggressively without being taken too seriously, stay at the 2 level with marginal 3 card limit raises that weren't being accepted, and show extra values by opener at a fairly cheap level when we had the GF with clubs, too. This also came up fairly frequently.

Downsides were pre-alerting the treatment every round & having to listen to opponents discuss defences. Intervention by opponents was a mixed bag which I believe we came out ahead in, because we were able to raise to 2M more aggressively on hands where the opponents were more likely to have values.

[PhilKing]

CSGibson, on 2013-April-19, 12:03, said:

Mid-chart only agreement, but we had a lot of success with the following:

1M-2C*

2C being either a bad 3 card limit raise for the major (including decent constructive raises up to quacky & unshapely limit raises), a 4-3-3-3 13-15 hand with 3 pieces in the major, or a game force with clubs.

I gave this to the Hacketts in 1995. Their need was greater due to their "light" 4CM style, so previously even a 3451 11 count had to raise to 2♠.

[ArtK78]

Mbodell, on 2013-April-18, 01:03, said:

10-12 nt.

There are obviously a lot of impacts to this, and it fits better into a strong club framework IMHO, but I feel like this is a huge overall winner at my level.

+1

Been playing this for years with one partner. Many good results, few bad ones. And some of the bad ones are when we are not content to let the opening bid do the work for us and we try to improve the contract.

By the way, I play the 10-12 1NT in the context of a light-opening but otherwise Standard system.