[luke warm]

neither do i bene ... but i *think* he was agreeing with you

[MickyB]

Fred, why do you suggest making 1NT overcalls against weak NT players and Swedish Club? Swedish Club in particular would seem to cope with this kind of interference quite well - opener can get away with a double if he has the 17+ hand.

I agree with your other points - the problem with 12-14 is responder having to act on flat 9s in order to reach good 3NTs. I got around this problem by playing Nightmare/Millennium Club - 2♣ is natural, Precision style and 1♣ is 15+ clubs, bal or any GF. Another way would be to put more pressure on your NT structure - playing a 'weak' 13-16 NT could work ok, then your bids are natural unbal or 17+bal, which has the side effect of freeing up a 2NT rebid. Never tried it mind!

When playing weak NT, I much prefer to play Short Club. Compared to when playing a strong NT:

When you open a 12 point hand with 1NT, you are keen to indicate a lead to partner and a possible strain for a part-score. Playing strong NT, the most likely scenario is this info telling opps how to defend your 3NT contract.

Opposite a 1m opening bid, you are happy to bid strongly (eg inverted raise) with 9 points and 3 card support - either you can play 3m on a 5-3 or 3NT with a combined 24. You are more likely to have that 3 card 'support' when partner has less cards in his opened suit.

Nicktoll's structure looks very nice to me - what should bidding 1♣ then diamonds show in competition?

To answer your questions:

1) Transfers create many more bidding sequences. Many feel that they suffer in competitive auctions, but I disagree - after 1NT:2♦, 2♥ the next hand to bid doesn't know how strong responder is, so any prebalancing is dangerous. After 1NT:2♥ natural, either hand can balance fairly safely.

2) I wouldn't like to guess, it is certainly a sizeable minority playing weak NT. Of course, this doesn't prove much.

3) 4441s are icky, whatever you do. There are several options - opening 1♦ (rebidding 2♦ over 2♣), 1♥ (even playing 5cM), 1NT, or even 1♣ if playing short club. It is quite a rare handtype, I wouldn't worry about agreeing how to bid them, partner will never play you for the hand you have.

4) If you sometimes raise responder's major on 3 card support and 12 points, then that is a much weaker hand in support of the major than any hand with 4 card support. If you would raise on 3 card support, then flat 15s would tend to raise to 2♥, flat 16s to 3♥; If not, then I would still make a single raise on a flat 16. (Add a point or so on for 4333s)

[the hog]

One point that has not yet been mentioned is the pre emptive nature of the 1NT opening. It is a lot harder to overcall 1NT than it is to overcall 1m.

Having said this, I have played both Wnt and 15-17. I agree with Fred's comment that it does not matter too much what you play, with one big rider. The NT range WILL have an impact on the rest of your system; you cannot just switch from Wnt to Snt without looking at the ramifications on the system as a whole, and infortunately this is what a lot of inexperienced players do.

[helene_t]

As I understand weak NT, it becomes responders responsibility to show his 8-10 HCPs immediately since he can't expect opener to reopen with a ballanced 16 HCPs. This may require negative freebids in certain situations. Also, you may support minor suits on a 3-card in contested auctions if you can't do anything else. With the understanding that opener must bid on with 15+.

Is the Small Roman 2♦ opening popular among weak-notrump players? Here in the Netherlands, nobody plays Small Roman, but then again, few people play weak notrump, and many find it ok to rebid notrumps with a singleton in partner's suit.

This thread has mainly been about contested auctions, but there are some problems in uncontested auctions also. After 1♦-1NT you don't want to raise with 15(16) HCPs, which means that responder should be allowed to bid 2♣ (or 3♣) with 10(9) HCPs. Also, with something like x-AKxx-Axx-Qxxxx you don't have a good rebid. I once thought that a rebid of 1NT should show either this hand or 15-17 ballanced, with 2♣ as a non-forcing relay, but realized that this was a high prize to pay for solving a marginal problem. Maybe it's better to play Montreal Relay, then 1NT is an acceptable rebid with this hand.

On the other hand, weak 1NT works fine in auctions that begin with
1m-1♥
1♠-2m
Responder knows that opener will be able to bid on if he's minor suit is not genuine, so he can take a false preference.

[Gerben47]

Let me also add my two cents. I agree with Fred that the weak NT has its disadvantages when you have a strong NT hand, but we should also not forget that the strong NT has disadvantages if you have a weak NT hand. Because the weak NT is 2x more frequent, to break even the disadvantages when you have the other hand type are allowed to be twice as large.

