[shugart24]

I will describe my partnership agreement and would like to hear suggestions to improve or change what we are doing.

1) We only play Match point scoring
2) We open 1NT with 10-13 HCP except in 3rd or 4th seat red where we open 13-15
3) Shape is almost always any 5332, 4333, or 4432 hand
4) We occasionally will open 5422 if long suits are the minors but no discipline here - white-red, where the HCP are located...more gut feel whether to open 1NT or not
5) if partner is a passed hand, we increase the HCP range by 1...eg. 10-14 and 12-15
6) Our escapes are solid

[DavidKok]

I really like your post. I think it's great to ask for open feedback, so that you may pick and choose which advice (if any) you might want to implement. Below I'll share some of my own thoughts, hopefully without going into so much detail that it becomes a wall of text.

Your agreements look solid to me. Below I will give multiple points that I would consider changing, but this shouldn't overshadow the fact that your agreements are already good. Please keep that in mind while reading.

Personally I have spent a lot of time thinking and reading about notrump ladders before deciding on a style I prefer. My apologies if my comments are too much all at once as a result.
I like the strong notrump - in particular, the 14-16 range. If I'm not mistaken you play Precision, this neatly allows for the ladder of 11-13, 14-16, 17-19, 20-21, 22-23, 24+. The strong notrump has several advantages over the weak and Kamikaze notrump, while also having a number of disadvantages. Some of the main advantages, in no particular order, are:

• It works together well with 2/1 GF with a semiforcing 1NT response. Opener has at most a 13-count (or, in standard, 17+) with a balanced hand in a 1-suit opening and is therefore not stuck for a rebid over a semiforcing (can be up to 11, or even a soft 12-count) 1NT response. If you are playing a weaker NT then after a 1-of-a-suit opening the opener can be in an awkward spot holding approximately 14-16 hcp - 1NT might be last making contract, but game might also be cold. In particular, I also play a semiforcing 1NT in response to a 1♦ opening, often getting to play 1NT or 2m when other pairs are a level higher while also having good game-going agreements after this opening.
  
• After an opening bid of 1-of-a-suit, if opener has extra's, they are not balanced (this is especially pronounced in limited opening systems, such as Precision). This means that, on competitive auctions, the 'two-bid hands' that are not yet done describing normally have a natural second bid. In return, this means responder can readily pass with some soft 11- or 10-counts in competition, secure in the knowledge that opener will keep the auction open with any maximum (which must therefore be unbalanced) or that it's a huge misfit. The strong NT therefore gives advantages in competition on the 1-suit openings.
  
• 14-16 is, of course, considerably more frequent than 15-17. It also enables a nice ladder where we open 'all' balanced 11-counts without including a 4-point range. Combining this with systems where the 17-19 NT can be shown at the 1-level (Strong Club, T-Walsh, DD, etc.) covers most of the downsides of stretching the 18-19 range to 17-19 while granting several upsides.
  
• Playing a strong notrump finds more 8cM fits, which is especially relevant at MP. Taking the Kamikaze (10-13) NT for example, the average HCP count opposite that opening is 9.6 - not enough for 2NT to be safe. Therefore responder can frequently not afford to probe for a 4cM fit with Stayman or other tools. In fact, if I say that I'm willing to risk it with 11 HCP (which I think is debatable) that's around 39% of hands. Meanwhile over the strong balanced hands that open 1♦ instead we find our 4-4 major fits without issues. Now change this to a strong (14-16) notrump, responder's average hcp is 8.4 - enough for 2NT. Assuming we are willing to risk it with 8 hcp (a similar risk to before), that's 58% of responding hands.

As always I find the second point, dealing with competitive auctions, most compelling. But the rest also contributes somewhat.
At the same time there are downsides. Having to open 1♦ rather than 1NT with (say) 11-counts isn't nearly as preemptive, and my ladder no longer permits opening balanced 10-counts. It also means the nebulous 1♦ is significantly less natural, as the weak balanced hand is simply much more frequent than the strong one. Personally I think the benefits outweigh the costs, though.

Some other, smaller, points unrelated to the above:

• If you play a 10-13 NT in first seat I would play a 10-15 NT in third seat. If I understand correctly this is legal under ACBL rules even at the Basic level ("A Natural NT opening bid, as long as it shows at least 10 HCP and the Range is not
  greater than 5 HCP." - or is 10-15 a six point range as it includes 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15?). You won't miss (m)any games as first seat is limited to 9 balanced or 10 unbalanced, and the unbalanced hands likely have a bid over the NT opening. In the Netherlands I have played 9-12 in first seat and 9-16 in third, using the same logic.
  
