[luke warm]

tout qui peut comprendre qu'Alex n'importe ce qu'il parle sont les génies

[fred]

Cascade, on Feb 8 2005, 06:48 AM, said:

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.

So time right now to try to justify these claims, but I believe the following examples of "baggage" to be true:

- In order for a weak notrump system to be effective, it is necessary to make more agreements and more complicated agreements than you would have to make in building in an effective strong notrump system.

- At the table weak notrumpers face more bidding problems and more difficult bidding problems than strong notrumpers do.

- If you play in an area in which the majority of the players use strong notrumps and if you think that you have better bridge skills than the majority of the field, you should not welcome the "random swings on normal hands" that your weak notrump system creates.

- Despite many weak notrumpers' claims to the contrary, sometimes they go for a big number after opening a weak notrump. Sometimes the opponents don't make a game on these hands. Not all players have the emotional makeup to deal with this sort of adversity.

- Lightish shapely openings of 1 of a minor are a bad idea when you play a weak notrump system.

- More frequent and more difficult "impossible rebid problems" (on 1435 13-count for example) than you have playing a strong notrump system.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Yzerman]

I have read a few times in this post that the problem hand in many cases is the 9 point hand in response to a hand that opens 1 of a minor while playing weak NT. I would like to add a little commentary and an example of a recent problem hand regarding weak NT vs strong NT argument.

I have a real life partner that I play 70% of my F2F bridge with in which we converted to weak NT (11-14) about 4-5 years ago. About 10% of the other time I play, is with partners I play some variety of weak NT/KS style with while the other 20% of time is something else. For 4-5 years we have continually refined our structure (both for the 11-14 balanced and 15-17 balanced) to try and optimize results for the MAJORITY of the deals and problem deals. Fred mentioned earlier in this post the overhead associated with playing weak NT and I tend to agree with him with one exception. The exception in my case is that I play SO much 11-14 NT is that its almost second nature for me to the point where I consider it my "standard" approach to the game.

The problem that I have frequently encountered playing 11-14 NT in casual and infrequent partnerships is that there is a LOT of room for disaster in some sequences that require some sound agreements and/or very fine judgement (as is the case w/any system). There are inherently some sequences that are VERY awkward and non-standard with weak NT that leave the partnership in some uncomfortable decision making situations.

Having said that, my experience has been once you get past the initial discomfort of weak NT/KS, and can develop some sound agreements that are mutually accepted there is a lot of benefit in playing weak NT. My first and foremost argument for weak NT is as follows;

"Just by nature of a 15-17 balanced hand vs 11-14 balanced hand, there is MORE to describe. With hands that you are ALLOWED (non-competitevely) to open 1 of a minor and rebid 1NT, as long as you have sound continuations, you are already one step ahead of your competition that is playing 15-17."

The largest gain, in my experience, has been avoiding non-playable 3nt's combined with the ability to find nice minor slams, minor games, 4/3 major fits for game/slam, and occasionally playing a 5-2 major fit.

Having said all of this, there remains the prototype problem hand for those that advocate weak NT's. The prototype problem hand is the 9 point hand in response to a 1 minor opening. EVERY partner in which I play weak NT, we must devise special methods to account for this hand (some examples of how to cope with below);

1C-1D Walsh style (1C-1D-1N-2N)
1C-2D, 1D-3C Criss-Cross
1D-2C with good 9 counts to avoid partner passing 1NT
etc

These are all non-standard and require a LOT of discussion and mutual understanding in order to deal with, once again the overhead/baggage theory comes into play.

Now for example! In recent regional team event, we had 6 person team. I played in a rotation of 3 players, my regular partner, a VERY skilled and highly respected player, and myself. The pairings of my regular partner/not regular partner and not regular partner/myself were non-established partnerships. But to try and avoid each person remembering different agreements we all discussed and agreed upon a card that we all played (fyi - the card we agreed to play was a streamlined version of what my regular partner/me play, 11-14 NT).

One treatment we agreed to play was Criss-Cross (1C-2D, 1D-3C) invites on minor openings. My regular partner and I have the explicit agreement that the criss-cross invite is defined as follows;

"Partner, if your opening is a 15-17 NT I want to play 3NT otherwise if you have the weak minor variant I would prefer to play this in your suit at the prescribed level."

As the 3 of us discussed this, we forgot to use this exact phrase as what our definition of criss-cross is. So, playing with the 3rd person, I picked up the following hand;

Axx
10xx
J9xx
Axx

Partner opened 1D, I judged red vs white teams that since partner opened 1D we cant afford to miss 3nt if partner has 15-17 balanced so I bid 3C invite in D (intending the bid to mean as I defined above). Partner, expecting a little better hand, because we did NOT discuss the exact nature of criss-cross, bid past 3nt in which this led to disaster result. I felt extremely guilty for the sake of the team and my partner (as well as the personal emotional overhead associated with the feeling that you let 5 others down) by making this marginal call in the face of a new partnership.

