[awm]

To return to the original question, there are a lot of problems with opening 1NT with a 4522 shape, or with 5332 type hands. If partner digs up a response you will usually be okay, but when partner passes you will quite often reach the wrong partial or even miss a game. The problem is that these hands are quite powerful if partner has a major-suit fit with you, and you could easily have a nine card major suit fit on hands where partner has no five-card major. Notice that this problem is a lot worse when you play a weak notrump because partner is less likely to have the values to invite game (i.e. the stronger the notrump, the less often partner passes).

While I know that Fantoni and Nunes bid this way, there are a number of comments that can be made about that. First, I know of many strong pairs using weak notrump who rarely open 1NT with a five-card major (even though most pairs using strong notrump will frequently open 1NT with a five card major); this suggests that the range of the notrump is a factor in these decisions. Second, I know a number of top players who feel that Fantoni-Nunes system is not particularly sound, and this may even be part of the reason they are excluded from the recent Italian teams. Third, I don't think anyone would argue that Fantoni-Nunes are winning huge numbers of IMPs because of their 1NT openings -- they win IMPs because of great play and defense, and because their one of a suit openings are much better defined.

There are a number of other solutions to the "problem" mentioned in the original post, ranging from a semi-forcing 1NT response to flannery to Kaplan interchange. These solutions are probably better than opening 1NT with the patterns described. Also note that you didn't really solve the problems, since a 15-count isn't really enough to safely raise 1NT to 2NT (or reverse after 1♥-1NT)... so you will still be rebidding three-card (even two card suits!) suits fairly often.

[xxhong]

Agree. In those old 16-18 1NT days, players rebid 2NT to show 14-15 and bids something else with 12-13.
Now more and more play 14-16 1NT. One big headache is how to distinguish good 16 to bad 20.
Perhaps if one likes a natural 2 point range system, he perhaps should play strong clubs. like 12-13, 1x then 1NT. 14-15, 1NT: 16-17, 1x then 2NT. 1C: 18+.
Of course, those who play 3 point ranges never have problems, they just guess well. 12-14, 1x then 1NT, 15-17 1N. 18-20, 1x then 2NT.

helene_t, on 2011-March-01, 10:54, said:

When responder makes a 2/1 he can't have a hand that wants to sign off opposite the weak nt, since such a hand would have responded 1NT.

But in some (most) SA styles, responder can have a hand that wants to invite opposite a weak nt, with 2nt being a possible end contract. Obviously opener can't rebid 2nt with all weak nt hands since responder would then not know whether his invite had been accepted or not.

So if 2NT is nonforcing it has to show a 12(13) hand, and you still need some artificial or semi-natural solution for the (13)14 hands. Or you can jump to 3NT with (13)14, and then adopt some semi-natural solution for the 18-19 hands.

Basically it is impossible to design a completely natural system with a 15-17 NT if you insist on opening so light (12 HCPs) that responder needs to be able to invite opposite the weak NT, with 2NT being a possible contract. Unless you play a 2NT response as invitational, then the 2♣ response could be GF or at least forcing to 3♣.

[mike777]

relknes, on 2011-February-23, 18:30, said:

I have been wondering, recently, if a weak NT opening might solve some of the problems after a forcing NT response to 1M. Here is my reaoning...
The most frustrating thing to me about the forcing 1NT is that opener sometimes has to bid a 2 or 3 card suit, or rebid a bad 5 card major with a minimum opener. The problems seem to occur with 5M-332, 4-5-2-2, 4-5-3-1, 4-5-1-3, hands with 5 diamonds and a 4 card major, or hands with 5 clubs and 4 diamonds or hearts.
However, if you open a weak NT and include in it your 5M-332, 4-5-2-2, 2-4-5-2, 2-4-2-5, and 2-2-4-5 distributions, then most of these problems seem to go away.
For instance, sequences like 1H-1NT(F1)-2m now shows 4+ in that minor, or else 3 and a side singleton, a significant improvement over showing a 2+ minor. Also, after 1M-1NT(F1), 2NT can be bid to show 15-17 and a 5332 distribution.
By using 1NT-2C as either Stayman or a takeout of clubs (the so-called "Garbage Stayman") you will miss few 5-3 major fits, and those you do miss should be acceptable on the same grounds as missing a 4-4 major fit over a stricter weak NT, gaining preemption at the cost of precision.
The last benefit that this would seem to contribute is that it strengthens opener's minimum 1 bids, so that responder can be more comfortable making a 2/1 response in borderline cases. Knowing that opener is 12+ unbalanced or 15+ balanced seems a lot more comfortable than a straight 12+.
I get the feeling that I must be overlooking something gross. The extra clarification and the extra preemption seem like they are well worth the ambiguity introduced into 1NT, but if that were true than more people would be using it with 2/1. It isn't like this NT is unheard of. In fact, it is more restrictive than a Fanturnes 1NT, which includes all of these hands and more. So what am I missing?