• It is currently fashionable to include more semibalanced hands in the 1NT opening. This is something you have to decide for yourself. The Precision Nebulous 1♦ is such a bad opening that it becomes more attractive to put more hands in 1NT, e.g. (42)=2=5, which are otherwise difficult to show. Even if you don't want to do this systemically I would suggest making it systemically permissible and letting it depend on e.g. concentration of values or potential rebid issues.
  
• It sounds to me like you put 16 balanced in 1♣. I think this is a poor idea for multiple reasons, and would recommend moving this out of the strong opening.

[shugart24]

DavidKok, on 2025-November-11, 11:07, said:

I really like your post. I think it's great to ask for open feedback, so that you may pick and choose which advice (if any) you might want to implement. Below I'll share some of my own thoughts, hopefully without going into so much detail that it becomes a wall of text.

Your agreements look solid to me. Below I will give multiple points that I would consider changing, but this shouldn't overshadow the fact that your agreements are already good. Please keep that in mind while reading.

Personally I have spent a lot of time thinking and reading about notrump ladders before deciding on a style I prefer. My apologies if my comments are too much all at once as a result.
I like the strong notrump - in particular, the 14-16 range. If I'm not mistaken you play Precision, this neatly allows for the ladder of 11-13, 14-16, 17-19, 20-21, 22-23, 24+. The strong notrump has several advantages over the weak and Kamikaze notrump, while also having a number of disadvantages. Some of the main advantages, in no particular order, are:

• It works together well with 2/1 GF with a semiforcing 1NT response. Opener has at most a 13-count (or, in standard, 17+) with a balanced hand in a 1-suit opening and is therefore not stuck for a rebid over a semiforcing (can be up to 11, or even a soft 12-count) 1NT response. If you are playing a weaker NT then after a 1-of-a-suit opening the opener can be in an awkward spot holding approximately 14-16 hcp - 1NT might be last making contract, but game might also be cold. In particular, I also play a semiforcing 1NT in response to a 1♦ opening, often getting to play 1NT or 2m when other pairs are a level higher while also having good game-going agreements after this opening.
  
• After an opening bid of 1-of-a-suit, if opener has extra's, they are not balanced (this is especially pronounced in limited opening systems, such as Precision). This means that, on competitive auctions, the 'two-bid hands' that are not yet done describing normally have a natural second bid. In return, this means responder can readily pass with some soft 11- or 10-counts in competition, secure in the knowledge that opener will keep the auction open with any maximum (which must therefore be unbalanced) or that it's a huge misfit. The strong NT therefore gives advantages in competition on the 1-suit openings.
  
• 14-16 is, of course, considerably more frequent than 15-17. It also enables a nice ladder where we open 'all' balanced 11-counts without including a 4-point range. Combining this with systems where the 17-19 NT can be shown at the 1-level (Strong Club, T-Walsh, DD, etc.) covers most of the downsides of stretching the 18-19 range to 17-19 while granting several upsides.
  
• Playing a strong notrump finds more 8cM fits, which is especially relevant at MP. Taking the Kamikaze (10-13) NT for example, the average HCP count opposite that opening is 9.6 - not enough for 2NT to be safe. Therefore responder can frequently not afford to probe for a 4cM fit with Stayman or other tools. In fact, if I say that I'm willing to risk it with 11 HCP (which I think is debatable) that's around 39% of hands. Meanwhile over the strong balanced hands that open 1♦ instead we find our 4-4 major fits without issues. Now change this to a strong (14-16) notrump, responder's average hcp is 8.4 - enough for 2NT. Assuming we are willing to risk it with 8 hcp (a similar risk to before), that's 58% of responding hands.

As always I find the second point, dealing with competitive auctions, most compelling. But the rest also contributes somewhat.
At the same time there are downsides. Having to open 1♦ rather than 1NT with (say) 11-counts isn't nearly as preemptive, and my ladder no longer permits opening balanced 10-counts. It also means the nebulous 1♦ is significantly less natural, as the weak balanced hand is simply much more frequent than the strong one. Personally I think the benefits outweigh the costs, though.

Some other, smaller, points unrelated to the above:

• If you play a 10-13 NT in first seat I would play a 10-15 NT in third seat. If I understand correctly this is legal under ACBL rules even at the Basic level ("A Natural NT opening bid, as long as it shows at least 10 HCP and the Range is not
  greater than 5 HCP." - or is 10-15 a six point range as it includes 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15?). You won't miss (m)any games as first seat is limited to 9 balanced or 10 unbalanced, and the unbalanced hands likely have a bid over the NT opening. In the Netherlands I have played 9-12 in first seat and 9-16 in third, using the same logic.
  
• It is currently fashionable to include more semibalanced hands in the 1NT opening. This is something you have to decide for yourself. The Precision Nebulous 1♦ is such a bad opening that it becomes more attractive to put more hands in 1NT, e.g. (42)=2=5, which are otherwise difficult to show. Even if you don't want to do this systemically I would suggest making it systemically permissible and letting it depend on e.g. concentration of values or potential rebid issues.
  
