[hrothgar]

Wayne_LV, on Feb 11 2007, 06:19 PM, said:

Knock wood -- I have an FD Conv card completed for use of weak 12-14 NT opening.

I call the system ASAP (As Simple As Practical)

It is definitely not simple and probably not practical

The basic approach is Standard American with the following Conventions:

Brozel over ops NT (direct and passout seats)
Gambling 3NT
Jacoby and Texas Transfers
Weak Jump Shift
Stolen Bid Doubles
Michael's and Unusual 2NT
Jacoby 2NT
Negative Double -> 2S
RKCB 0314
Splinters over Majors
Help Suit Game Try
Lebensohl after x of Wk 2
Hyashi Runout
Mini-Roman 2D

Thanks everyone for your excellent input. Some I took at face value and used as suggested, others I am using on a trial basis, some things I am reserving judgement on while I try other approaches (but may try other suggested approaches at a later time).

Next comes hours at a Partnership Practice table with a couple of my better partners and a pair of GIBs. Then a trial run in some Main Club games.

If it all works out then will give it a go in some ACBL tournaments.

This, of course, assumes my partners and I retain what little sanity we have left LOL.

Wayne

One very quick/simple suggestion:

An awful lot of time and effort went into developing Kaplan - Sheinwold. I think that you would (likely) have a lot better results learning K-S by rote rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. Yes, K-S is somewhat dated. However, its a GOOD system.

[cherdano]

MickyB, on Feb 10 2007, 08:54 AM, said:

Free, on Feb 10 2007, 10:21 AM, said:

I'm still not sure what's best after a 2♣ overcall: stolen bid or takeout doubles.

Is there really much difference?

Oh yes. Stolen bid double (as I understand it) implies that your whole NT structure is on, so unless 2♦, 2♥, 2♠ are natural NF in your NT-structure, I think the difference is rather big (especially in terms of expected IMP loss if partner is playing the other version).

Arend

[glen]

hrothgar, on Feb 11 2007, 10:25 AM, said:

One very quick/simple suggestion:  An awful lot of time and effort went into developing Kaplan - Sheinwold.  I think that you would (likely) have a lot better results learning K-S by rote  rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.  Yes, K-S is somewhat dated.  However, its a GOOD system.

I've always loved the KS system notes (and being a systems-nerd I love the notes over the book). See:

Kaplan-Sheinwold Updated by Edgar Kaplan

[Winstonm]

I think DONT is a good rescue vehicle for weak NTs, with redouble being the 1-suited hand.

[awm]

Dunno if anyone else has had this experience, but I've personally had a lot of issues with runout methods where pass forces redouble. Here are the various issues:

(1) It's actually fairly common to have a hand where you want to pass 1NTX. Say partner opens a 12-14 notrump and I have some 4333 6-count. I don't really expect 1NTX to make, although it might if partner has a max or opponents make a bad lead. However most of the time partner can manage 1NTX-1 which is a decent score (especially NV) and it's not unlikely that scrambling to some 4-3 suit fit doubled will be substantially worse. Also if I pass 1NTX ("to play"), then LHO may run and "save us" since he can't always tell how likely we are to make. Typically I don't want to play 1NTXX on these hands, since 1NTXX-1 is not such a good score.

(2) Sometimes if I make a forcing pass after 1NT-X, my LHO takes a call. Now it's possible that my pass was intending to play 1NTXX, but it's also possible that I was planning to run and LHO let me off the hook (maybe doubler has a lot extra and LHO is weak, or maybe LHO just felt like bidding a good suit). Now partner doesn't know if he should act, or whether we're in a forcing auction, and when LHO's bid is passed back to me I'm kind of stuck if I have the good hand and wanted to sit for 1NTXX.

(3) One of the big problems opponents have when they double our 1NT and we have the majority of the strength is that it's hard for them to runout to their best partial. They have fewer bids available after 1NT-X-Pass or 1NT-X-XX than we have over 1NT-X, because we have redouble available and they don't (and after 1NT-X doubler doesn't even get another chance to bid). But by playing pass as forcing redouble, we give opener's RHO (redoubler's LHO) two chances to bid. He can run immediately with a good suit, or pass and then run from the redouble with a flattish hand (i.e. DONT style runouts) which helps his side considerably.