With Fred's example hand (1m and 2♠ overcall, you have 8-9 points and no 4-card ♥) your next hope is to have 4 cards in partner's minor, knowing that either he has the strong NT and some game will be playable, or there is a fit in the minor. I'd bid 3m and expect partner to bid 3NT with 15-17 and a stopper.

Also Helene's example 1♦ - 1NT is solved similarly. Playing 12 - 14 you can make a stronger move with any 10-count. This means with 15 or a bad 16 you pass 1NT in tempo and not miss out on anything. It is not for nothing that in England people make light 2/1 bids: It's related to the weak notrump.

Also there are always borderline cases, and it depends on your NT range what your death combination is.
After 1NT 15-17 you might pass some bad 8-counts and weak notrumpers bid 1x - 1NT - 2NT - 3NT. After 12-14 you might pass bad 11-counts and strong notrumpers bid 1x - 2NT - 3NT. If you are more agressive (never pass with 8 opposite 15-17) shift this one HCP downward, but you know what I mean.

Playing 14-16 (this is a nice range too!) means that hands that go 1NT (15-17) - 2NT - 3NT will now go 1NT - pass or 1x ... 3NT. This may be good or bad. It never ends...

Let me finish with this observation: In Malmö and ALL international events previous the Dutch open team has played strong NT opening bids. Now there are at least 2 of the 5 pairs playing a variable NT (at certain colours 1NT is 10 - 12, and it's in a standard 5-card major system, not a strong club or anything).
If such an organized group of great players think it has merit, that's a strong case.

[MickyB]

Just a quick point against Acol in particular -

After 1X:1NT, flat 15s and some flat 16s pass. There is no other reasonable option. That means a 2/1 has to be made on 9 counts. Say after 1♠:2♣, 2♥ you have a 1345. You are likely to have a complete misfit, and depending on opening style you could have a combined 19-20 count. This leads to going off in some dodgy partscores and some very inaccurate game bidding.

[Gerben47]

I don't have any experience with Acol myself, I have just observed the weak 2-/1 bids.

Playing 5-card majors and weak NT (which was the original question, right?) the only 2/1 bid affected is 1♦ - 2♣ and 1♦ - 1NT is limited to 9 HCP. Worst case you are in 3♦ with only 8-card fit and 21 HCP, but that's not terrible. Others are unlikely to play 2♦ in this case.

[EricK]

MickyB, on Feb 7 2005, 11:50 AM, said:

Just a quick point against Acol in particular -

After 1X:1NT, flat 15s and some flat 16s pass. There is no other reasonable option. That means a 2/1 has to be made on 9 counts. Say after 1♠:2♣, 2♥ you have a 1345. You are likely to have a complete misfit, and depending on opening style you could have a combined 19-20 count. This leads to going off in some dodgy partscores and some very inaccurate game bidding.

This problem isn't really as bad as you say.

If partner opens 1♠ and you have a 1-3-4-5 hand (or similar) then it is not too dangerous to make an "underbid" of 1NT when you have 9 or so points. If partner has a strong NT and passes then you might very well be in a good contract.

Not all 25 point hands make 3NT! And when you have a singleton in partner's best suit the proportion of making 3NT contracts goes down further.

Playing Acol (at the level I do) I have made more dodgy part-scores than I have gone off in! And I don't think my game bidding is less accurate than others of my level. I think that in general Acol auctions tend to give less information to the opposition so one gets worse defense.

Eric

[arrows]

Here is the link of some convincing argument made by Dr. Chris Ryall.
http://www.cavendish...omplex.htm#opps

And I am convinced

Whoever bid their par first win the auction, and to open 12-14 1NT,
1NT is your expected par, as Chris explained.

Also, I believe playing weak NT does give you an edge against
non-world-class players. 99% players do not know how to deal with
it in a correct way, I am not exaggerating at all.

[Stephen Tu]

Back to the original questions:

Quote

1. Opening 1NT and using transfer and stayman is useful to let the strong hand play. This is less usefull when playing weak NT and therefor this is an disadvantage of weak NT?

The transfer has more importance in terms of increasing constructive sequences than it does in right-siding, for both strength ranges. The right-siding is not that important for weak NT. In theory, transfers are easier to defend against than direct bids from an opponent competition standpoint. But in my experience, at least in a strong NT dominated country no one seems to have taken the necessary steps to take advantage of this (e.g. make use of differentiating between double of transfer, delayed double of completed transfer, immediate cue-bid, other direct vs. delayed actions); they always just seem to double as lead directing. So if they aren't going to take advantage by defending optimally, it seems right to go ahead and use transfers for their constructive advantages.

