[KungFuChkn]

Since I'm on a roll asking questions (and getting responses)...

re: Defensive bidding over NT

Everyone should know, I imagine, how to defensively bid naturally over NT openers. And, it seems that Capp is considered the 'standard' defense, so that should probably be learned next.

However, just for curiosity's sake: What's your favorite NT defense and why? And what one do you hate and why?


I'm putting together a bidding guide, both to serve as a study tool for me and as a discussion starter with a partner. I've already put Capp in, but I'd be interested to know what else we should play around with.

Humble thanks for all the help in these forums! What a cool resource for us BIs.

- KFC

[awm]

"Expert standard" these days seems to be a method usually called Woolsey or Robinson in the states. This is:

X = 5+ in a minor; usually contains a 4cM also
2♣ = both majors
2♦ = one major
2M = 5+ in the bid major, and a four-card or longer minor

Followups are:

If partner doubles, then 2♣ is pass or correct for the minor suit. 2♦ indicates a hand that prefers to play in a major; doubler bids his major suit (if any) or passes/corrects to his minor (no major). 2M is natural.

If partner bids 2♣, then 2♦ asks for overcaller's longer or better major. Other bids are natural.

If partner bids 2♦, then 2♥ and 2♠ are "pass or correct." Bidding 2♠ says "partner I have a good fit for hearts if that's your suit, but want to play 2♠ if you have spades." Bidding 2♥ denies a good heart fit. Bidding 2NT is an asking bid of some variety. Note that this is basically the same as a "multi 2♦" opening.

If partner bids 2M, then there are various followups. One popular version is 3♣ pass or correct for the minor and 2NT asking for both the minor suit and strength. With a minimum, overcaller bids his minor over 2NT. With a maximum he bids 3♥ (showing clubs) or 3♠ (diamonds).

Against weak notrump it is popular to play the same method but with double as value-showing (normally 15+ hcp, any distribution) instead. This is often called Multi-Landy.

------------

My personal preference is Meyerson vs. strong notrump. This is a defense I invented, originally because Woolsey/Robinson is not allowed in many ACBL events. However, I've since noticed that it seems to have some substantial advantages over Woolsey/Robinson in any case. This defense:

X = two-suited hand, including one major and one minor
2♣ = both majors
2♦+ = natural bids, generally one-suited

If partner doubles, then 2♣ asks for a five-card suit. Doubler bids a five-card suit, even if holding a four-card club suit as well. 2♦ asks for a major. Doubler bids his major. 2M is natural. If the opponents bid over the double, making some artificial call such as a transfer or stayman bid, then double shows the suit that the opponents bid (four or more cards) and asks partner to compete if this is one of his two suits. If the opponents bid naturally over the double, then doubles are takeout-oriented.

If partner bids 2♣, followup sequences are as above (2♦ asks, 2M natural, etc).

The 2♦ bid in this structure is surprisingly obstructive to most opponents, and letting partner know your single suit when you have one can be very valuable in the face of continued competition by the opponents. I've found that bids which show an "unknown two-suiter" usually work better than bids showing an "unknown one-suiter" in competition. It is sometimes valuable to be able to play in 2♥ when overcaller has 5♠/4m, which Woolsey/Robinson can't quite manage. This structure optimizes your chances of getting to advancer's major when the person in direct seat has some other two suiter. Also, it increases the frequency of the double, which (while not penalty by any means) can occasionally be profitably converted.

[ArtK78]

awm, on Jan 25 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

"Expert standard" these days seems to be a method usually called Woolsey or Robinson in the states. This is:

X = 5+ in a minor; usually contains a 4cM also
2♣ = both majors
2♦ = one major
2M = 5+ in the bid major, and a four-card or longer minor

Calling this "Expert Standard" is either a swipe at those who don't play this method or a generalization from an incomplete dataset.

I know a lot of "experts." Very few play this method or a variant of it.

Now, it may be true that this is a method that is common to a particular area (Washington DC?). But it is not a method played by enough "experts" to justify calling it "expert standard."

[jdonn]

I think it's the most common method among experts in the US, but also agree it's not nearly universal enough to call expert standard. It's not as though two random experts who don't know much about each other could just sit down and automatically assume that's what they are playing.

I hate playing double could include single suited with a minor. One of the big advantages of the double promising a major is the opponents often immediately transfer to one major, and you can infer partner has the other and balance back into it, even on the 3 level. This is lost if double could just be single suited with a minor. Also by eliminating that possibility you can play double includes any very strong hand, and can do something later to show that which might include bidding 3♣ over 2♦ by partner or something.

[skjaeran]

♦I play different defences to 1NT with several regular partners and pick-ups. One thing is the same; double is penalty/values.