(4) For some reason directors seem to rule (consistently in ACBL-land) that 1NT-X-Pass (forces XX) - Slow Pass - XX (forced) - Bid is okay when the last bid is on a balanced hand. This is despite the fact that the forcing pass did not guarantee values and logic seems to indicate that the slow pass is "I want to run but dunno what to bid" (with a good hand why not sit). This auction places us at substantial disadvantage, especially since it's hard to tell whether doubler "has his bid" (i.e. doubled just to show values with a shapely hand) or is just bidding on partner's hesitation, and we're again in the situation where we can't play a "forcing pass" auction because opener doesn't know responder has values.

Anyways the runouts I personally play are:

(1) DONT runouts: XX is one-suited, bids are that suit and a higher, pass is TO PLAY.

(2) Suction runouts: XX is business, 2♣+ are either the next suit up or both the higher suits (can be 4-4), Pass asks partner to bid 2♣ with 3+ or XX otherwise, and is the normal sequence with either one-suited clubs or a two-suiter which is not both majors.

[fred]

I agree with awm.

Any runout system that does not allow you to play in 1NT doubled is a bad system.

I suggest you spend some more time discussing competitive auctions like:

1m-1M-P/DBL/bid-2M

1m-2M

1m-P-bid-2M

and what happens next rather than spending a lot of time worrying about the exact system you play in purely constructive auctions or in trying to come up with the best possible rescue system.

As long as your constructive methods are not completely absurd and as long as both partners can remember them you will do fine. But many weak notrump pairs fail to make the detailed competitive agreements you need in order to survive in auctions like the ones described above.

Another area in which casual weak notrump pairs do poorly is in responding to 1D openings. In particular, what is the nature of a 1NT response?

Playing 1NT as the "standard" 6-10 does not work very well. You should define it as either "invitational opposite a strong notrump" or "to play opposite a strong notrump" but in either case there are more problems. For example, if 1NT is invitational opposite a strong notrump then you need to do something else (like bid a 3-card major) when you have less than that. If 1NT is defined as a signoff opposite a strong notrump then you need a way to bid hands in the 8-9 HCP range.

As far as I can tell there is no good answer to this problem. Always opening 1C with strong notrump hands solves this problem, but it also means you will be playing a completely different system (with problems of its own that you will have to try to resolve). If you are going to go this far then it is probably the case that you might as well switch to a strong club system.

For whatever it's worth. I played weak notrump pretty much exclusively for 10 years or so and was convinced of the superiority of this approach. When I switched to strong notrump (around 1994) it did not take long for me to change my mind.

But that is just my opinion - many would disagree.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Winstonm]

I find it rather odd that a strong forcing club isn't the standard of bidding instead of a more natural style - perhaps it has to do with the very great temptation to compound the artificiality.

However, even Vanderbilt recognized early on that strong 1-club was a superior method; this was further shown by the Italian Blue Team; and then later proven again with Wei, Precision, and the Precision Team.

I always found it interesting that years ago when I played Hamman/Wolff at regionals they would be playing a standard system, but when it came time for war at Bermuda Bowl, they played a strong club.

I have had the chance to play both styles and IMO the forcing club is clearly superior.

[Wayne_LV]

fred, on Feb 11 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

Any runout system that does not allow you to play in 1NT doubled is a bad system.

The Hyashi Runout does allow you to play 1NT redoubled.

1NT-x-p-p-xx(forced)-p-?

Pass holding a hand that should allow partner to make 1NT holding a 12 count. 9+ hcp or a source of tricks. With game going hands, you can always bid again if ops takeout the redouble.

[fred]

Wayne_LV, on Feb 11 2007, 08:40 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 11 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

Any runout system that does not allow you to play in 1NT doubled is a bad system.

The Hyashi Runout does allow you to play 1NT redoubled.

1NT-x-p-p-xx(forced)-p-?

Pass holding a hand that should allow partner to make 1NT holding a 12 count. 9+ hcp or a source of tricks. With game going hands, you can always bid again if ops takeout the redouble.

