[Douglas43]

jillybean, on 2022-July-06, 20:19, said:

If I held it, it's a good 10 . 5+5+QT98x

That's a 2♣ response for me too. Even with the "bad 10" agreement. Either opener has 5+ diamonds, in which case you can pass a 2♦ rebid, or 15+ points. I'd suggest drop the "bad 10".

[mikeh]

sfi, on 2022-July-06, 16:20, said:

The only time I've played 12-14 NT seriously was in a Precision(ish) system, where 1D was either diamonds or a strong NT. We would bid 1H/S on a three-card suit with those hands that would invite over a strong NT. Our worst case scenario was where partner had an unbalanced hand with diamonds and the major, where we could wind up in 3M after the response. Not sure it's all that theoretically sound but it worked for us.

It really looks like you should be able to bid 2C on the hand you gave above. I have doubts about whether it's workable to keep 1D-2C as game-forcing when playing a weak NT, even if you're playing 2/1 game forcing after a 1M opening.

One solution, perhaps unsuitable for this part of the fora, is to open 1C with all balanced hands lacking 5 diamonds and out of range for 1N

That’s the style I play in my most detailed partnership. Now responder can raise to 2C, if playing inverted, and opener has an easy 2N, showing a strong notrump.

Sounds complicated, I know. But every bidding method has hands with which it struggles….the reason most expert pairs play very complex methods is that the complexity allows them to reduce the number of ‘unbiddable’ hands.

The more (coherent) agreements one has, the fewer gaps there are.

But if it’s unrealistic to play such methods (and it is for the vast majority of players) then one has to accept the occasional bad result. While playing 1D 2C as not gf is doable (heck it used to be standard and still is in some parts of the world), that causes different but arguably worse problems.

[thepossum]

P_Marlowe, on 2022-July-06, 13:04, said:

24-25HCP give you a statistical chance of 40% for making 3NT.
Now, how often will 1NT contain a max., how often you will go down.
If you go down twice than you are making, it is at best wash, actually it is - EV.
Game can be made on less, but you need compensation, if you bid those games, you hope
partner is not dead min, and if he is, this is not the end of the world.
Here you need partner to have max.
Besides, lots of weak NT player, like to upgrade good 14 counts, this means your expectations
of having 23+ HCP goes down.

But in the end, if you care more about NOT missing a game, go ahead.
With kind regards
Marlowe

EDIT Before reading the rest I did say to invite with 2NT and give responder the option - I accept it should be with max rather than passing with min. Depends on what point ranges they work on. I accept maybe you picked up on possible 23+ but I work on 24+ (9 or 10 pts)

I don't miss many (in the sense of bidding them accurately) -if anything I find I err on the conservative side and miss some makeable ones:) - but its not just the individual performance - its all about comparison with others _ tend to be less obsessed with games and am happy with part scores by comparison with many. I couldn't tell you my stats but I do ok in the circles in which I play. PS I didn't say 23+. I said 24+ I reckon the 50% guide for bidding game in duplicate could easily be reduced to 40% in some circles. As for min and max I am expecting that me and my partner can add up our total to within a point or so most of the time. But for some reason I always worked on 24-25 and was surprised to find I needed more points

I am wishing often that I could play Precision which appears to have an intermediate NT option

PS Sorry I didn't read your post properly. I suggested a 2NT rebid giving responder the chance to decide whether they had min or max. That adds up to game does it not? - depending on what the 1NT response means (I also expressed that confusion)

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2022-July-06, 20:19, said:

If I held it, it's a good 10 . 5+5+QT98x

K&R gives it more than 11 that is where your problem is

[DavidKok]

I guess I'm out of line here, but I feel like sharing my thoughts anyway.

Mikeh's suggestion of opening 1♣ more often is exactly the solution to the problem. The level of detail and complication of the followup system are up to you - it really can be as simple as (for example) "1♦ can be 3 on 3=3=3=4 or (32)=3=5 with soft clubs only", although of course far more complicated schemes exist.

By contrast, the suggestion of overloading 1♦-2♣ by introducing many 10+ hands, and then quibbling about what is or is not a 'good 10', sounds to me like turning the clock back by half a century. That particular auction is one of the worst auctions in natural systems, and personally I'd recommend playing artificial continuations just to make up for lost ground. Compared to mikeh's suggestion this 1♦ has more hand types (strong NT) and 2♣ has more hand types (non-GF with 5+ clubs, may be balanced). I don't see how you could ever hope to recover, not without a system more complicated than I'd be willing to play.

And sure, your partner made a conservative choice with 1NT, but this is also a systemic weak point. You go low or you go high, and sometimes you guess wrong. I think this is just resulting (especially when someone brings in K&R - or can you consult that at the table?), all systems have weaknesses and intermediate hands with some clubs over a 1♦ opening is one that has been discussed for decades.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2022-July-07, 03:09, said:

I guess I'm out of line here, but I feel like sharing my thoughts anyway.

Mikeh's suggestion of opening 1♣ more often is exactly the solution to the problem. The level of detail and complication of the followup system are up to you - it really can be as simple as (for example) "1♦ can be 3 on 3=3=3=4 or (32)=3=5 with soft clubs only", although of course far more complicated schemes exist.

