[Phil]

In the same vein as Adam's 2/1 poll, here is a poll about methods when we open 1N and responses at the two and three level

[Mbodell]

you need to make it multivoting, since the last question has numerous answers. BTW, not sure if it was intentional that you ask here what you personally play, where awm was asking what is common among experts where you play. And that is certainly different (I answered awm what is common among experts, even though I didn't check a few that I like to play and did check a few I don't like - because I was trying to match what I think is most common; however, here I answered what I play in at least one partnership and what I'd play opposite myself).

[mgoetze]

Is it fair to call 3♣ asking for 5 card majors "JLall Puppet"? I did copy that from him but I'm pretty sure he mentioned that he has since moved on to using 2NT as Puppet, and I'm reasonably sure he didn't invent 3♣ as Puppet.

[Phil]

 Mbodell, on 2015-July-22, 11:16, said:

you need to make it multivoting, since the last question has numerous answers.

Done.

 Mbodell, on 2015-July-22, 11:16, said:

, not sure if it was intentional that you ask here what you personally play, where awm was asking what is common among experts where you play. And that is certainly different (I answered awm what is common among experts, even though I didn't check a few that I like to play and did check a few I don't like - because I was trying to match what I think is most common; however, here I answered what I play in at least one partnership and what I'd play opposite myself).

What I see this exercise turning into is a twofold approach.

1. You can use it to 'fill out a card' with a new partner.

2. You can see trends between different forum participants and maybe arrive at a consensus system - much like BBO advanced, but in much greater detail.

Frankly, I'm not that concerned what local area experts play. With few exceptions, its pretty terrible.

[mgoetze]

 Phil, on 2015-July-22, 11:28, said:

Done.

Not really, you changed the one question that doesn't need to be multichoice into multichoice and left the others alone.

[Phil]

 mgoetze, on 2015-July-22, 11:26, said:

Is it fair to call 3♣ asking for 5 card majors "JLall Puppet"? I did copy that from him but I'm pretty sure he mentioned that he has since moved on to using 2NT as Puppet, and I'm reasonably sure he didn't invent 3♣ as Puppet.

He popularized it, and while he didn't invent puppet (obviously) I thought he came up with this concept. As a matter of fact, I remember some discussion about "optional" stayman he had using 3D at about the same time.

[mgoetze]

Also "2♣ = Stayman" really doesn't tell you much at all, there are so many different ways to play it. For instance, I include invitational hands with 5 spades. Or there are the crazy French people and their German copycats who play 1NT-2♣-2NT as showing both majors...

[Phil]

 mgoetze, on 2015-July-22, 11:29, said:

Not really, you changed the one question that doesn't need to be multichoice into multichoice and left the others alone.

ok, ok

[Phil]

 mgoetze, on 2015-July-22, 11:33, said:

Also "2♣ = Stayman" really doesn't tell you much at all, there are so many different ways to play it. For instance, I include invitational hands with 5 spades. Or there are the crazy French people and their German copycats who play 1NT-2♣-2NT as showing both majors...

This would be a subsequent poll. But we have to clarify what the initial responses are, although I'm pretty sure I know what people use 2♣ as

[Jinksy]

You might also want to link NT range to system. I play Fantunes, which pretty much forces me into a weak NT, though I quite like a weak NT into its own right. But if I'm playing a system that makes it playable, I like a mini. For semi-regular games with reasonably competent Ps I play variable range by preference.

Also, by preference I play 2N as 5-card Stayman (from Meckwell, I think, via MickyB, so presumably worth including in here), and 3CDH as natural GF, with 3S as GF5-5m (my own recipe, so probably not worth having as a separate option).

Also do you want to add 4-level responses? There must be a few opinions on those knocking around.

[Cyberyeti]

2♠ = wto with one minor or GF with both

[rmnka447]

In a 12-14 NT context,

2 ♠ is NF to play.

2 ♦ is August 2 ♦ bid asking opener to bid longest major regardless of overall length,

and, Texas transfers at the 4 level to play and as a precursor to 4 NT 1430.

[steve2005]

 rmnka447, on 2015-July-22, 13:34, said:

In a 12-14 NT context,

2 ♠ is NF to play.

2 ♦ is August 2 ♦ bid asking opener to bid longest major regardless of overall length,

and, Texas transfers at the 4 level to play and as a precursor to 4 NT 1430.

Yes survey has 2H as signoff in H, but no way to signoff in 2S lol

I play most anything, for preference I put what I play with my wife which is 12-14. But I would prefer a precision system.

Also for 1N don't have option for old Goren 16-18 and the Italians played something really strong at one point and then blue team used 13-17

[gnasher]

There are some shockingly bad methods out there (assuming Phil didn't make them up).

[steve2005]

 gnasher, on 2015-July-22, 15:10, said:

There are some shockingly bad methods out there (assuming Phil didn't make them up).

Almost any NT range is playable. What matters is how it fits in with the rest of the system and does it fit with the style of the partnership.

[Mbodell]

I don't know if you can change it after the fact, but I think making the poll public would be good to. That way you can see how you voted and also see if some people have the same answers (multianswer) or the same answers on multiple questions (I.e., are there different clusters or a lot of independent different choices).

[mycroft]

Difficult. I play 4 different NT ranges with my partners, and I would change one of them if I could (from 10-12 NV, not 4th in a Precision context to 11-13, making a fifth NT range) and three completely different response systems. Even "what would I prefer if I was making up the system and partner was just following along" starts with "what's our basic system?"

I am very comfortable in a weak NT structure, but I can see the massive, massive downsides that just go away with good 14-17. Were I guaranteed to be allowed to play 1♣ "clubs or balanced" with transfer responses in more than zero of my games, I'd switch (and go to the strong NT, because it Works That Way.)

I note that a 10-12 NT was originally designed to take away the entire 1 level on hands that most of the field were passing. Now that "everybody" opens all flat 12s and most flat 11s, about half if not more of the hands we open 1NT on are no longer being passed, and that advantage goes away. Of course, moving to 9-bad11, even if it works in the system is a hanging offence around here, so oh well.

[Phil]

 steve2005, on 2015-July-22, 14:52, said:

Yes survey has 2H as signoff in H, but no way to signoff in 2S lol

I play most anything, for preference I put what I play with my wife which is 12-14. But I would prefer a precision system.

Also for 1N don't have option for old Goren 16-18 and the Italians played something really strong at one point and then blue team used 13-17

2H as NF has 2S added as also NF. Thanks,

[gnasher]

 steve2005, on 2015-July-22, 19:43, said:

Almost any NT range is playable. What matters is how it fits in with the rest of the system and does it fit with the style of the partnership.

I wasn't talking about the ranges.

[m1cha]

I can't find my 3-level preferences.
3♣ = both minors, weak, to pass or correct.
3♦ = both Majors, game force. Opener may rebid 3NT if opened 1NT with 2245 or such.