1m-2m-2m+1 is weak NT. Has anyone played this? Is it any good? Gains/Losses?
edit: oops, I mistyped the thread title, sorry everyone
Page 1 of 1
nmf variation
#1
Posted 2007-December-25, 05:17
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
George Carlin
George Carlin
#2
Posted 2007-December-25, 05:34
gwnn, on Dec 25 2007, 05:17 AM, said:
1m-2m-2m+1 is weak NT. Has anyone played this? Is it any good? Gains/Losses?
edit: oops, I mistyped the thread title, sorry everyone
edit: oops, I mistyped the thread title, sorry everyone
It is very reasonable to play some kind of system over inverted minors. Having a bid for weak NT's is a good start.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#3
Posted 2007-December-25, 05:54
nmf is not inverted minors 
But agree with arend, anything helps. I play exactly the opposite, 2m+1 is whatever but weak NT. Actually whatever with 14+ (GF)

But agree with arend, anything helps. I play exactly the opposite, 2m+1 is whatever but weak NT. Actually whatever with 14+ (GF)
#4
Posted 2007-December-25, 10:28
Justin has a nice inverted minors structure on his blog. Not as good as what we play of course
.

Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#5
Posted 2007-December-26, 05:16
I've played 2m+1 as ANY minimum, and it works out ok for most hands.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#6
Posted 2007-December-26, 09:06
Justin's discussion of 1m-2m follow-ups, which includes a summary of advantages and disadvantages, is at http://squeezingthed...arch?q=inverted
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
#7
Posted 2007-December-26, 14:27
Also, look up Fred's own suggestions for a 2/1 base. I'm a bit lazy at the moment to do the search, but I have it saved on my hard drive.
I play a slightly different variant with Phil and yet another slightly different variant with Jason.
I play a slightly different variant with Phil and yet another slightly different variant with Jason.
"Half the people you know are below average." - Steven Wright
#8
Posted 2007-December-27, 07:28
gwnn, on Dec 25 2007, 12:17 PM, said:
1m-2m-2m+1 is weak NT. Has anyone played this? Is it any good? Gains/Losses?
edit: oops, I mistyped the thread title, sorry everyone
edit: oops, I mistyped the thread title, sorry everyone
If you play strong NT and inverted raises as INV+ values, I think it's important to play some form of methods. I really hate the 'standard' approach where 2M shows a stop and 2NT is a weak NT, because i) responder cannot invite opposite a weak NT and ii) opener has not had a chance to describe their hand with the first rebid, even to the extent of whether they have natural clubs or not.
In one partnership I play 1C - 2C - 2D and 1D - 2D - 2H as 12-14 or 18-19 balanced.
1C - 2C -
....2D = balanced
....2H/2S = 5 clubs, 4 cards in bid major any range (then 2NT/3m NF others GF)
....2NT = diamonds, reversing values
....3C = min NF (either 6+ clubs or 5/4 clubs & diamonds)
....3D/H/S splinter
1C - 2C - 2D -
....2H = FG relay
....2S/3D/3H = singleton, club slam try
....2NT = nat NF opposite 12-14
....3C = nat NF
In a different partnership I play similarly, but not quite the same:
1C - 2C
.....2D = 12-14 balanced or diamonds
.....2H = hearts, reversing values
.....2S = spades, reversing values
....2NT = 18-19 bal
....3C = min NF
etc
The difference is that the second partnership always responds 1major with a 4-card major, the first can make an inverted raise with a 4-card major on the side, although if so they have game forcing values.
#9
Posted 2007-December-27, 07:43
We play a fair bit of system, much of it from Garozzo's Ambra system. All of our notrump hands are in the 1♣ opener, so 1♦ is always unbalanced and the continuations are fairly normal (in that context).
1♣ - 2♣
2♦ = 11-13 balanced, or clubs+diamonds, or minimum with clubs
2♥ = 4+ hearts, 5+ clubs, any range
2♠ = 4+ spades, 5+ clubs, any range
2NT = 17-19 balanced
3♣ = non-minimum clubs, no shortage, FG
3X = splinter
1♣ -2♣
2♦
2♥ = relay, slam interest
2♠ = relay, game interest
2NT = natural, invitational
3♣ = natural, invitational
1♣ -2♣
2♦ - 2♥
2♠ = clubs and diamonds, non-minimum
2NT = 11-13 balanced
3♣ = minimum with clubs
3♦ = clubs and diamonds, min
1♣ -2♣
2♦ - 2♠
2NT = 11-13 balanced
3♣ = minimum with clubs
3♦ = clubs and diamonds
Paul
1♣ - 2♣
2♦ = 11-13 balanced, or clubs+diamonds, or minimum with clubs
2♥ = 4+ hearts, 5+ clubs, any range
2♠ = 4+ spades, 5+ clubs, any range
2NT = 17-19 balanced
3♣ = non-minimum clubs, no shortage, FG
3X = splinter
1♣ -2♣
2♦
2♥ = relay, slam interest
2♠ = relay, game interest
2NT = natural, invitational
3♣ = natural, invitational
1♣ -2♣
2♦ - 2♥
2♠ = clubs and diamonds, non-minimum
2NT = 11-13 balanced
3♣ = minimum with clubs
3♦ = clubs and diamonds, min
1♣ -2♣
2♦ - 2♠
2NT = 11-13 balanced
3♣ = minimum with clubs
3♦ = clubs and diamonds
Paul
Page 1 of 1