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

I got this response to your title question. I hope this will be of interest to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------



"I guess as our resident weak NT expert (having played them regularly for over 30 years) I can address this a bit.


First, I agree with Alan that it definitely takes getting used to, particularly for auctions after a 1m opening. Thus I don't play them with partners who aren't used to them (we use strong).


Second, Alex is also correct that everything needs to fit together. That is particularly true if you NT range broadens the range of your opening bids as with 10-12. Then you need to cover more ground then before, and that will cause some problems (a bit less true with a strong club system).


Kim is correct about the frequency issue, but it should be noted that this applies most strongly in first seat. In second seat, and even more in 3rd seat, the odds on the stronger hands go up (since you now know there are some weaker hands around).


As to good/bad features for weak NT: good is opening 1N, generally a plus. Bad, on balance is opening 1m with a strong NT. Perhaps surprisingly, the worst part is losing the preemptive advantage of a strong nt which can steal the hand. Next bad thing is having the opponents come in after you open 1m and i) direct a good lead (while you might instead bid 1N-3N if a strong NT opened), ii) find a good contract, iii) preempt and make it hard for the opening side to find its best contract.


In some compensation, after opening 1m, if they do bid and you have an unbalanced opening you are better placed: partner knows you have a strong NT or shape, so can compete more vigorously (while playing strong NT, he needs to worry you have a flat 12 count).


One reason weak NT's are not as good as they used to be: back in the 60's, 70's most of the best theorists were weak NTers, so lots of good things developed that fit well with them. More recently lots of work on things that work better with strong NTS: e.g. support doubles and good-bad 2N."

[Vampyr]

awm, on 2011-March-01, 14:12, said:

Also note that you didn't really solve the problems, since a 15-count isn't really enough to safely raise 1NT to 2NT (or reverse after 1♥-1NT)... so you will still be rebidding three-card (even two card suits!) suits fairly often.

Maybe this is more an indictment of the forcing 1NT...

What do you gain by playing 2/1? When you bid 2/1, you gain a simple raise or simple rebid as forcing... but you are forced to make up bids if opener has whatever NT range you don't open 1NT. You tend to lose on auctions where 2/1 is not bid.

Yes, it is simple, so it is an easy system to agree when playing with an unfamiliar partner, but is it a sensible system to play with regular partners who are willing to work on system with you?

[fromageGB]

I agree with AWM.

While I hate the idea of opener not being able to rebid minors meaningfully, it is not too difficult to get round this. At the cost of losing a passable 2♣ you can play 2♦ as always 4, and 2♣ as either natural or balanced. A 2♦ response is an inquiry which resolves the issue : 2♥=weak balanced, 2♠=weak with 4 clubs, 2NT = strong balanced, 3♣ = strong clubs. I roll this in with Gazzilli so any 17+ will also rebid 2♣ (but then 2NT reply is any 15/16).

What I like about the strong NT (I play 15/16) and 5 card majors is that (as has been said) you don't lose the major fits, endemic in weak NT. I also like the ability of partner to reply on his expected strength of 8+ whereas pass is common opposite a weak NT.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-03, 19:28, said:

What do you gain by playing 2/1? When you bid 2/1, you gain a simple raise or simple rebid as forcing... but you are forced to make up bids if opener has whatever NT range you don't open 1NT. You tend to lose on auctions where 2/1 is not bid.

Yes, it is simple, so it is an easy system to agree when playing with an unfamiliar partner, but is it a sensible system to play with regular partners who are willing to work on system with you?

The problems with notrump ranges after 1♦-2♣ are caused by the agreement that this particular 2/1 response is not a GF.

More generally, playing 2/1 means that you don't have to make a distinction between minimum hands and almost-minimum hands that are just worth a GF. This frees up loads of sequences that can be used for other purposes.

Maybe the downsides of the wide range for the 1NT response are big enough to cancel out those advantages. But even so, it is important to keep the system simple. Not having to spend mental resources on figuring out whether a 3M or 4m bid in some convoluted and/or contested auction is forcing or not is something I really appreciate when playing 2/1.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-01, 13:01, said:

That [referring to helene_t's comment that responder having bid 2♣ has denied a hand that would sign off opposite a weak NT] doesn't mean that it would be useless to show a weak NT rather than have to make up an inaccurate bid.

Agree, but if you want a rebid that shows 12-14 balanced that would have to be artificial since responder would not know what to do over a 2NT rebid showing this. You could probably play a 2♥ rebid as showing 12-14 balanced and a 2NT rebid as showing a reverse with hearts. Or something like that.