In any event, I still remain a strong advocate of weak NT but I also realize that its not something to sit down and play in casual/infrequent partnerships and expect magic to happen!

[MickyB]

fred, on Feb 8 2005, 04:16 PM, said:

- If you play in an area in which the majority of the players use strong notrumps and if you think that you have better bridge skills than the majority of the field, you should not welcome the "random swings on normal hands" that your weak notrump system creates.

- Despite many weak notrumpers' claims to the contrary, sometimes they go for a big number after opening a weak notrump. Sometimes the opponents don't make a game on these hands. Not all players have the emotional makeup to deal with this sort of adversity.

- Lightish shapely openings of 1 of a minor are a bad idea when you play a weak notrump system.

- More frequent and more difficult "impossible rebid problems" (on 1435 13-count for example) than you have playing a strong notrump system.

In response to Fred's points above -

1) You need to be a lot better than the field before your chances of winning an event are decreased by playing an anti-field system. If you are slightly above average then by playing with the field you will receive slightly above average results. If you play anti-field, your MP total will be very slightly lower, but the increase in variance is more than worth it.

2) Yup, fair enough.

3) They reduce one of the benefits of the weak NT, yes. Personally I think opening a minor because you have a bit of shape is wrong - your main aim is 3NT, if the shape isn't going to help that then it shouldn't have much effect on your decision to open.

4) Playing strong NT, would you rebid 1NT over 1♠ with your 1435 13 count? Would you expect your peers to do so also?

[fred]

MickyB, on Feb 8 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

4) Playing strong NT, would you rebid 1NT over 1♠ with your 1435 13 count? Would you expect your peers to do so also?

That's how I would normally handle a such a hand (unless my clubs were exceptionally strong), but for sure there many many players who would usually rebid 2C with that pattern instead. As far as I can tell, rebidding 1NT with a singleton is becoming increasingly acceptable among experts in America, but most Europeans still prefer to rebid their 5-card minors with such hands.

The point I was trying to make is that, when you play strong notrump, you have a choice in the matter. When you play weak notrumps you don't.

Note there is an analogous problem when you play a strong notrump system - the 1435 16-count, but this problem is much less serious here because a reverse bid of 2H is now a viable (though not necessarily desirable) alternative.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[junyi_zhu]

fred, on Feb 8 2005, 05:18 PM, said:

MickyB, on Feb 8 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

4) Playing strong NT, would you rebid 1NT over 1♠ with your 1435 13 count? Would you expect your peers to do so also?

That's how I would normally handle a such a hand (unless my clubs were exceptionally strong), but for sure there many many players who would usually rebid 2C with that pattern instead. As far as I can tell, rebidding 1NT with a singleton is becoming increasingly acceptable among experts in America, but most Europeans still prefer to rebid their 5-card minors with such hands.

The point I was trying to make is that, when you play strong notrump, you have a choice in the matter. When you play weak notrumps you don't.

Note there is an analogous problem when you play a strong notrump system - the 1435 16-count, but this problem is much less serious here because a reverse bid of 2H is now a viable (though not necessarily desirable) alternative.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

because of two way checkback, I think I'd rebid 1NT with "off shape" hands whenever possible. I guess that's basically the reason why off shape 1NT rebids become more and more popular. Two way checkback is so powerful that off shape 1NT rebids often set up a very good start for bidding successes.

[bestguru]

What do you think about using canape openings with a weak 1nt. That would seem to solve your rebid problems. Your 1435 becomes a 1♥ with a 2♣ response

[MickyB]

fred, on Feb 8 2005, 05:18 PM, said:

MickyB, on Feb 8 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

4) Playing strong NT, would you rebid 1NT over 1♠ with your 1435 13 count? Would you expect your peers to do so also?

That's how I would normally handle a such a hand (unless my clubs were exceptionally strong), but for sure there many many players who would usually rebid 2C with that pattern instead. As far as I can tell, rebidding 1NT with a singleton is becoming increasingly acceptable among experts in America, but most Europeans still prefer to rebid their 5-card minors with such hands.

Thanks Fred. I guess how often you rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit should tie in quite strongly with how often you raise with a balanced hand with 3 card support, then partner knows whether to rebid their 5 bagger on a weakish hand. I quite liked a hand in the Master Solvers' Club - after 1♦:1♠, the majority decision with a 1453 minimum was to rebid 2♣.

