[pilowsky]

What sort of hand should you open 1NT with? When I was first told that I needed to have five of a major to bid a transfer when partner opened 1NT and that just 4 colourful cards in a suit weren't enough it seemed unreasonable.

Eventually, it just didn't seem enough. What to do with all those odd hands that were the wrong shape or size? One solution seemed to be Benji Two's with a multi 2♦. And 2♣ for everything middling that was not 1NT or 2NT.

Recently, I have been playing with some partners and robots, that don't respond to multi's and Benji's so I have switched to something a bit simpler. Just open 1NT on any hand between 14ish-19ish points no matter the shape. Here are three examples. So panel, tell me why I can't do that.
Just FYI, There are no restrictions on hand-shape in Australia for No Trump openings although Ops can ask if the hand might contain a 5CM.

1. From BBO $0.39 2020 02 14 daylong mp1 board. This hand starts 1NT with a singleton A♥ https://tinyurl.com/th86z7p
2. This one came up in practice on BBO prime (props to BBO - great value) The hand was bid and played by lots of us. Only the aptly named lucifer and I bid it this way and got the same result:
Bidding is 1NT /2♣/2♥/3NT/// https://tinyurl.com/s7uevs4
3. From BBO $0.39 2020 02 16 daylong mp1 board 4. This hand starts 1NT with a singleton A♦ and a singleton 10♣ https://tinyurl.com/swcbrxw

[Vampyr]

You can do what you like playing with robots. Who said that you can’t?

But don’t have such agreements with people. Your #2 is not entirely unreasonable playing a weak NT, but you can open a normal 1♦. Partner hasn’t responded 2♣ yet.

And the hand is cold off. The fact that robots can’t defend does not make this hand a success story.

A 1NT range with 14-19 any will consistently get you to the wrong strain and/or level. If I were you I would try to work out sensible agreements with my actual partners rather than wasting your energy learning how to game the bots,

[Tramticket]

Vampyr, on 2020-February-20, 09:34, said:

You can do what you like playing with robots. Who said that you can’t?

Yes, you can, if playing with robots against other robots - but don't expect the robots to understand your bid. [Aside: In what sense do computers "understand"?!]

pilowsky, on 2020-February-20, 02:44, said:

Recently, I have been playing with some partners and robots ...

If you are playing real-life bridge, then the situation is more complicated:

- Firstly you need to consider whether local regulations permit a particular bid / meaning. Since I am in England (EBU), I have no idea whether this is allowed.
- Secondly, even if a bid is allowed, your partner will need to properly disclose your methods to your opponents. Again, local methods will prescribe the precise method of disclosure (alerting / announcing / convention card etc.) - but the key is that if you have an agreement (even an implicit agreement) to a particular bid your opponents are entitled to that knowledge.

Good luck with these methods - I will stick to Acol.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2020-February-20, 10:08, said:

If you are playing real-life bridge, then the situation is more complicated:

- Firstly you need to consider whether local regulations permit a particular bid / meaning. Since I am in England (EBU), I have no idea whether this is allowed.
- Secondly, even if a bid is allowed, your partner will need to properly disclose your methods to your opponents. Again, local methods will prescribe the precise method of disclosure (alerting / announcing / convention card etc.) - but the key is that if you have an agreement (even an implicit agreement) to a particular bid your opponents are entitled to that knowledge.

Good luck with these methods - I will stick to Acol.

Australian regulations are unusually relaxed, but I doubt a 14-19 range is legal even there.

I also doubt that normal 'systems' over 1NT will work consistently well with random distributions (they are designed for balanced hands).
In your examples they happen to take you to the right contract in #1 and #2, but so would normal bidding after a 1 level opening.
In #3 they take you to a dubious 3NT (goes down double dummy) when other tables will be in a safe and better scoring 4♥.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2020-February-20, 11:12, said:

Australian regulations are unusually relaxed, but I doubt a 14-19 range is legal even there.

You can play anything you like here, although yellow systems are often restricted. Artificial 1NT openings make the system red, which is always fine. If it were 14-19 balanced it wouldn't even be red.

The basic classes are green (natural one-level openings), blue (strong club), red (everything else) and yellow (where pass can be stronger than a one-level opening).

The only restriction on red is that beginners playing a blue or green system can be protected against it. The opposition has to play a blue or green system for that round. I haven't seen anyone ask for protection for years though.

It doesn't mean the proposed agreement is playable - just legal.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2020-February-20, 14:23, said:

You can play anything you like here, although yellow systems are often restricted. Artificial 1NT openings make the system red, which is always fine. If it were 14-19 balanced it wouldn't even be red.

The basic classes are green (natural one-level openings), blue (strong club), red (everything else) and yellow (where pass can be stronger than a one-level opening).

The only restriction on red is that beginners playing a blue or green system can be protected against it. The opposition has to play a blue or green system for that round. I haven't seen anyone ask for protection for years though.

It doesn't mean the proposed agreement is playable - just legal.

Fair enough.
Here you could only play this at teams - in pairs you are limited to a range of 14-17 (or 15-18) and at most 5 in major, 6 in minor, 9 in two suits combined, one singleton and no void.
Independent of class of system.

I like your regulation that beginners are protected from red systems. Would make sense for brown sticker exceptions (multi) too.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2020-February-20, 14:35, said:

I like your regulation that beginners are protected from red systems. Would make sense for brown sticker exceptions (multi) too.

It does apply there too. 😀

[AL78]

Tramticket, on 2020-February-20, 10:08, said:

[Aside: In what sense do computers "understand"?!]

They don't. Computers are not intelligent, they are only capable of following a list of instructions, consisting of one or more logical IF, AND, ELSE, WHEN, OR statements.

