[jillybean]

I’ve started playing with my 10-13 nt partner again.
Yesterday, I opened several hands 1nt and seemingly wrong sided the contract.
Is this any concern for mini nt players , or just another reason I should focus on my declarer play?

[DavidKok]

Both? Neither?
Playing a mini NT you will wrongside some amount of contracts. This is part of the cost of the method. Conversely, you will gain on other hands, for example when the limiting of your hand early helps partner find the best contract, or when the siding doesn't matter, or when the opponents fail to compete or wrongly compete when they shouldn't.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2024-October-25, 11:43, said:

I’ve started playing with my 10-13 nt partner again.
Yesterday, I opened several hands 1nt and seemingly wrong sided the contract.
Is this any concern for mini nt players , or just another reason I should focus on my declarer play?

My main problem with the Mini NT would be, that most player play it depend on seat / vul..
This increases system complexity.

I would also think, that a common combo like Stayman + xfer does not work well with the Mini.
The combo works for 12-14, and for 15-17, but I doubt it really works for Mini.
If you make a xfer bid you prolong the bidding, the stronger your NT, the less of a concern this
becomes.

If you introduce a different response structure, you increase the system complexity further.

And this brings us to the main question: How many hands do you play with this specific setup?
If it is 20-30 boards a week, it is not worth it.

[jillybean]

We open 1nt 10-13 except 3rd seat Vulnerable and 4th seat (14-17), we don't play transfers and stayman over the mini nt.
I think stayman and transfers are so well ingrained, switching for mini NT is not a big memory load or complexity.

I'm only playing once a week at the moment so the frequency is very low, but I'm playing it because it is fun and makes me think.

Perhaps it was just a bad day, I expect better, Regardless, I do need to work on my Declarer play.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2024-October-25, 12:07, said:

We open 1nt 10-13 except 3rd seat Vulnerable and 4th seat (14-17), we don't play transfers and stayman over the mini nt.
I think stayman and transfers are so well ingrained, switching for mini NT is not a big memory load or complexity.

So you play natural, i.e. 2M after a Mini is sign of.

The problem now are the 1-suited hands with a major.
The Acol approach was to go via Stayman, i.e.

1NT - 2C
2D - 2H / 2S are now inv. hands with 5+

Espesially 2H is dangerous, because it maybe Garbage Stayman, if you happen to have a strong NT, and the 2H bid is not alarm
clock bid.

The thing with add. memory load is, that it adds up, and the single steps are nothing, but it adds up.

Good luck.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: After we switched from strong NT to weak NT, we also reworke our bidding structure after a 1NT rebid.

[akwoo]

1) You'll be playing a bunch of contracts from a different side than the field. You'll lose on some hands and gain on some hands from this. Probably you lose slightly more than you gain in the long run, but we're talking something like gaining on 15% of hands and losing on 16%. The variance is a lot bigger than the difference; you'll also get a day (but very slightly less frequently) where everything is right-sided for you and wrong-sided for the field.

2) Playing a 4 point range, it means that you'll end up in some 24 point 3Ns and 21 point 2Ns. These do tend to test your declarer play.

3) I'm warming up a bit to the complicated system I play over 10-12 1N; most bids either show a strong hand in the suit bid or a weak hand in the next suit up.

[jillybean]

Uew, I don't understand your comment "Especially 2H is dangerous, because it maybe Garbage Stayman" ? In garbage stayman we have passed 1nt openers response.

Akwoo - #3, tell me more.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2024-October-25, 15:44, said:

Akwoo - #3, tell me more.

1N (10-12)

2C - Stayman, could be garbage with any 3 suited hands or both majors

2D - to play 2H, or game forcing primary diamonds, or invitational in spades, or invitational in clubs, or both minors any strength. Opener is required to bid 2H, after which: pass (to play), 2S (invitational in spades), 2N (both minors), 3C (invitational in clubs), 3D (diamond one suiter), 3H (5+D, 4H), 3S (5+D, 4S), 3N (6+D, mildly slam invitational)

2H - to play 2S, or invitational or better in hearts. Opener is required to bid 2S, after which: pass (to play), 2N (invitational in hearts), 3C (5+H, 4C gf), 3D (5+H, 4D gf), 3H (6+H slammish), 3S (5+H, 4S gf), 3N (choice of games, (semi)balanced)

2S - game forcing in spades - 2N is required, after which rebids are natural, 3N is choice of games and 3S is 6+S slammish

2N - to play 3C, or 6+card invitational in another suit - 3C is required, after which: pass (to play), 3D/H/S 6+ in suit and invitational

3C - to play 3D, or gf in clubs

The system didn't specify higher bids, but we do 3D=invitational 5H/5S, 3H/S=splinter, 4C/D South African Texas.

ps - At the last NABC, we had a director call from an opponent who claimed to be misled by us describing 2H as "weak in spades or invitational or better in hearts", arguing that a 10-count wasn't "weak". Director didn't adjust and agreed describing a 10-count as "weak" in that context was fine, but we've started saying "to play 2S or invitational or better in hearts" since it is better disclosure.