[MickyB]

bestguru, on Feb 8 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

What do you think about using canape openings with a weak 1nt. That would seem to solve your rebid problems. Your 1435 becomes a 1♥ with a 2♣ response

I'd be amazed if this didn't create more problems than it solves. 1354 after 1♣:1♠?

[fred]

MickyB, on Feb 8 2005, 05:58 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 8 2005, 05:18 PM, said:

MickyB, on Feb 8 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

4) Playing strong NT, would you rebid 1NT over 1♠ with your 1435 13 count? Would you expect your peers to do so also?

That's how I would normally handle a such a hand (unless my clubs were exceptionally strong), but for sure there many many players who would usually rebid 2C with that pattern instead. As far as I can tell, rebidding 1NT with a singleton is becoming increasingly acceptable among experts in America, but most Europeans still prefer to rebid their 5-card minors with such hands.

Thanks Fred. I guess how often you rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit should tie in quite strongly with how often you raise with a balanced hand with 3 card support, then partner knows whether to rebid their 5 bagger on a weakish hand. I quite liked a hand in the Master Solvers' Club - after 1♦:1♠, the majority decision with a 1453 minimum was to rebid 2♣.

Not as much as you might think. I do like to have the freedom to raise with 3 when I think it is right, but when my partner rebids 1NT I generally do not worry myself that he might have a singleton in my suit in deciding whether or not to rebid my 5-card major. In general I will pass with most 5332 hands and rebid my major with most other patterns.

Yes, sometimes I end up playing in 5-1 fits at the 2-level, but this doesn't happen very often in practice and sometimes when it does the 5-1 fit plays OK.

I consider your question analogous to situations in which partner opens 1 of a minor, the next hand bids something, and you have a "normal raise" of partner's minor with "only" 4-card support. Don't lose any sleep worrying that partner might have opened a 3-card suit - just make your normal bid. For sure it will be wrong sometimes, but more often it will be right regardless of how many cards partner has in his minor.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[bestguru]

MickyB, on Feb 8 2005, 01:00 PM, said:

bestguru, on Feb 8 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

What do you think about using canape openings with a weak 1nt.   That would seem to solve your rebid problems.  Your 1435  becomes a 1♥ with a 2♣ response

I'd be amazed if this didn't create more problems than it solves. 1354 after 1♣:1♠?

If you have a diamond stop and don't mind getting to 2nt that becomes 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ otherwise it is 1♣ 1♠ 1NT.

I don't see much of a problem there

[junyi_zhu]

MickyB, on Feb 8 2005, 05:58 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 8 2005, 05:18 PM, said:

MickyB, on Feb 8 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

4) Playing strong NT, would you rebid 1NT over 1♠ with your 1435 13 count? Would you expect your peers to do so also?

That's how I would normally handle a such a hand (unless my clubs were exceptionally strong), but for sure there many many players who would usually rebid 2C with that pattern instead. As far as I can tell, rebidding 1NT with a singleton is becoming increasingly acceptable among experts in America, but most Europeans still prefer to rebid their 5-card minors with such hands.

Thanks Fred. I guess how often you rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit should tie in quite strongly with how often you raise with a balanced hand with 3 card support, then partner knows whether to rebid their 5 bagger on a weakish hand. I quite liked a hand in the Master Solvers' Club - after 1♦:1♠, the majority decision with a 1453 minimum was to rebid 2♣.

actually it's just an illusion that 2C is a good bid here. Suppose your partner holds a GF hand with good clubs, do you feel comfortable when partner gives you a gameforcing raise in clubs later?
The true killer for 1-4-5-3 shape is those hand that are about good 14 to bad 16 and bad diamonds.
1NT would be an underbid if you play it to show 12 to bad 14 or normal 14. 2D would be rather poor as well. Sx HAKQx DJxxxx CAJx, for such kind of hands, it's probably best to open 1H and rebid 2D later to treat it as 5-5. For SA HKJxx DQxxxx CAQx, it's probably best to open 1NT. For Sx HAQxx DAJxxx CAxx, it would be really tough, and you may claim that you can open 1D and rebid 2C, but it should not work very well as I said above, it just postponed your fatal moment. Facing a partner who holds: SAKQxx HKx DKx CKQxx, you may hear an 4D kickback RKC from partner over this 3C, which is really a kickback. I guess that's why so many great players would rather play 4 card major. For me, I'd probably just open 1D and rebid 2D if my partner doesn't allow me to open 1H.

