[Wayne_LV]

I have been working with the FD convention card since its introduction and have found it to be an extremely useful tool for defining bids and documenting partnership agreements.

I have played Weak NT (12-14) in the past playing Acol and also with modified SAYC. I found most of the advantages of the preemptive Weak NT to be negated by lost boards due to going down 2 vully, the dreaded penalty double, and by opening a minor suit with a balanced 15-17 hcp and getting passed out when all the Strong NT'ers were in 1NT while we played a weak and short minor trump suit.

After a lot of reading and study I think I have found ways to make the Weak (12-14) NT opener a viable bid.

1. To combat op's double of 1NT, use Hiyashi Runout to find any 4-4 fit
2. To combat op's overcalls of 1NT, use stolen bid doubles
3. After a minor suit opening and 1 level response, 1NT rebid shows 15-17 balanced (not the 15-16 as in Acol). Systems are on and bidding proceeds as if opener had opened a strong NT.
4. After a minor suit opening and 1 level response, 2NT shows 18-19 balanced rather than the Acol 17-18. After 2NT rebid, bidding continues same as in SAYC.
5. Drop the requirements for responding to a minor opening from 6 hcp to 5 hcp, since most often partner will rebid 1NT and the bidding will not get out of hand. The only real downside to this is if partner holds a 19 pt hand in support of your major, you may land in game with only 24 pts, but that is not a show stopper.

I would appreciate comments and/or suggestions on this approach.

Thanks in advance,

Wayne

[hrothgar]

I've seen a lot of reasonable debates regarding the choice between negative doubles and penalty doubles if the opponents overcall our weak NT.

I've never seen a single credible source recommend stolen bid doubles.

[FrancesHinden]

1. I believe any runout after a penalty double is a mistake; it gives the opponents more room than it gains your side.

2. What hrothgar said.

3. That's what most advanced+ Acol players play now. Simply playing "systems on" over the rebid is playable, but a long way short of best (see multiple threads elsewhere on NMF, 2-way checkback and transfers after a 1NT rebid). Main thing to realise is that system after a 1NT rebid is (close to) unconnected to the strength of the 1NT rebid itself.

4. See 3.

[pclayton]

[/QUOTE]

Quote

I found most of the advantages of the preemptive Weak NT to be negated by lost boards due to going down 2 vully, the dreaded penalty double, and by opening a minor suit with a balanced 15-17 hcp and getting passed out when all the Strong NT'ers were in 1NT while we played a weak and short minor trump suit.

I don't agree. Penalty doubles are rare, although -200 happens someties, when pard can't runout because 1N isn't doubled. Getting passed out in 1 minor is unusual too.

The worst thing about a 12-14 NT is a 4-4 major suit can get buried when responder is weak.

Quote

1. To combat op's double of 1NT, use Hiyashi Runout to find any 4-4 fit

Its spelled "Hyashi". I play them myself and they are fine.

Quote

2. To combat op's overcalls of 1NT, use stolen bid doubles.

Ugh. Double is better played as negative here.

Quote

3. After a minor suit opening and 1 level response, 1NT rebid shows 15-17 balanced (not the 15-16 as in Acol).  Systems are on and bidding proceeds as if opener had opened a strong NT.

15-17 is appropriate, but you can't play system on. Tough to transfer to a suit you've already bid, although you can use some of a NT system. We play 2 way checkback which works well.

Quote

5. Drop the requirements for responding to a minor opening from 6 hcp to 5 hcp, since most often partner will rebid 1NT and the bidding will not get out of hand. The only real downside to this is if partner holds a 19 pt hand in support of your major, you may land in game with only 24 pts, but that is not a show stopper.

I'd look at pushing it to even the right 4 counts.

[hrothgar]

I must admit that i don't understand the logic behind playing "system on" over a 1NT rebid. I am assuming that you mean that you're playing your normal NT response structure in auctions like 1♣ - 1X - 1NT, so (hypothetically)

2♣ would be stayman
2♦ would be a transfer showing 5+ Hearts
2♥ would be a transfer showing 5+ Spades
yada, yada, yada

This makes some sense if your single over-arching concern is reducing the memory load for the system, however, I can't believe that it produces an efficient use of bidding space. Lets consider a fairly mundane auction like 1♣ - 1♦ - 1N

I can see some logic in using a 2♣ rebid as asking for a 4 card major, particularly if the 1NT reid promises a balanced hand pattern. But why would you EVER want to use 2♥ and 2♠ as promising a 5+ major?. How many hands are there where responder is supressing a 5 card major in order to show a Diamond suit. I can construct any number of other examples where this "system on" approach is going to great vast pockets of dead bididng space.