Quote

2. Looking at vue graph I see that a lot of top players play strong NT. Any idea of the % of top players that play some kind of natural system do play weak or strong NT?

No idea. But I think that the statistics of these are completely dominated by the relative popularity of NT range in the country of origin. Experts tend to play what other people play nearby, it's easier to get partners & clients that way.

Quote

3. Playing weak NT as described above what do you open with 12-14 and:
xxxx=xxxx=xxxx=x with a small ♣
Suppose you open 1♦: what do you bid after 1♦-2♣? 2NT would show 15+?

Playing 5cM, you can agree to either:
- rebid 2d, not promising 5+d
- rebid 2h, not promising extra values
- rebid 2h, artificially showing 4441 ala Kokish's recommendations.

If you are really rock min with this shape you can consider passing rather than opening as Kaplan-Sheinwold does.

Quote

4. What do you bid after 1♣-1♥ with 4 card ♥ and 15 pts..16 pts?
... any other suggestions/remarks welcome.

Raise to 2♥.

As for the larger question of whether one should play weak NT, I agree with Fred that it probably doesn't matter too much & system comfort is more important. I like the weak NT & am comfortable with it; yes there are some uncomfortable auctions & losses for it, but there are gains also. I think it's a net plus for me, so I continue to use it; if people like Kokish & Martel-Stansby think it's a winner, I feel if I'm wrong I can't be wrong by that much. I also like to be anti-field in pair events since it increases my variance although my expectation is probably the same, I think that makes it easier to win them, better to have 62% games & 54% games than just getting 58% a lot.

[fred]

Stephen Tu, on Feb 8 2005, 12:04 AM, said:

The transfer has more importance in terms of increasing constructive sequences than it does in right-siding, for both strength ranges. The right-siding is not that important for weak NT. In theory, transfers are easier to defend against than direct bids from an opponent competition standpoint. But in my experience, at least in a strong NT dominated country no one seems to have taken the necessary steps to take advantage of this (e.g. make use of differentiating between double of transfer, delayed double of completed transfer, immediate cue-bid, other direct vs. delayed actions); they always just seem to double as lead directing. So if they aren't going to take advantage by defending optimally, it seems right to go ahead and use transfers for their constructive advantages.

Agree with all of this completely. People are taught that the main benefit of transfers is to get the strong hand on play. That is just plain wrong on in my view. Not only is the increased number of sequences much more important (as Stephen notes), but some deals are harder on the defense if the weak shapely hand is hidden instead of the strong balanced hand.

Rosenberg-Zia are the only other top American pair besides Martel-Stanby that I can think of off the top of my head who play a weak notrump system, but that doesn't prove much. Zia and Rosenberg play strong notrumps in some position/vul combinations while Martel Stansby play weak notrumps throughout.

Please note that I never claimed that strong notrumps are "better" - just that I find them easier to play and for me comfort at the table is important. Also, the whole issue of notrump ranges is different for a strong club system than it is for a natural system.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Double !]

Please indulge the opinion of a much less accomplished player that most of you on the forum appear to be. But this is in response to a comment that Fred made about the importance of playing a system/ NT range that puts you in your comfort zone (or somethng to that effect). I so strongly agree. What works for some might not be optimal for another.

Many years ago, after another horrible performance in a tournament, I looked through numerous hand record sheets to see where I, personnally was losing points (besides frequent inability to follow suit, to remember what cards had been played, not paying attention to partner's card play, and not counting to 13). I found that I was losing most in competitive situations when playing strong NTs. I felt that I needed a way to make it more difficult for the opps to compete, to have less interference. I decided that playing a 13-16 1NT opening might serve this purpose. My f2f regular and other potential partners' initial reactions were that this range was unplayable, but he agreed to try it, and the darned thing seemed to work for us. One effect of this system (that I now play on BBO with one partner) is that it is, with a couple of exceptions, more natural than either 2/1 or sayc due in part to the fact that one almost always has at least 4, and usually 5+ -card suits, or else extra values, when one opens 1m. (Don't have to worry about P holding a balanced minimum with a 3-card suit when 1m is opened:if it's a mini, partner will usually have 5 of the suit.) Yes, the system has some glaring weaknesses including times when close games and some 4-4 partscore fits have been missed that others bid, but we have rarely lost that many imps or gotten very few matchpoints on such boards as there were always some minus scores to compensate. It requires a certain amount of self-discipline to play this approach and openings tend to be slightly more sound with balanced hands, but it is easy to learn, more difficult to defend against than strong NT systems IMO, our competitive decisions improved, and it's fun to do something different. It is still a work in progress, but it is not insane, and it's fun to play, or so I'm told, there's less brain drain, and I believe that the one unusual opening bid is GCC legal. I am not advocating this, I wouldn't dare. It' s just that, for me, since I'm going to mess up and pitch matchpoints away anyway, I might as well do it playing something that's fun for me and my partner and that usually works reasonably well.