[mr1303]

A vaguely amusing story from Manchester Bridge Club

Newby beginner: What do you open with 16 HCP and 4 spades and 4 clubs, balancedd

Jason Hackett: 1NT

Newby beginner: What do you do if you play weak NT

Jason Hackett: I throw myself into a pit of gravel

[mila85]

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?

I play 2c/2d as inv/gf stayman. 2m is sing off, 2nt and 3m nat. invits, 3M GF with 5cards.
I will try to campare it with standard mehods (stayman, transfers):
PROS:
1.Opener knows responeder's strength:
1nt-2♣ |1nt-2♦
2♥-3♥ |2♥-3♥
Nat inv.|Slam try.

1nt-2♣ |1nt-2♦
2♠-3♣ |2♠-3♣
5-4 inv.|GF with clubs

1nt-(p)-2♣-(2♠) |1nt-(p)-2♥-(2♠)
p - (p)- 3♥-....... |p - (p) -3♥-...
Invit                   |Competitive

2.Easy slam bidding after 2♦

3.
1nt-2♣
2♦ -2♥
pass
2♦....no major
2♥....5+heards
pass...minimum
With standard methods you would play 2nt or 3♥

4. 1nt-2M
Opps have only one turn to intervene.

CONS:
1. You must learn it.
2. You can give out too much information. (This is why I play 3M as GF with 5 cards)
3.1nt-2♣
2♠....You must bid 2nt with 5 heards.
4. 2M sing off can wrong side the contract. (not big problem after weak nt)
5. You don't know responder's suit after 2♣. e.g. 1nt-(p)-2♣-(5♦)...

With passed hand I play transfers.

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+?

I rebid 2♦. It's not so big problem as it seems.
-Responder can have diamond support.
-He can have 4cards in major - would bid 1M, not 2♣.
-He can have balanced distribution - would bid 2nt, not 2♣.
-He can bid 2nt/3nt over 2d.
But there is another problem. I wrote about it in "ACOL" topic.

Quote

4. What do you bid after 1♣-1♥ with 4 card ♥ and 15 pts..16 pts?

2♠ and 3♦ are splinters.
3♥ shows 16+ and 5422
(I can't have 4♥ in balanced distribution because I open major first)
1♥-1♠
I can bid 1nt or 3♠ with strong nt and 4 spades

[bhtf]

hi all, very instructive one

when playing my own big 1♣ : 1NT IS NOT A BID IN THE SYS
then 1NT is THAT you want. Perhaps :
-- 11-13 HCP in first or second white
-- 14-16 HCP no !s by four in others.

no miracle in that :
1♣ is 15+ with MR. Medium responses about 6-10 Hcp + Shape.
and then 1♣-1♦ (light or strong) - 1NT 15-20 can "survive" easily.
1♣ 2+ keep 11-14 eventualy flat
2NT 21-22
2♦ Multi w 23-24
1♣-1♦-2NT 25+

medium responses to 1♣ is not very popular i agree.

your dear Alain (bhtf on BBO)

[kgr]

Thanks all for the many responses already on this topic... or was the interst not so much initiated by my post but by Fred's involvement

Quote

- In order for a weak notrump system to be effective, it is necessary to make more agreements and more complicated agreements than you would have to make in building in an effective strong notrump system.

Not sure I still want to switch to weak NT after reading all this. But can anyone point me to a link with a description of the consequences.
Also:
If you play weak NT: Do you open 'natural' with a strong NT hand or do you always open 1♣ and rebid 1NT?

Quote

- If you play in an area in which the majority of the players use strong notrumps and if you think that you have better bridge skills than the majority of the field, you should not welcome the "random swings on normal hands" that your weak notrump system creates.

In my club I play in a strong NT field with mostly weak players (..weak 'strong NT' players). Most of the time we are 1st or 2nd. This would not be the reason to play weak NT . The main reason would to have some new challenge, hoping it would not get too much challenge for my parter.
To indicate it could be easily too difficult for my partner:
Last MP session we played, bidding was opened by my partner:
1S-(2H)-p-(p)
2S...
He had 13HCP and 5=1=4=3 distribution.
I had 13 HCP and 7-card Heart and was waiting for a DBL

Quote

- More frequent and more difficult "impossible rebid problems" (on 1435 13-count for example) than you have playing a strong notrump system.

It looks like reverse bids fits better with strong NT system.

[whereagles]

Hum... I kinda like Double's idea of a 13-16 NT. The NT structure would be

11-12: pass
13-16: open 1NT
17-19: open 1m, rebid 1NT

That would make 1m openings have a 5 card almost all of the time. Responder could raise freely on 3 cards, and make fit-bids on 5M-3m hands. Very high frequencies for these actions.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Not sure I still want to switch to weak NT after reading all this. But can anyone point me to a link with a description of the consequences.