[P_Marlowe]

 jillybean, on 2024-October-25, 15:44, said:

Uew, I don't understand your comment "Especially 2H is dangerous, because it maybe Garbage Stayman" ? In garbage stayman we have passed 1nt openers response.

Akwoo - #3, tell me more.

For me garbage Stayman and Crawling Stayman is the same.

The seq. I was refering to

1Nt - 2C
2D - 2H

2H asks opener to pass with longer hearts or bid spades.

[pescetom]

 P_Marlowe, on 2024-October-26, 12:28, said:

For me garbage Stayman and Crawling Stayman is the same.

The seq. I was refering to

1Nt - 2C
2D - 2H

2H asks opener to pass with longer hearts or bid spades.

As I understand the terminology, that is Crawling Stayman (an agreement which looks great on paper, but is actually low frequency and not much better than just transferring, as well as making a pigs ear of higher level agreements).
Garbage Stayman is just being able to bid Stayman with rubbish in the first place (no promise of invitational strength and ready to play in whichever of three suits Opener may bid).

[DavidKok]

Crawling Stayman: After 1NT-2♣; 2♦ you can bid 2♥ to show a weak hand with length in both majors. Either suit may be longer.
Garbage Stayman: After 1NT-2♣; 2♦ you can bid 2M to show a weak hand with length in both majors, your chosen major being longer.

I think the implied risk is that partner may think you have an invitational(+) hand if you play different agreements over different NT ranges.

[jillybean]

So, there's a third - drop dead stayman
1nt - 2C I'm going to pass anything you bid

[mikeh]

Jb. I think playing mini notrump vulnerable is extremely unwise.

It’s bad, imo, at imps but even worse at mps. If you go down 1 and they could reach and make 1N had your passed, you’ve given them a very good board. It’s worse if you go down 200 in 1N or where you end up when your moderately blessed partner has some shape.

Plus, if the double and catch you speeding, -500 is almost always a disaster unless they could bid and make a vulnerable game Vulnerability matters!

I play 10-13…I’m playing it now in a WC….but we only do it nv. The idea of doing it vul makes me feel ill. Now, the truth is that at the club level, you’ll probably do fine. Most club players defend worse than they declare and many have no real understanding of how to bid over a mini-notrump, I’ve seen many pairs decide that a double of a 10-13 1N starts at 13 hcp…while that works sometimes, I’m always encouraged when I hear that….most who think that’s a good idea aren’t very good bidders or players so we pick up good results when we shouldn’t. But I still think that any player who wants to improve should avoid methods that ‘work’ mostly only against bad players.

Also, against good players, there’s another subtle risk….when you pass and later show up with 8-9 hcp, declarer knows where any missing queen lies. The preemptive value nv outweighs this (imo) but it’s a non-trivial issue. Indeed, Rodwell said that was a major reason he and Meckstroth abandoned the mini notrump, even nv, years ago.

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2024-October-26, 20:04, said:

Jb. I think playing mini notrump vulnerable is extremely unwise.

Mikeh is probably right as a good pair/team in a good field but meh. Against all but the strongest players you can frequently set up 6 tricks before they realize that +100 isn't a good score. At MPs, it's vital to realize what your "real contract" is.

The hand that sold me on playing 10-12 was when we were vul vs nv, down 4. We got a top for -400 as the field was playing 3N with an overtrick the other way. Opps had about 13 each, both shapeless, and couldn't come in. Of course that was quite lucky but gains like that offset a lot of the losses.

In an open NABC event any partnership I'm in (unless I hire someone, and maybe even then) is going to need a bit of luck just to make it to the second day; I'm happy to trade a bit of expectation for a lot of variance. In any other event I can count on the opps not knowing what they're doing against it.

[mycroft]

I played 10-12 NV, 1,2,3 in my Precision partnership for 5 years, from the club to National events. I also play it (all seats, all vuls) when I play EHAA. It's one of the things that makes every hand an adventure - I wouldn't say it's always a *fun* part of the adventure, vulnerable...

I liked it, it put pressure on the opponents, even when they were good; they guessed wrong playing over it , and sometimes guessed right, too.

What I didn't like about it was the pressure it put on our system, especially the 1♦ opener. It was really nice to have 1♣ be minimum 17 if balanced; having to put some good balanced 16s in there (and the rest into a "10-15" amorphous 1♦ call) was not fun. Never mind the "13-okay 16' 1NT rebid, which was really ugly!

