[rhm]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-31, 08:53, said:

I have been playing a 10-12 1NT opening in 1st & 2nd seats nonvul for about 25 years in levels of competiton ranging from club games to the Vanderbilt teams. It does not surprise me that the mini 1NT opening under these conditions results in good scores. While I don't keep records, it does match my experience.

http://www.rpbridge.net/9x41.htm

To cite from Richard Pavlicek's site:

Evidence suggests the kamikaze or mini notrump (10-12) is a losing strategy. While opening 1 NT has a slight edge over 17 years, pass has the edge in more recent time spans. Perhaps this means that defensive measures have caught up and put this rogue bid out to pasture. Note that pass has always worked better in the win-loss column.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

rhm, on 2013-August-06, 05:20, said:

http://www.rpbridge.net/9x41.htm

To cite from Richard Pavlicek's site:

Evidence suggests the kamikaze or mini notrump (10-12) is a losing strategy. While opening 1 NT has a slight edge over 17 years, pass has the edge in more recent time spans. Perhaps this means that defensive measures have caught up and put this rogue bid out to pasture. Note that pass has always worked better in the win-loss column.

Rainer Herrmann

But the data is from top-level imps play.

[benlessard]

IMO The real cost of a 10-12 NT is when you dont open 1nt. When you endup in defense against a good declarer or when you lose precision on your other openings. That why you need 10-12 to have great stats to even think about playing it.

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2013-August-06, 06:11, said:

But the data is from top-level imps play.

The vast majority of top-level play in the US are nowadays imps tournaments. I personally consider this trend misguided.
Everything works better against weak players than against strong ones. But I do not like gadgets, if they are sucker devices.
I play mini notrump myself in certain partnerships, but the fabulous results reported here are just overblown.
Note, that most top level partnership do not change their system much, when playing matchpoints or board a match.
I doubt that there are successful bidding gadgets, which are good for matchpoints but not for IMPs or vice versa.
Again the distinction is overblown.
That you adjust your judgment to the scoring is a different matter.

Rainer Herrmann

[Shugart23]

rhm, on 2013-August-07, 03:35, said:

The vast majority of top-level play in the US are nowadays imps tournaments. I personally consider this trend misguided.
Everything works better against weak players than against strong ones. But I do not like gadgets, if they are sucker devices.
I play mini notrump myself in certain partnerships, but the fabulous results reported here are just overblown.
Note, that most top level partnership do not change their system much, when playing matchpoints or board a match.
I doubt that there are successful bidding gadgets, which are good for matchpoints but not for IMPs or vice versa.
Again the distinction is overblown.
That you adjust your judgment to the scoring is a different matter.

Rainer Herrmann

The two adjustments that come to mind that we make in bidding match point vs. imps is in matchpoints we will NEVER (or hardly ever) let opponents play 1NT non-vulnerable. Second, we are 1 trick more aggressive in making our preemptive bids in Matchpoint vs IMP..

[dake50]

Pavlicek assumes the 1Nt:10-12 must still invest in Stayman, etc to search for M-fit.
Of course IF 2-level bids MUST look for M-fit AND get too high opposite 10-12
THAT scheme loses.
Let 1Nt:10-12 already assess missing M-fit before he opens 1Nt!
So take out all those up-level bids. Now test its IMP gain/loss.

[PhilKing]

dake50, on 2013-August-08, 10:26, said:

Pavlicek assumes the 1Nt:10-12 must still invest in Stayman, etc to search for M-fit.
Of course IF 2-level bids MUST look for M-fit AND get too high opposite 10-12
THAT scheme loses.
Let 1Nt:10-12 already assess missing M-fit before he opens 1Nt!
So take out all those up-level bids. Now test its IMP gain/loss.

Where does he assume that?