[jillybean]

We hd a couple of boards today where it appears that our weak nt , vulnerable, left us in a bad spot.

---

We were -200 while the other table played in 1N after 1♦ 1♠ 1N

---

-300, the other table played in 1♣ for -100

When we changed to weak nt my partner suggested we play a variable nt once I was comfortable with the weak nt, 12-14 NV, 15-17 V.
it looks like the time is now

Comments?

[akwoo]

First board: Is there an error somewhere? S has 15 hcp, not a weak NT.

Second board: Blame your teammates for not bidding and making 3N (Just kidding - realistically they only have 8 tricks.)

[mikeh]

I assume that, on the first board, south downgraded, which seems reasonable to me. Then the question is whether n should invite I may be guilty of allowing the result to influence me, but I do play a lot of weak no trump and I do think that n has a very close call but should pass. Why? Because he has 4333 shape, which is bad, and no spots at all.

The second one is just the rub of the green. ***** happens no matter what your method and I wouldn't stop playing weak no trump just because you get the occasional bad board. However, I see nothing wrong with variable notrump either, so long as the memory strain is no problem. Do you play the same methods over each range? I do in one partnership and not in another.

[jillybean]

 akwoo, on 2014-December-20, 23:54, said:

First board: Is there an error somewhere? S has 15 hcp, not a weak NT.

Correct, West has the ♥J

[jillybean]

 mikeh, on 2014-December-21, 00:05, said:

I assume that, on the first board, south downgraded, which seems reasonable to me. Then the question is whether n should invite I may be guilty of allowing the result to influence me, but I do play a lot of weak no trump and I do think that n has a very close call but should pass. Why? Because he has 4333 shape, which is bad, and no spots at all.

The second one is just the rub of the green. ***** happens no matter what your method and I wouldn't stop playing weak no trump just because you get the occasional bad board. However, I see nothing wrong with variable notrump either, so long as the memory strain is no problem. Do you play the same methods over each range? I do in one partnership and not in another.

Over weak NT we play 2 way stayman, 2M to play, I am not sure how we should be playing 3 level bids. Over 15-17 NT we were intending to play 2♣ stayman and 4 way transfers. 3 level is puppet, diamond invitational and 1345 slammish.
I'm not concerned with the memory strain but could be wrong.

[awm]

The first board is a matter of hand evaluation, and it's really the same question over a weak 1NT opening and over 1♦-1♠-1NT (12-14). I tend to agree with your opponents evaluation that the north hand is not worth an invite (4333, at most 25 hcp, poor spots, and partner might upgrade a really nice 14).

The second board is something that will happen when you play weak notrump. The hope is that this is a good trade for preempting the opponents and hands where the high cards are more even (which will be higher frequency than finding partner with garbage). If you don't feel comfortable with this tradeoff then you should play strong NT, at least at vulnerable.

[whereagles]

Board 1 it doesn't have to do with a weak NT. Interchange some cards and strong NT has the same problem. Passing or moving on is a matter of hand evaluation by responder.

Board 2 is the bane of weak NT. Just be glad you weren't doubled

[kgr]

Board 1: I would also end in 3NT (Both N and S are minimum for their bids IMO)
Board 2: Lucky that East couldn't DBL

[cherdano]

I have slightly different takes on these hands.

 awm, on 2014-December-21, 01:38, said:

The first board is a matter of hand evaluation, and it's really the same question over a weak 1NT opening and over 1♦-1♠-1NT (12-14). I tend to agree with your opponents evaluation that the north hand is not worth an invite (4333, at most 25 hcp, poor spots, and partner might upgrade a really nice 14).

But the auctions are not the same - after 1D-1S-1N you know that you don't have a spade fit, which in my view makes passing easier.
Nevertheless, this is rub of the green, sometimes the slower auction with a weak NT is better, sometimes opening 1NT is better.