There's an outline of a well structured weak NT system, K-S, here.

I don't think it's quite as bad as Fred makes it out to be. I think it's really more a problem of familiarity & experience, rather than actual complexity. The problems the weakies face are different, not necessarily more complicated. I think if you just go ahead and try it, you will find the tough auctions don't come up *that* often, and you & your regular partner (can't really try anti-field systems without a regular partner) can come up with some reasonable way to deal with them. And I think you'll pick up enough good boards just from the weak NT itself to offset those tough hands; those arise a lot more often than strong NT hands where the opponents interfere in some annoying way making you guess wrong. Just be prepared to occasionally go for 800 vs. nothing, or languish in 1nt +90 when the field is in 2S +110, a disaster at MP. These are the "random swings" Fred mentions he wants to avoid; I don't really think it's that bad unless you are playing in some very short qualification stage & you have some tremendous skill advantage over the opposition. Over the course of a full day the randomness should even out, & hopefully you have a net gain. I'd prefer the higher variance most of the time.

You might also browse old messages from the K-S mailing list run by Adam Wildavsky, a top flight US player & weak NT proponent. There are many threads on various special problems that crop up.

You can also mail Kokish directly; he was quite helpful with me sending his entire structure on dealing with 4th hand interference, + Martel/Stansby's alternative structure.

Quote

Also:
If you play weak NT: Do you open 'natural' with a strong NT hand or do you always open 1♣ and rebid 1NT?

Natural, if playing a natural system rather than strong club. You want to have partner be able to support your minor in competition.

Quote

- More frequent and more difficult "impossible rebid problems" (on 1435 13-count for example) than you have playing a strong notrump system.

I wouldn't describe it as "impossible rebid" but rather "flawed rebid". With this shape I sometimes open 1nt with honor in spades, rebid a decent club suit, open a strong heart suit. Occasional bad board but usually works out fine. It's not like the strong NT bidders are always winning these boards. My opponents bid a lot, you'll find that on a lot of these minimum flawed rebid hands the opponents are in there & you don't have to rebid.

[awm]

In a natural system (i.e. not forcing club) it seems like weak notrumps would work a lot better with four card majors than with five. To address some of the problems mentioned:

In competitive auctions, after say 1C-(2S), holding around 9 hcp without four hearts, it's usually possible to raise opener's minor. Since 1C guarantees four, it's perfectly safe to bid 3C on four cards here, expecting partner to bid 3NT with 15-17 balanced. It's also fairly safe to bid 3C on five cards with 7-8 points, as 3NT will often make via the big minor fit (which strong notrumpers are unlikely to find after 1NT-2S). Even with THREE card support, a 3C bid on 9-10 points can be a winner, since opener will have five clubs (or 15-17 balanced) virtually all the time (the exception being the rare 4441 hand). In fact, when partner has the weak shapely hand, you may well win here by being able to compete in a minor.

Holding the awkward 1453 type hand, 1H can be opened if the hearts are strong. This would also be the typical opening with 1444. Occasionally you will be "preferenced" back into a 4-2 fit but this is rare (and at least the hearts are strong). With good diamonds, opening 1D and rebidding 2D should be fine.

It seems like the loss of the "preemptive" effect of the 1NT opening on strong hands is somewhat countered by opening 1-major (instead of 1-minor). You may end up playing some 4-3 fits at the two level, but this could be a good result as easily as a bad one, and again there is often a choice of openings, so the four-card major opens tend to be decent suits.

There's also an advantage to weak notrumps, in that the auction 1m-1M-2M becomes a "sound" raise. Typically this will be 15-16 balanced or an equivalent shapely hand (12 points with a singleton will be worth about the same). This solves a number of problems in standard bidding, like what to do with 3-card support and a hand "too good" for a single raise, and what to rebid with 13 hcp but 4441 shape (four card support for partner). Each of these hands is in some sense too strong for a single raise that could be a flat twelve, but not really good enough for a jump to the three-level.

I've played weak notrump for a number of years now, but mostly in the context of a strong club (or diamond) system. My general feeling is that the weak notrump opener is a winner at NV -- for every hand that we go for a "number" opposite no game (usually this number is 300) there are several where we go for 300 opposite a making game or make a partscore when the opponents had a making partscore their way. And the -50s in 1NT-1 instead of -90s and -110s (defending a partial by opponents) do tend to add up in our favor as well. At vulnerable, there just seem to be way too many -200s opposite no game, and the occasional -500 or -800 doubled can be hard to explain to teammates.

-- Adam