[Mbodell]

fromageGB, on 2015-February-19, 03:37, said:

On the contrary, as opening 1NT is bad for natural systems. Playing matchpoints it is vital to get to the major part-scores when there are any, and only then if not, play in NT. If you open 1NT, partner is pre-empted and will not be able to speak unless he is at least invitational. Conversely, opening a minor enables a weakish partner to speak, and then you can play in a major.

Strongly disagree. Even at matchpoints, playing both weak and strong NT, we score seriously better on hands where we open 1nt (no matter which range).

[rhm]

yunling, on 2015-February-19, 21:53, said:

If you put a lot of hands into the evaluator, you will find that binky-hcp.suit can never be lower than binky-hcp.nt, thus "every hand values more in suit than NT", which is clearly not the way we play everyday.

Put into the evaluator ♠QJx, ♥QJx, ♦QJx ♣QJxx

and you get

binky-hcp.suit: 9.6
binky-hcp.nt: 11.0

So your claim is not correct, though most hands value slightly more in binky-hcp.suit. Major reason is that distribution counts much more at trump contracts.

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

Mbodell, on 2015-February-20, 02:27, said:

Strongly disagree. Even at matchpoints, playing both weak and strong NT, we score seriously better on hands where we open 1nt (no matter which range).

All I can go by is logic, and my experience. I find I score better opening 1♣ and using transfers. Being a level lower you have more room to show hand types, and by playing in a field where generally I open 1♣ when others open 1NT, I do see frequent comparisons.

Zelandakh, on 2015-February-19, 05:01, said:

There is a bit of swings and roundabouts about it. Opening 1NT makes it harder for us to find 4-4 major fits on marginal hands but easier to find 3-5 fits and harder for the opps to find their fit. Conversely a 1m opening is great for our 4-4 fits but also makes it a lot easier for them to compete, which they will at MP. I would much sooner be playing a 3 (or 4) weak NT range than a 2 point strong NT as the latter puts too much pressure on the rest of the system (yes I am aware a weak NT has other issues and also adds pressure on the system in comparison to a 3 point strong NT).

I agree with swings and roundabouts, but 3-5 fits are just as easy opening 1♣. While opponents compete more over 1♣ than 1NT, that does little to interfere with showing majors. A second seat jump overcall interferes, but now you are in no worse a position than having opened 1NT. A 2 point strong NT means you need to distinguish between 17/18 and 19, but I can't see other obvious pressures. It's a question of taste/style, whatever. Perhaps some perceived benefits of opening 1NT are because people have spent a long time discussing continuations, and have not put the same effort into agreeing continuations after 1♣.

[jogs]

yunling, on 2015-February-19, 23:10, said:

It's not quite exact——to be more precise, it's something like KQxx=4.6 and Axx=4.4, but we can't be so exact during the play——but it is not "clearly wrong" either.
Even in NT, A is undervalued and touching honors is always a negative.
Besides, opening 1NT does not mean that you belong to NT contracts. You need a mixed strategy for both NT and suit contracts.

What's the standard deviation for those numbers? Isn't it at least 2 or 3?

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2015-February-20, 08:46, said:

I agree with swings and roundabouts, but 3-5 fits are just as easy opening 1♣. While opponents compete more over 1♣ than 1NT, that does little to interfere with showing majors.

I hold a weak hand with a 5 card major. Partner opens 1♣ and I respond in my major. Partner now makes a simple rebid (1NT, 1♠, 2♣) and I have to decide whether to rebid my major or not. I suggest to you that playing a standard US/UK style the answer is no in all cases. On the other hand, if partner opens 1NT we will transfer to our major almost 100% of the time. So I disagree that we find the same 5-3 fits after 1♣ as after 1NT. It is just the way natural systems work - transfer Walsh can obviously make a difference here of course.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2015-February-20, 09:27, said:

...transfer Walsh can obviously make a difference here of course.

Of course. It seems strange to me that people seem reluctant to play it, but not many are willing to experiment, and always play the way they were taught - and twalsh is not in the curriculum. Some, locally, are tentatively trying a very basic Montreal "1M response shows a 5 card major", but go no further.

What really gets me is that while the vast majority are happy with transfers over a (weak) 1NT (because they were taught that way), they don't see that if you open 1♣ on the same hand, the benefits of transfers are just as valid, and because you are a whole level lower you can do it with a card fewer.

Edit : or one card less

This post has been edited by fromageGB: 2015-February-20, 09:49

[Mbodell]

fromageGB, on 2015-February-20, 09:45, said:

Of course. It seems strange to me that people seem reluctant to play it

I think the fact that you can't play it (t-walsh) in GCC events is a reason many are reluctant to play it. If it were GCC legal, I think you'd see many more play it.

[fromageGB]

Mbodell, on 2015-February-21, 01:02, said:

I think the fact that you can't play it (t-walsh) in GCC events is a reason many are reluctant to play it. If it were GCC legal, I think you'd see many more play it.

Except that over here we have EBU regulations, and while it is not permitted in specifically newcomer/novice-only events (designated "level 2") it is permitted at ordinary club nights and any normal event (level 4 and now-defunct former level 3). Hence my bafflement. My guess would be less than 1% play it round here.

[suokko]

Problem with T-walsh is that there isn't any single standard rebid structure. Every pair seem to invent their own continues. That kind of missing standard rebid structure makes a huge barrier that most bridge players can't cross.

[yunling]

rhm, on 2015-February-20, 05:09, said:

Put into the evaluator ♠QJx, ♥QJx, ♦QJx ♣QJxx

and you get

binky-hcp.suit: 9.6
binky-hcp.nt: 11.0

So your claim is not correct, though most hands value slightly more in binky-hcp.suit. Major reason is that distribution counts much more at trump contracts.

Rainer Herrmann

Yes, I'm wrong here. Some hands can take more tricks in NT than in any suit contract.
But I'm still not convinced that a combined 25 binky-hcp.suit and an 8-card fit can make a game.

[NickRW]

suokko, on 2015-February-21, 13:11, said:

Problem with T-walsh is that there isn't any single standard rebid structure. Every pair seem to invent their own continues. That kind of missing standard rebid structure makes a huge barrier that most bridge players can't cross.

Yes, it is true that there is a bewildering array of rebid structures some of which require a book of explanation. However, you can start with absurdly simple ones and show a gain compared to normal methods. So it is easy to experiment with (assuming you don't live in nutty GCC land anyway).

Nick

[jogs]

yunling, on 2015-February-23, 04:18, said:

Yes, I'm wrong here. Some hands can take more tricks in NT than in any suit contract.

Very few hands fit that description. Usually means opponents are cross ruffing.

Quote

But I'm still not convinced that a combined 25 binky-hcp.suit and an 8-card fit can make a game.

Don't know about binky points. A 8-card fit plays one trick(on average) better than notrumps when the SST is 4 or less.
The 8-card fit one-half a trick better when SST is 5. That assumes the expected tricks is between 7 and 10 1/2.