[pbleighton]

As someone who prefers weak NT, but who plays a lot of strong NT:

I agree with Ron that NT range affects the rest of your system significantly. I play a light Standard American type system with one pd, with 12-14/10-13 NT. When I first started playing it, I didn't realize the impact it would have. Inverted minors, especially, work much differently with weak NT, and of course the knowledge that pd doesn't have a balanced minimum can be huge.

Opening strong NT hands 1m in a strong NT field gets a lot of bottoms. Fred's point about interference is excellent, but opps 1M overcall of 1m happens more frequently (at least in the circles I play in), and can be a disaster.

Peter

[luke warm]

needless to say, i disagree with the "lot of bottoms" part of that, peter... i don't particularly view 1m (1M) as a disaster when playing 12-14 nt... partner still has 13 cards

also, won't you be opening 1nt more often 12-14 than 15-17? the preemptive effect, for what it's worth, does exist

[arrows]

One simple difference between weak NT and strong NT.

when you play strong NT, your opponents can resolve to just bid destructively,
esp. in MP game, occasionally lose a game is not a problem at all. Hence, they
would try to jam the auction with almost anything plus some shape..
This approach obviously won't work for them when you play weak NT....

[pbleighton]

"needless to say, i disagree with the "lot of bottoms" part of that, peter... i don't particularly view 1m (1M) as a disaster when playing 12-14 nt... partner still has 13 cards"

My point was really that when you play weak NT you lose the preemptive effect of the NT opening on 15-17 hands. I do get a number of bottoms on these hands, though "a lot of" might be an exaggeration. Don't you get bottoms in a strong NT field when your opps have found the only 2S contract their way?

"also, won't you be opening 1nt more often 12-14 than 15-17? the preemptive effect, for what it's worth, does exist"

Absolutely. That's why I started my post
"As someone who prefers weak NT, but who plays a lot of strong NT"
I play strong NT when I have to. I don't care for it, but it has its advantages.

Peter

[Cascade]

fred, on Feb 7 2005, 06:03 AM, said:

In real life there is a big difference between playing the best possible system and the best system possible. Kokish could likely make a convincing theoretical argument as to why weak notrump was a necessary component of the best possible system, but in my opinion, the baggage that necessarily goes along with playing such a system means that it cannot be the best possible system (for me at least).

Thanks Fred for your posts on this topic.

I would be curious to know what you considered the baggage that goes along with weak NT.

[Free]

I also play a lot of strong NT, I don't have much problems with it at all. It's just more fun to open with little strength and jam opponent's bidding . It creates action, and crazy situations, but most problems are for the opponents.

These days with my regular f2f partner I play 10-12 (in a strong ♣ system) in 1st and 2nd seat, independent of Vulnerability. We had lots of wins (in imps we'd only have a few big wins and lots of small ones), but we also have small losses, and we were ready to write -800 2 times in a few months. However, for some reason opps just kept bidding and we were out of trouble (note: this was both times with rather weak opponents).

[slothy]

Patapon, on Feb 6 2005, 09:09 PM, said:

cherdano, on Feb 7 2005, 12:54 AM, said:

Maybe you are a genius and have no problems switching from one system to another for every match.
Arend

I am not a genius i am afraid
Because I don't understand a word of Dean's last post!

Bene

Ma Chere Bene,

es-tu obligé d'etre aussi modeste, huh?

il y a des gens tres doués de naissance....tous ceux qui peuvent me comprendre quand je parle en francais, comme toi, encore un peu, doivent etre genies

Alexandre

PS il t'aide se tu es un excellente cuisiniere- en ce cas, ne pas importante que joues SA forte o faible

[Free]

slothy, on Feb 8 2005, 03:11 PM, said:

tous ceux qui peuvent me comprendre quand je parle en francais, encore un peu, doivent etre genies

tnx