One of the things that 10-12 really had going for it in the old days was that 60+% of those hands were being *passed* by the rest of the room. Forcing these opponents to start at the 2 level was a massive advantage. But now almost everyone is opening all the 12s and many of the 11s, and some are even opening flat 10 counts NV; you get all the disadvantages of 1NT and all the pain to the rest of the system, without the "get the first shot in" advantage. You'd think the fix to that is to move the 1NT range down to where "nobody's opening this" again. We all know the problem with that, anywhere we're likely to play...

And the real joy of "1NT-1, 10's around the table, most of the room is passing this one out" was - well, not exactly common, but not a surprise, either.

Starting to play Precision again, and we're playing 14-16 throughout.

[akwoo]

mycroft, on 2024-October-26, 22:04, said:

What I didn't like about it was the pressure it put on our system, especially the 1♦ opener. It was really nice to have 1♣ be minimum 17 if balanced; having to put some good balanced 16s in there (and the rest into a "10-15" amorphous 1♦ call) was not fun. Never mind the "13-okay 16' 1NT rebid, which was really ugly!

We play 1♣ includes all 16 balanced and require 9 (or 2 aces or something exceptional to upgrade) for a positive. It's actually fine if opps don't jump in, though you do need something artificial for your notrump ladder (e.g. 1♣-1♦-1♥ Kokish, which gives up some useful artificial heart raises). The place where it really hurts is when it goes 1♣-(2♦) and you don't have a positive - putting the 5 counts in with the X (so it shows 5-8 or some awkward stronger hands) makes the X too wide, and putting the 5 counts in with the P makes the P too wide (and splitting it makes both of them too wide).

An alternative is to play 10-13; that forces responder to invite with most 12s and you end up playing a lot of 24 hcp 3N and 22 hcp 2N. This is fine if you've managed to amass 15K masterpoints while always bidding like a maniac, but if you're a mortal like the rest of us...

This being said, playing 10-12 in a Precision context has a lot of the advantages of playing 12-14 in a standard context; your 1D openings are sounder on average and hence responder is better placed after an overcall, particularly a preemptive overcall, and better placed after balancing actions when you land in 2M.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2024-October-26, 16:21, said:

So, there's a third - drop dead stayman
1nt - 2C I'm going to pass anything you bid

No, this is not a different version. This is included in any form of Stayman you play 'for free', unless opener may also rebid 2NT or up.

I've played a bunch of 9-12 and 10-13 NT though only NV, and then 9-14 in third because of the negative inferences. I have my own opinion on the NT ladder but the topic tends to get too heated too quickly.

[Cyberyeti]

I played 10-15 1,2 14-19 3,4 with a VERY non standard set of responses and found it a big winner at both pairs and teams.

The comment about playing 21 count 2Ns and 24 count 3Ns is balanced by the occasions where dummy decks with 8 or 9 and the defence don't know if they're trying to beat this or prevent the second overtrick.

[mike777]

EHAA!!!

I love it
First system I ever learned.
Everyone at the local student club played it. I thought it was the one and only real system that existed when I first played bridge.
Thanks for posting about it.
😊 😊 😊

[mycroft]

I taught a "Calgary Standard Precision" course to a few people as a Mentoring one year.

I suggested, to people who have never played a strong club before, Kit's idea that 1NT is 15-17. No "need to remember to upstrength a point", no "remembering to announce differently", no "I have 9. Is this a "14 vs 9" that the room is in 1NT, or a "16 vs 9" that the room is 1-2-3ing, or a 15 vs 9 that the room will be in 2? And should I invite?"

And, it had the advantage of taking even the 17 balanced out of 1♣, which isn't a bad thing. It did mean that you had to keep your amorphous 1♦ up to strength (upgrading 11s into 12 if balanced), but that's also not a bad thing (for new people to the catchall 1♦).

One person (the other pair in Calgary that plays 12-14 by choice) asked if you could do weak NT in Precision. I said "yes, but I would suggest 11-13 instead of 12-14, and put the 14-16 into 1♦-then-1NT. Yes, you have to adjust your ranges, but since you're already doing that...

For me, the advantage of Precision is the small, clearly defined ranges; doing something with flat 10s besides pass invariably opens up a problem with the "4-point NT". Somewhere. Is it worth it? Sure, it's the hand that the room is (mostly) passing still, and that is a definite advantage; but it's the most dangerous hand to have (for no other reason than -100 into a room full of passes, but there are others), as well as that headache. And it's also only 30-40% of 1NT openers - the rest are being opened by the room too.

I would argue with you over the least-bad place to put the 4-point NT, but IMO that's 90+% "feel and comfort" rather than technical superiority. I loved (and still love) not having the flat 16s in 1♣, and prefer to put my pain elsewhere.