[Wayne_LV]

hrothgar, on Feb 9 2007, 01:05 PM, said:

I can see some logic in using a 2♣ rebid as asking for a 4 card major, particularly if the 1NT reid promises a balanced hand pattern.  But why would you EVER want to use 2♥ and 2♠ as promising a 5+ major?.  How many hands are there where responder is supressing a 5 card major in order to show a Diamond suit.  I can construct any number of other examples where this "system on" approach is going to great vast pockets of dead bididng space.

I agree.

So far I have used the copy/paste function of the FD editor to import the bidding sequences following a strong 1NT opening as continuations after a 1NT rebid after a minor opening.

I will now have to review all of the bids and "undefine" or redefine those that are illogical.

Good catch.

[Al_U_Card]

I used to play 10-12 NT and didn't have that problem. Just used system over the dbl which included runouts to 5 card suits or 4-4 hands by either opener or responder. (the runouts always started with pass or rdbl and applied in direct and pass out seats for both hands)

[Wayne_LV]

hrothgar, on Feb 9 2007, 01:05 PM, said:

I can see some logic in using a 2♣ rebid as asking for a 4 card major, particularly if the 1NT reid promises a balanced hand pattern.  But why would you EVER want to use 2♥ and 2♠ as promising a 5+ major?.  How many hands are there where responder is supressing a 5 card major in order to show a Diamond suit.  I can construct any number of other examples where this "system on" approach is going to great vast pockets of dead bididng space.

A possible alternative approach is to open all balanced 15-18 hcp hands with 1C and use 1D response as waiting (similar to 2D waiting / 2C), showing any 5+ hcp hand.

Then the Systems On approach after a 1NT rebid would work in its entirity.

A rebid of 2C by opener would show an unblanaced hand of 12-19 with 4 or more clubs. Bidding could get a bit sticky at that point. Perhaps use of 2D opener as Mini-Roman would solve a lot of the complications of this rebid. If Mini-Roman is used, then a 2C rebid can show 5+ clubs in an unbalanced hand. Then an opening of 1D would show an unbalanced 12-19 with 5 or more diamonds.

Getting to be a bit complex ..........

[awm]

If you're so worried about "right-siding" then you can combine opening all strong balanced hands with 1♣ with transfer responses. However if you care a lot about being "with the field" you probably shouldn't be playing weak notrump in the first place (at least in the US where strong notrumps are standard). Note that the weak notrump itself potentially "wrong-sides" a lot more contracts than the natural responses to 1-minor do.

Anyways the big "problem" with weak notrump (if there is one) has always seemed to be the competitive auctions. I don't see that it makes all that much difference what the exact range of the 1NT rebid is (one point here or there is no big deal) or whether you play takeout or penalty doubles when opponents overcall your weak notrump, or what your runout system is (I think it's important to have a runout system in place, although there is a lot said for a pass of the double being "let's play 1NTX" for the reasons Frances mentioned).

The situations you really need to discuss are ones like:

1m - (overcall): what do partner's bids show? Can partner pass with a hand that will usually produce game opposite a strong notrump? At what level is opener expected to balance with the strong notrump hand versus passing?

1m - Pass - 1M - (2-level overcall): what does opener do with a strong notrump (a lot of people use the double here to announce a strong notrump without a fit)?

[han]

Wayne_LV, on Feb 9 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

A possible alternative approach is to open all balanced 15-18 hcp hands with 1C and use 1D response as waiting (similar to 2D waiting / 2C), showing any 5+ hcp hand.

Then the Systems On approach after a 1NT rebid would work in its entirity.

Yes, but this is a completely different scenario. The whole idea of what hrothgar said is that you have already exchanged distributional information. The system you play over 1m-1M-1NT should use that information.

[mycroft]

I don't know, Richard...

1NT-2C-X = points. Ostensibly looking for a major, but defend if you want, eh?
1NT-2D-X = GF. Sounds good to me, especially if it now goes P-P-P.
1NT-2H-X = I have hearts too. This should be fun.
1NT-2S-X = I have spades too. This *will* be fun.

...looks like Stolen Bid Doubles works okay with a weak NT to me.

(of course, if the OP doesn't play 2-way Stayman, I can't help him...)

I must leave now. My cheek's starting to hurt too much.
Michael.

[mikeh]

awm, on Feb 9 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

Anyways the big "problem" with weak notrump (if there is one) has always seemed to be the competitive auctions. I don't see that it makes all that much difference what the exact range of the 1NT rebid is (one point here or there is no big deal) or whether you play takeout or penalty doubles when opponents overcall your weak notrump, or what your runout system is (I think it's important to have a runout system in place, although there is a lot said for a pass of the double being "let's play 1NTX" for the reasons Frances mentioned).

The situations you really need to discuss are ones like:

1m - (overcall): what do partner's bids show? Can partner pass with a hand that will usually produce game opposite a strong notrump? At what level is opener expected to balance with the strong notrump hand versus passing?