As for the second hand, I am wondering how the play went. My guess is it should have been -2, so two of the five IMPs you lost were caused by declarer play. I think you'd get more bang (in terms of improving your future results) for your buck of time by thinking about such tricks lost in the play, rather than worrying about the random swings caused by weak NT.

[Jinksy]

Fwiw, I play a lot of weak NT, and would also pass the N hand. Opposite a weak NT, you need sources of tricks to have a chance of making three, and I don't find flat acey hands tend to provide them. It's all very well looking at the vul and scoring, but you know P will do that too, and drop you in a lot of hopeless games with a random 13-count.

[akwoo]

With the North hand on Board 1, I wouldn't use Stayman. You know the game is going to be thin and you don't have a ruffing value that produces an extra trick in spades (though partner might). The information leakage from Stayman could be crucial, and I think it's more likely to make a difference than the possibility of playing 4♠. (I'd probably invite, but I guess I'm wrong on that.)

Board 2 is something that happens with weak NT. If you aren't comfortable with it and can't occasionally steal a trick in these situations, you need to play variable or strong. (Also, I don't understand why your teammates aren't playing 1N or 2N against the 1♣ opener, in which case +120 and -200 is only -2 IMPs.)

[awm]

 cherdano, on 2014-December-21, 08:23, said:

I have slightly different takes on these hands.

But the auctions are not the same - after 1D-1S-1N you know that you don't have a spade fit, which in my view makes passing easier.
Nevertheless, this is rub of the green, sometimes the slower auction with a weak NT is better, sometimes opening 1NT is better.

While the type of hand Cherdano describes is possible (where the possibility of a spade fit makes a difference), I really don't think that North's 4333 distribution makes this one such a hand.

[MrAce]

Amazing. All this tailor cut analysis for staying in 1 NT, vulnerable, imp, and the hand with AAK prime cards will just pass an opening weak NT.

I do not think N made a hand evaluation mistake. As oppose to what Mikeh said, it was a close call, he just picked the wrong one. I agree with AWM that this is not a weak NT failure. Imo it is a decision difference. I'd definitely invite with N hand at teams. This does not mean pass is bad. Just not as obvious as some think it is. We will be blaming N for passing if EW hands were switched;

Lead from W

T9xx
Tx
KQT
QTxx

after 1 NT 2cl 2d 3 NT (they better lead small club or from doubleton ♥ or +600)

Or even worse make W

T9xx
Txx
KQT
QTx

and all leads will lead to +600

[Jinksy]

 MrAce, on 2014-December-22, 07:26, said:

This does not mean pass is bad. Just not as obvious as some think it is. We will be blaming N for passing if EW hands were switched;

Who said it was obvious? It's obviously close, but I don't think 'primes' are nearly as important on balanced hands, esp when your AK are tripleton. I play in a country where you'll get dozens of weak NTs opened in the average bridge session, and in my experience inviting (or opening) weak NTs on such hand has been losing bridge.

Quote

Lead from W

T9xx
Tx
KQT
QTxx

after 1 NT 2cl 2d 3 NT (they better lead small club or from doubleton ♥ or +600)

Post-Bird and Anthias, a ♥ lead looks clear to me.

Quote

Or even worse make W

T9xx
Txx
KQT
QTx

and all leads will lead to +600

Well yeah - when the opps' cards split 3-3 in both your 7-card fits, they have no long suit to set up, and your finesse is onside, you make game. That doesn't make it an attractive game.

Btw, do you disagree with awm's analysis that you're not distributional enough for the strong NT sequence to change things? I can't tell if you're saying you'd invite opposite an opening weak NT, but not after a 1x 1y / weak 1N sequence?

[MrAce]

I misread what Mike wrote, I thought he said "N do not have a close call"

[akwoo]

A thought about the first board:

I've been thinking about making my weak NT good 12 - bad 15, where "good" means two good 12's together have a good enough chance to make 3N given the vulnerability. (And "bad" means 3N goes down opposite almost all balanced 9's.)