The most basic defence I play is Landy: 2♣=both majors, 2NT strong 2-suiter - nearly GF, rest natural - preempts at 3-level.

With some I play Multi-Landy; 2♣=both majors, 2♦=one major, 2M=M+m (4-5+ with some, 5-4+ with some), rest as above.

In my most regular partnership we play Amundsen; 2♣=♦ or both M, 2♦=♥ or ♠+m (4-5+), 2♥=♥+m (4-5+), 2♠=nat, rest as above.

In one partnership we also play DONT in two positions, else Amundsen.

[KungFuChkn]

Hi all... Thanks for the replies.

Quote

"Expert standard" these days seems to be a method usually called Woolsey or Robinson in the states...

My personal preference is Meyerson vs. strong notrump. This is a defense I invented...

Adam, thanks for chiming in. I was hoping you'd contribute after reading the basic outline of your defense on wiki.

I guess I have two follow-ups:
1) What do you think the people who prefer to play Woolsey use when they aren't allowed to? (I'm not sure I understand why it isn't allowed, either... But that's out of scope for this discussion.)

2) Not to put Adam out on the firing line, but has anyone else messed with his defense?

Harald then added:

Quote

I play different defences to 1NT with several regular partners and pick-ups.

Do any of those varied methods seem preferable to you?

Perhaps I'm asking a bad question. It might be that there isn't a silver bullet, and any defense will do provided it's agreed to and known by both partners. Still, it seems like there'd be some sense in which one method particularly sucks or has a slight leg up on the field.

Anyway, thanks for the posts, again.

KFC

[awm]

There are several reasons why I'd call Woolsey/Robinson "expert standard."

In the US: there was a recent article in the Bridge Bulletin (ACBL monthly magazine) about defenses to notrump. About a dozen experts were asked what defense they like to play. About half named this defense; I don't recall any other defense being mentioned by more than one person.

Internationally: last time I was looking at the convention cards of top pairs in the bermuda bowl, it seemed like a substantial percentage were playing this defense. It wasn't "all of them" by any means but it seemed substantially more common than any other particular defense.

Now obviously you wouldn't assume this (or any other particular defense) with a pickup expert. But if you ask "which defense is most commonly played by top partnerships" it seems to have substantial following.

[TylerE]

The ACBL NT article was not esp. balanced. Anyway, my favorite defense is extended HELLO. It meets my 2 most important criteria, having a direct seat pen X, *and* being able to show major one suiters at once, with the suit known. Also often has a transfer effect.

In direct seat:

X = Penalty (Most likely playing strength, not 'equal hand or better', or any such rubbish)
2♣ => Relays to 2♦...diamonds or a Major/minor
2♦ => Hearts
2♥ => Majors
2♠ => Spades
2NT => Relays to 3♣. Either clubs, or a near-GF single suiter in ♦/♥/♠. Overcaller rebids the suit with a strong hand.
3♣ => Minors
3♦ => Majors, strong
3♥/3♠ => Preemptive

In balancing seat:

2♣ and up retain their current meaning.

X becomes a relay to 2♣, showing a 5cd Minor and a 4 card major. Over 2♣ opener bids 2♦ with ♦ + a major, and responder can scramble for the major...with clubs overcaller just bids the major over 2♣, allowing responder to run back to 3♣ if desired.

[CSGibson]

I'm a big believer in suction, especially if played with a person who really knows it well. Over NT I play a modified suction.

X - 3-4 suited 16 +
2♣ - shows ♦ OR ♥&♠ OR ♠&♦
2♦ - shows ♥ OR ♠&♣
2♥ - shows ♠ OR ♣&♦
2♠ - shows ♣ OR ♦&♥
2N - shows ♣&♥

The obvious strengths of suction are that you can show all one and two suited hands at a reasonable level without giving up a penalty double. The big disadvantage is that if your opponents have a clear agreement about how to defend suction, they can describe more hand types and have more accurate auctions. Oh, and it's a mid-chart convention, so it's not allowed in all ACBL districts/events. In the Portland, Oregon area, where suction is deemed acceptable for all levels of all events by the powers that be in the district, it seems to be the defense of choice for most of the top flight A pairs.

[KungFuChkn]

Hi all... Since this thread has died, I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who replied!

For my study notes, I decided to run with Capp, Robinson, and Astro (the latter based on a couple private messages I received).

As always, thanks for the way so many of you help us advancing - albeit slowly - players.

Hee-yah! KFC

[gwnn]

Try Lionel, which is kind of cool:)

X is spades and another
2m is m+♥
2M is natural
2NT is minors

Also it's nice as you can be an evil mastermind and use the X to X and bid a suit if you're strong. And pard can just pass, lol