• It sounds to me like you put 16 balanced in 1♣. I think this is a poor idea for multiple reasons, and would recommend moving this out of the strong opening.

Thanks David.. Yes, I have been playing precision with my son for the last 2 years and in 2026 we will be switching over to a strong Club canape system but retaining our weak NT. When I used to play with my wife before Covid, our kamikaze bid was no singleton or void and not 7222. With my son, just learning , I started him off with strictly balanced shape 5332,4432 and 4333...

Tell me about why you don't like 16 balanced in the 1C bid ? Our agreement is that after a positive response by Partner to 1C, if the Opener ever bids 2NT, that is a warning that he is exactly 16 and flat. Responder almost always passes with 8, especially a flat 8 so positive responses aren't always game force. eg 1C -1H (suggesting spades) -1S (accepting the suggestion and asking to describe the Spade suit) -2C ( 5 card suit 1 honor) -2NT (flat 16, transfer captaincy to Responder and may be passed)

I believe the ACBL rules would allow us to be 10-14 or 11-15 which I am good with when partner has passed ...not so sure how good 11-15 is if we are red and partner has passed. but maybe worth a try ( we just changed it to 12-15 red in 3rd or 4th seat).

What do others think if P-P 1NT (11-15) or 3 Passes -1NT whilst red?

[DavidKok]

Fourth seat is very different from third. Only bid if you think you can go positive. With partner holding at most 9 opposite there's not much need to stretch with 11 (or even 12) balanced.

1♣ is one of the weakest points of strong club systems. Including 16 balanced greatly increases its frequency (from about 8% to about 10%), which is undesirable. The constructive stuff is still fine, but in competition responder is now more often stuck with an 8-count or a nice 7-count. Enter the auction and find yourself committing to game too often. Stay out and struggle to find the right contract. What's worse is that balanced hands often have slightly lower playing strength than unbalanced hands with the same hcp, so by including the 16 balanced specifically you are introducing a new weakest rung below the rest of your 1♣ opening.

[blackshoe]

Both Dan Neill (SMP) and Doug Dawson (SFP) argue for 14-16 1st and 2nd and also 3rd NV, 15-17 3rd V and 4th. The reasoning is that if partner passed in first or second seat, you can never have a game with 14-16 but you might have one with 15-17. the "3rd NV" remaining 14-16 is to keep the preemptive value of the more frequent opening. I don't have enough experience with this setup to judge if it's worth it, so I defer to the authors, who certainly have more experience with it than I do.

[Huibertus]

I like your agreements.

I'm not sure how to read point 2 in combination with point 5 though? Aren't the 3rd/4th seat bids mentioned under 2) the occasions partner is a passed hand mentioned under 5) and if so why are the ranges not the same?

[DavidKok]

blackshoe, on 2025-November-14, 14:06, said:

Both Dan Neill (SMP) and Doug Dawson (SFP) argue for 14-16 1st and 2nd and also 3rd NV, 15-17 3rd V and 4th. The reasoning is that if partner passed in first or second seat, you can never have a game with 14-16 but you might have one with 15-17. the "3rd NV" remaining 14-16 is to keep the preemptive value of the more frequent opening. I don't have enough experience with this setup to judge if it's worth it, so I defer to the authors, who certainly have more experience with it than I do.

I blast 3NT with 10 opposite 14-16, and find this to be not just a clear winner but a no-brainer. The auction is awkward though as P-1NT; 3NT then shows exactly 10 (if you open all or most balanced 11-counts).
You could shift the range in third and/or fourth a little to account for this. I think this makes sense, but have not done so. Most importantly, if you change your 1NT opening range it's a good idea to also change your competitive agreements over the 1-suit openings(!). This is more work than it may seem, but I think it should fit nicely.

Huibertus, on 2025-November-15, 01:05, said:

I like your agreements.

I'm not sure how to read point 2 in combination with point 5 though? Aren't the 3rd/4th seat bids mentioned under 2) the occasions partner is a passed hand mentioned under 5) and if so why are the ranges not the same?

Thank you. My main set of four points show some of the benefits of playing 14-16 always - in all seats and positions. The last three points instead are smaller recommendations for OP's current NT ladder, less radical than switching it up to 14-16 always. They should be read independently.

[Shugart23]

Huibertus, on 2025-November-15, 01:05, said:

I like your agreements.

I'm not sure how to read point 2 in combination with point 5 though? Aren't the 3rd/4th seat bids mentioned under 2) the occasions partner is a passed hand mentioned under 5) and if so why are the ranges not the same?

We increase the range so that we can open 1Nt instead of 1D for greater preemptive effect.