By contrast, the suggestion of overloading 1♦-2♣ by introducing many 10+ hands, and then quibbling about what is or is not a 'good 10', sounds to me like turning the clock back by half a century. That particular auction is one of the worst auctions in natural systems, and personally I'd recommend playing artificial continuations just to make up for lost ground. Compared to mikeh's suggestion this 1♦ has more hand types (strong NT) and 2♣ has more hand types (non-GF with 5+ clubs, may be balanced). I don't see how you could ever hope to recover, not without a system more complicated than I'd be willing to play.

And sure, your partner made a conservative choice with 1NT, but this is also a systemic weak point. You go low or you go high, and sometimes you guess wrong. I think this is just resulting (especially when someone brings in K&R - or can you consult that at the table?), all systems have weaknesses and intermediate hands with some clubs over a 1♦ opening is one that has been discussed for decades.

All the systems that don't play 2/1 GF should bid 2♣ on this, you are not overloading 2♣ with this hand particularly where in a weak NT context you have a GF 2N available (most people play it 15-19 bal, we just play it GF not necessarily balanced).

[Stephen Tu]

DavidKok, on 2022-July-07, 03:09, said:

I guess I'm out of line here, but I feel like sharing my thoughts anyway.

Mikeh's suggestion of opening 1♣ more often is exactly the solution to the problem. The level of detail and complication of the followup system are up to you - it really can be as simple as (for example) "1♦ can be 3 on

Although opening 1c on all 15-17 balanced solves *this* issue, it's not like totally for free. If you are going to be opening 1c regardless of minor held, it's going to be harder to compete successfully in either minor when partner has the strong NT when the opponents stick in their major; it's analogous to the problem precision pairs have over the nebulous 1d. It also complicates finding minor slams when partner has the strong NT.

Meanwhile, the 1d-1nt auction is *very rare*. Partner has a 4 cd major, or LHO competes, *A LOT*. So you have to make a calculation whether you think this problem auction comes up often enough (plus any edges you think you gain from having 1d promise unbalanced, or from say transfer Walsh auctions) that it is worth taking on the other issues.

[mycroft]

Your title was "...or simply improve hand evaluation?"

I know we covered the rest of the title - you can switch to strong NT if you feel it will help; given the bridge population, it is likely that you and your partner will at least have better hand evaluation, and access to more solid advice, in the "what we all learned" system than something fringe, never mind the "the awful K/S hands are awful - and they're all or nothing because we're the only ones in this situation".

But if you play K/S, you are playing sound minor openings. Maybe with the "overstrength weak 2" added (but that's not an issue, it doesn't pass 1 or 2NT). If your, or your partner's, evaluation of that hand is "opposite partner's strong NT opener, I want to play 1NT"; I don't think switching to strong NT will help. If your, or your partner's, immediate visualization of partner's hand is "random 12-count", that's a basic lack of understanding of the basics of K/S, and maybe it's time for a review (NB: K & S's actual book works much better here for understanding than the KSU summary I posted earlier. Unfortunately, you have to deal with the fact that the people K & S were talking to were Goren players, not modern "ACBL's Correct Bidding Lessons" players. Note also that this "failure to internalize how K/S works" is a standard issue I've found when people ask me to help them with weak NT - even serious flight A players. Too much evaluation goes on subconsciously before it gets to "wait, things are different here"). If your, or your partner's, understanding of your system doesn't include "when it goes 1♦-1NT, partner is going to pass with all but the strongest strong NTs" and therefore this hand isn't a 1NT response (whatever response it is), then that's a flaw in partnership understanding of how K/S works, and, well, "good judgement comes from experience. experience comes from bad judgement."

You showed the hand with a sentence of "I guess I have to shrug and smile at the missed games". You should never miss this game, and if a lot of the "missed games" are like this, then that's not a fault of the system (well, okay, I'd rather have "good 9s" in 2NT than "bad 10s" in 1NT. I think that your explanation of your system triggered my "they play it, but they don't truly understand it yet"), it's an evaluation issue. Yes, what to do with the "good 8, decent 9" that would invite opposite a strong NT but your system doesn't have a bid for will bite you occasionally (and will pay you back when the limit is 7 tricks and you're +90 into -100). That's why real K/S doesn't do that, they put those hands into 1♦-2♣. Which causes its own issues.

Yes, putting all the balanced hands into 1♣ solves a lot of these issues; as always, it causes others. And if your partnership has this level of "haven't internalized the system" already, adding more isn't going to help.

[jillybean]

We don't play K/S, this hand is not a gf 2♣ for us. Regardless of the advantage and fun we'd have playing Mike's 1♣ approach, we aren't going to change the system to that extent, for now anyway. I think the best we can do is stretch to bid an invitational 2nt after an 1♦ opening. When I said South's hand was a "good 10" for me, it is worth a 2nt invite, closer to a gf than a nf 1nt. My partner didn't see it that way. Other calls will be closer, we aren't going to get them all right.