1m - Pass - 1M - (2-level overcall): what does opener do with a strong notrump (a lot of people use the double here to announce a strong notrump without a fit)?

While I do not disagree with this advice, I would expand the discussion of the problems with weak notrumps. As an earlier poster (sorry, I'm too lazy to go back and give credit) noted, weak notrumps will sometimes lose by missing 4-4 major suit fits when responder has to pass 1N but would have bid 1major over a minor suit. The problem is compounded if you frequently open 1N with a 5 card major... and if you don't, then your 1N rebid after 1♥ 1♠ 1N has a different meaning than after a minor opening.

A second problem arises from the lack of a strong 1N opening. We open 1minor on our balanced 15-17 and partner bids a suit at the one-level, and now rho comes in with an overcall. Typically: 1♦ [p] 1♥ [1♠]....

Even tho we may be able to bid 1N here, and get to the field contract, we are probably at a serious disadvantage since the ♠ lead is probably best for their side, all other matters being equal, including the fact that LHO lacks the suit to have bid at the 1-level himself. This is the type of problem that often gets overlooked in the discussion of the merits of a particular gadget: what are the problems that are created by the loss of the 'other' meaning of the bid.

This is offset to some degree by the preemptive effect of the weak notrump... but on a frequency basis, the strong notrump hands are far more likely to be driven to game than are the weak notrumps, and (for imp players) the loss is thus more costly when the 'strong' minor opening leads to an overcall than when the 'weak' minor is.

Going back to the example sequence, whether the overcall be at the 1 level or the 2 level, if you use double as the strong notrump without a fit, you lose the support double.. which is itself a useful device.

I wouldn't worry about right-siding the contract. My experience (I play a LOT of notrump ranges including 10-12, 11-13, 11-14, 14-16 and 15-17 depending on who I am playing with) has been that the swings from this cancel out. For every disaster from wrong-siding, there is a huge win from right-siding.. it more often than not depends solely upon a random division of the opps' cards. I am ignoring the 'lead-directing overcall' issue I discussed above.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Feb 9 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

While I do not disagree with this advice, I would expand the discussion of the problems with weak notrumps. As an earlier poster (sorry, I'm too lazy to go back and give credit) noted, weak notrumps will sometimes lose by missing 4-4 major suit fits when responder has to pass 1N but would have bid 1major over a minor suit.

That presumes that your opponents have become mute. After, say

(1♣)-P-(1♥)-P
(2♥)-P-(P)....

Balancing here is almost automatic. You and your partner almost certainly have about half the points and a fit, why wouldn't you bid?

On the other hand, after
(1NT)-P-(P)...

it's not at all clear that you should balance.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Feb 9 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 9 2007, 05:16 PM, said:

While I do not disagree with this advice, I would expand the discussion of the problems with weak notrumps. As an earlier poster (sorry, I'm too lazy to go back and give credit) noted, weak notrumps will sometimes lose by missing 4-4 major suit fits when responder has to pass 1N but would have bid 1major over a minor suit.

That presumes that your opponents have become mute. After, say

(1♣)-P-(1♥)-P
(2♥)-P-(P)....

Balancing here is almost automatic. You and your partner almost certainly have about half the points and a fit, why wouldn't you bid?

On the other hand, after
(1NT)-P-(P)...

it's not at all clear that you should balance.

If balancing on this auction is 'almost automatic', I'd like to play you for some serious money

Balancing is 'common' but it surely shouldn't be close to automatic.

Opener with 4=4=2=3 14 count and responder with 3=4=4=2 9 count and you are coming in? Welcome: the water is nice and hot: the only 'fit' you have is in opener's first bid suit, and good luck finding it most of the time. Show me an 'automatic' balancer, and I'll show you a losing imp player

The issue is NOT primarily (altho it is a minor issue) the opps balancing: it is playing 1N when you have an extra trick (sometimes, critically, an extra 2 tricks) in the 4-4 major suit fit compared to 1N. This is more of a problem at mps than at imps, since a 1 trick differential will never turn a plus into a minus, but will cost only an imp.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Feb 9 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Show me an 'automatic' balancer, and I'll show you a losing imp player

You're right, almost automatic is too strong (though if you can't find the fit in opp's first bid suit, I can't say I'm impressed).

Quote

The issue is NOT primarily (altho it is a minor issue) the opps balancing: it is playing 1N when you have an extra trick (sometimes, critically, an extra 2 tricks) in the 4-4 major suit fit compared to 1N. This is more of a problem at mps than at imps, since a 1 trick differential will never turn a plus into a minus, but will cost only an imp.

I don't think there's really an advantage in IMPs one way or the other.