In that case, there's no question that one should invite, and no question one should accept.

I think this is just saying that these things just happen when one hand is at the bottom of the invite range and and the other at the bottom of the accept range. There's not enough room to make bidding precise enough to be 100% accurate.

[Tramticket]

I play Acol, weak NT.

For me, hand 1 would be an easy pass at Match Points. At IMPs I would like to think I would not be tempted, but suspect that I might! It really is an ugly 11 count - The shape is as bad as it gets and there are no 10s.

If I was going to invite, I would not use Stayman (unless it is non-promissary Stayman and our only way to invite).

Hand 2 is just unlucky. Sometimes you will win on these hands, sometimes you will lose. Imagine swapping the minor suits in the South hand - South still passes and a 1C contract is even less pretty than 1NT.

[mycroft]

I'm agreeing with the rest...Hand 1 is a judgement decision, and it's effectively the same judgement at both tables (and also, if I'm inviting with that hand, it's invite straight up (in my case, 1NT-2♠; 3♣-3NT) rather than giving away information with Stayman - if there is no way to invite without Stayman, that's an incentive not to invite); and hand 2 is rub-of-the-black, and you'll get it back on other hands.

Playing a weak NT (especially in a strong NT world), you absolutely have to be able to roll with the punches. When your system wins (whether it's the blind lead into 1NT-AP, or 1NT-3NT, that gains a trick, or +150 or 200 into partscore, or plus instead of minus, because you opened 1NT (or didn't); or whether you have confidence doubling or pushing to game because partner's 1m opening can't be a crap balanced hand) you smile and take your win, knowing you'll pay for it later. When your system loses (and somewhere between 40 and 50% of the time you don't break even (because I'm biased and think weak NT works well) it will lose, totally randomly, when opener has 12-17 balanced, or even sometimes when opener has the unbalanced 1m), it's "nice try, partner" and on to the next hand, remembering the times you won against these guys with the weak NT last week.

2, 3 hands just isn't enough for a decision; you need 2, 3 months. Partly to get used to it, partly to see what happens when you play against different groups of players (JEC and partner is a different animal from MikeH and partner is a different animal from your local club game is a different animal from my local club game when all the weak NT players come out (whether or not they're playing weak NT today!)). You play it because it's better overall, or because you're more comfortable with it, or because the system flows more easily when you *don't* open 1NT, or...maybe even because it's fun to play off the field. And it's only after a fair amount of practise that you'll know if the reasons you're doing it are right for you.

[jallerton]

 awm, on 2014-December-21, 01:38, said:

The first board is a matter of hand evaluation, and it's really the same question over a weak 1NT opening and over 1♦-1♠-1NT (12-14). I tend to agree with your opponents evaluation that the north hand is not worth an invite (4333, at most 25 hcp, poor spots, and partner might upgrade a really nice 14).

The second board is something that will happen when you play weak notrump. The hope is that this is a good trade for preempting the opponents and hands where the high cards are more even (which will be higher frequency than finding partner with garbage). If you don't feel comfortable with this tradeoff then you should play strong NT, at least at vulnerable.

You are right that the first hand is (mainly) a matter of valuation. However, in my experience strong NT players tend to "upgrade" 14-counts into a 1NT opener significantly more often than weak NT players "upgrade" the same hands out of a 1NT opener into 1m planning to rebid 1NT. This is not to say that either group is wrong - there are tactical advantages in opening 1NT after all - but it does affect Responder's decision when holding a marginal hand like the one in this thread.

I agree with your comments on the second board.

[gwnn]

I would Stayman with N after the weak NT and pass after 1♦-1♠; 1NT. Hands like the second one just happen (like others have said). when you have one of these delicious 12+3 1NT's (thankfully undoubled this time!), try ducking as many tricks as you can afford. Let them break suits. I am writing this without looking at the hand so maybe it was not the issue.