[johnu]

AL78, on 2020-February-20, 14:57, said:

They don't. Computers are not intelligent, they are only capable of following a list of instructions, consisting of one or more logical IF, AND, ELSE, WHEN, OR statements.

Artificial intelligence programs can be considered to "learn" as various situations are encountered. Bridge programs like GIB are incapable of learning. Under the same conditions and random number seeds, GIB will make the same "mistake" a billion times in a row unless a human programmer is able to make a change. to fix the mistake.

[msjennifer]

Sir, GOOD LUCK to you. However ,in real non -robot life ,I am afraid you will not find any takers.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2020-February-20, 11:12, said:

Australian regulations are unusually relaxed, but I doubt a 14-19 range is legal even there.

FYI, it's not allowed by any of the ACBL convention charts. The maximum range is 5 HCP, this is 6.

[miamijd]

As others have noted, you can do anything you like vs three GIBbots. I'll tell you what I have found to be the best strategy in a minute.

In person, at least here in the USA, you can't have more than a 5-point range (14-18, for example) or else you forfeit the right to play any sort of conventional responses (even Stayman) over the bid. In practice, a range of more than 3 HCP is not manageable.

Playing with three GIBbots, here is what I have found to be effective:

1. Open all 5332 15-16 hands with a five card major 1NT
2. Upgrade 17-count 5332 5M hands to 18 (open 1M)
3. Open all 2452 and most 2425 15-16 hands 1NT (with a decent 17 you do better just to reverse)
4. At IMPs, open all 14 balanced hands (even with a 5 card major) 1NT. At MPs, NV, do the same. At MPs V, open only decent 14 counts 1NT and don't do so with a 5 card major. This is the opposite of real life, where you open 14 mostly NV at MPs and not at IMPs

5. Especially in MPs, open most 15-16 4441 hands with a stiff minor 1NT (you can't do this in ACBL-land unless the stiff minor is an A, K, or Q). With 17, don't do this; you'll miss loads of good games.

6. Especially in MPs, open 15-16 hands with 43 in the majors and 51 in the minors 1NT. Don't ever do this in real bridge

On 5 and 6, GIB will "know" you can't have a stiff and will play you for two cards. If you can manage to avoid playing that suit for most of the hand, GIB will almost always err in discarding at the end (because it will think you have 2 cards in your stiff minor). Very handy at MPs (not as vital in IMPs).

Good luck

Cheers,
Mike

[pescetom]

miamijd, on 2020-February-21, 13:00, said:

Playing with three GIBbots, here is what I have found to be effective:

1. Open all 5332 15-16 hands with a five card major 1NT
2. Upgrade 17-count 5332 5M hands to 18 (open 1M)
3. Open all 2452 and most 2425 15-16 hands 1NT (with a decent 17 you do better just to reverse)
4. At IMPs, open all 14 balanced hands (even with a 5 card major) 1NT. At MPs, NV, do the same. At MPs V, open only decent 14 counts 1NT and don't do so with a 5 card major. This is the opposite of real life, where you open 14 mostly NV at MPs and not at IMPs

Points 1 to 3 are pretty much what I have found to be effective with a human and 5-card aware systems too.
Point 2 except for a flat 17 with hearts.

[blackshoe]

miamijd, on 2020-February-21, 13:00, said:

In person, at least here in the USA, you can't have more than a 5-point range (14-18, for example) or else you forfeit the right to play any sort of conventional responses (even Stayman) over the bid.

This is, since November of 2018, no longer the case. You can't have more than a five point range, period. And if you upgrade or downgrade into your five point range, the bid is illegal. If you upgrade a hand with less than 10 HCP into your 10-12 HCP 1NT range, again the bid is illegal. So sayeth the ACBL.

Dear spell checker: if you don't stop fscking with my perfectly legitimate words, I'm going to make you go stand in the corner. :-(

[miamijd]

blackshoe, on 2020-February-22, 13:10, said:

This is, since November of 2018, no longer the case. You can't have more than a five point range, period. And if you upgrade or downgrade into your five point range, the bid is illegal. If you upgrade a hand with less than 10 HCP into your 10-12 HCP 1NT range, again the bid is illegal. So sayeth the ACBL.

Dear spell checker: if you don't stop fscking with my perfectly legitimate words, I'm going to make you go stand in the corner. :-(

Thanks for the clarification.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2020-February-22, 13:10, said:

This is, since November of 2018, no longer the case. You can't have more than a five point range, period. And if you upgrade or downgrade into your five point range, the bid is illegal. If you upgrade a hand with less than 10 HCP into your 10-12 HCP 1NT range, again the bid is illegal. So sayeth the ACBL.

Dear spell checker: if you don't stop fscking with my perfectly legitimate words, I'm going to make you go stand in the corner. :-(

Maybe I should stop complaining about the EBU not allowing transfer openings...

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2020-February-23, 07:12, said:

Maybe I should stop complaining about the EBU not allowing transfer openings...

The FIGB is even more restrictive than ACBL in this respect, allowing a maximum range of 4 during pairs (but without being pedantic about upgrades).
I see the EBU allows any continuous defined range.
Of course English players are all true gentlemen and would never dream of having undisclosed agreements about subranges

[helene_t]

sfi, on 2020-February-20, 14:23, said:

The only restriction on red is that beginners playing a blue or green system can be protected against it. The opposition has to play a blue or green system for that round. I haven't seen anyone ask for protection for years though.

This happens quite often at the club level in New Zealand. The first few weeks after a novice pair starts playing in the junior or intermediate sessions, other pairs are not allowed to play multi 2♦, Moscito etc. against them.