In MPs, the big advantage is preventing opponents from finding their fit- something they have an easy time with after 1m-1M-2M (even if their fit is 'your' minor), but not after 1NT-P-P. The big disadvantage is, as you say, getting 90 or 120 instead of 110 or 140.

I think if you discount that effect, it makes weak NTs look much worse than they really are at MPs.

[Free]

1. To combat op's double of 1NT, use Hiyashi Runout to find any 4-4 fit
Dunno Hiyashi Runout, but whatever decent runout method works good enough I think. Care to explain the Hiyashi stuff?

2. To combat op's overcalls of 1NT, use stolen bid doubles
I prefer takeout doubles to fight the part score. Stolen bid doubles seem strange if opps overcall 2M. Penalty doubles criple you too much. After 2♦ overcall you already have 2 bids stolen, so I prefer takeout doubles yet again. I'm still not sure what's best after a 2♣ overcall: stolen bid or takeout doubles.

3. After a minor suit opening and 1 level response, 1NT rebid shows 15-17 balanced (not the 15-16 as in Acol). Systems are on and bidding proceeds as if opener had opened a strong NT.
2♣ as a relay and the rest in transfer seems useful. I play something similar in my Fantunes system, but it's not completely "system on". It's useful if opener is obligated to bid 1NT, even with 4♠ after an auction 1♣-1♥-1NT. Now responder needs to be able to show a weak 5♥-4♠ hand, so 2♥ as some form of transfer is imo a nice solution.

4. After a minor suit opening and 1 level response, 2NT shows 18-19 balanced rather than the Acol 17-18. After 2NT rebid, bidding continues same as in SAYC.
Sounds obvious to play it 18-19

5. Drop the requirements for responding to a minor opening from 6 hcp to 5 hcp, since most often partner will rebid 1NT and the bidding will not get out of hand. The only real downside to this is if partner holds a 19 pt hand in support of your major, you may land in game with only 24 pts, but that is not a show stopper.
Only pass with a fit minor, otherwise you can always lower your limit if opener will take it in account before jumping to certain levels. A 2-way reverse in ♦ is usually a nice way to resolve this problem.

[Wayne_LV]

Free, on Feb 10 2007, 05:21 AM, said:

1. To combat op's double of 1NT, use Hiyashi Runout to find any 4-4 fit
Dunno Hiyashi Runout, but whatever decent runout method works good enough I think.  Care to explain the Hiyashi stuff?

http://www.fernside....dge/weaknt.html

The above website explains Hiyashi (Hyashi) Runout. This website also presents other aspects of the weak (12-14) NT I am exploring for possible inclusion in the bidding system I use with one of my partners.

After reading the relies to this thread, I now see that a full "systems on" approach after a 1NT rebid is not logical. After 1c opener / 1 diamond response (which may contain a 4 card major) such an approach is applicable. However if partner responds in a major to the minor suit opening, most of the suit showing bids become meaningless or just plain wrong. So I am in process of redefining those illogical bids to more applicable meanings or "undefining" them if there is no use for the bid. For example, rebids of the responded major can be used as invitational, showing extra values and/or extra length depending on the level of rebid. Rebids of the opened minor can show length in that suit and limit the length of the responded major.

Lots of possiblilites.

[MickyB]

Free, on Feb 10 2007, 10:21 AM, said:

I'm still not sure what's best after a 2♣ overcall: stolen bid or takeout doubles.

Is there really much difference?

[hrothgar]

MickyB, on Feb 10 2007, 05:54 PM, said:

Free, on Feb 10 2007, 10:21 AM, said:

I'm still not sure what's best after a 2♣ overcall: stolen bid or takeout doubles.

Is there really much difference?

depends a lot on whether you're playing Keri....

[Wayne_LV]

Knock wood -- I have an FD Conv card completed for use of weak 12-14 NT opening.

I call the system ASAP (As Simple As Practical)

It is definitely not simple and probably not practical

The basic approach is Standard American with the following Conventions:

Brozel over ops NT (direct and passout seats)
Gambling 3NT
Jacoby and Texas Transfers
Weak Jump Shift
Stolen Bid Doubles
Michael's and Unusual 2NT
Jacoby 2NT
Negative Double -> 2S
RKCB 0314
Splinters over Majors
Help Suit Game Try
Lebensohl after x of Wk 2
Hyashi Runout
Mini-Roman 2D

Thanks everyone for your excellent input. Some I took at face value and used as suggested, others I am using on a trial basis, some things I am reserving judgement on while I try other approaches (but may try other suggested approaches at a later time).

Next comes hours at a Partnership Practice table with a couple of my better partners and a pair of GIBs. Then a trial run in some Main Club games.

If it all works out then will give it a go in some ACBL tournaments.

This, of course, assumes my partners and I retain what little sanity we have left LOL.

Wayne