I have no idea what Hyashi runouts are, but if part of it includes 1NT-DBL-Pass forces a RDBL, then in my view it doesn't matter - you should not play Hyashi runouts (whatever they are).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

I like DONT after 1NT opener with a few tweaks:

-sell a 4441m as long in the short suit and redouble when they double you (with short diamonds maybe opener would prefer 3♣)
-sell a 4333 as clubs and something. Not very nice sometimes, but makes the next thingie possible:
-pass indicates VALUES, opener needs to pass. subsequent bids are forcing to some level. perhaps 2NT. whatever

if they X with a 0 count then maybe XX and then jump (slam interest), but they don't usually X on a 0 count. if one has clearly values for 3NT then maybe one can bid 3NT but 1NTx+2 is not that big of a deal, it's very close to 3NT and much better if u have only 8 or more than 9 tricks.

[Al_U_Card]

For the ten years or so that I played 10-12 NT, 1C was any opener with C or 16-18 balanced and 1D was any opener with D or 13-15 balanced. 1NT over these bids was either 4-6 or 7-9 respectively. Responder opposite the 1D opener, holding 4-6 hcp and the "problem hand" (no 4 card major and no raise in D available) then a response of 1 of a major only guaranteed 3....but opener would only raise 1 of a major to 2 with 4 otherwise he rebid 1 NT or 2D depending on the hand he opened.

[pbleighton]

I think it's a very practical option to play your strong NT defense
as a runout to your weak NT, provided you play something where
you can run to 2x on most hands (so Capp pairs have to find
something else).

In my weak NT partnership, we play Meckwell over a strong NT,
and as a runout. It cuts down on the memory strain.

I agree with those who don't like arrangements where you
can't play 1NTx.

As far as weak vs strong NT, I have played both regularly
for the last few years, and I definitely prefer weak NT. I might
think differently if I were a world class player who played mostly
teams (I know that most of them are strong notrumpers), but
at (mostly) matchpoints against (mostly) non-expert competition,
weak NT seems to me to have the edge in spite of the undeniable
problems.

It's also more fun

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

pbleighton, on Feb 11 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

It's also more fun

I'll say.... .....with the 10-12 mish-mosh hands, getting into the auction was way better than getting the green card out...

[mr1303]

For what it's worth, with EVERY partner whom I play any sort of 1NT X runout, I play the DONT escape.

I hate having to decide between 1NT XX or a silly 2 level 4-3 fit with my random 6-7 counts.

[Codo]

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2007, 03:31 AM, said:

I find it rather odd that a strong forcing club isn't the standard of bidding instead of a more natural style - perhaps it has to do with the very great temptation to compound the artificiality.

However, even Vanderbilt recognized early on that strong 1-club was a superior method; this was further shown by the Italian Blue Team; and then later proven again with Wei, Precision, and the Precision Team.

I always found it interesting that years ago when I played Hamman/Wolff at regionals they would be playing a standard system, but when it came time for war at Bermuda Bowl, they played a strong club.

I have had the chance to play both styles and IMO the forcing club is clearly superior.

This statement about the sueriority of strong club systems is quite common but simply false.
The latest research I know about, was about the Bermuda bowl 2004 from some french authors.
They looked at all pairs, who qualified for the quarter finals.
I do not remember the exact scores, but the majority played a natural system like 2/1 or SEF, just about 20 % played strong club, 10 % polish club.
And about 2/3 played strong NT compared to all other ranges and 90 % 5 card majors comparedc to 4 card majors.
These facts are just from memory, so don´t kill me if I got a number wrong, I can get the details if somebody is interessted.

But it surely shows, that the majority of the best players do not believe, that strong club systems are better. Because, if they would believe it, they would surely use them.

Same could be said about the weak NT of course.

But who cares? I still love it.

I prefer to runout with:
pass to play
2 Club 5+ clubs or twosuiter without clubs
XX twosuiter with clubs
2 level: 5 card suit to play
2 NT: GF Hand with no interesst in 1 NT X...

[Gerben42]

Quote

For whatever it's worth. I played weak notrump pretty much exclusively for 10 years or so and was convinced of the superiority of this approach. When I switched to strong notrump (around 1994) it did not take long for me to change my mind.

Maybe both are just about equal?

Anyway my fav. runout =

P = cant think of a better spot, you may run if you have a 5crd suit p
XX = is it my birthday? how much was that, 1160?
2♣ = to play until i change my mind, then I have 2 or 3 suits but not ♣
2♦ = to play until i change my mind, then 3 suits but not ♦, or majors with longer ♠ than ♥

[Echognome]

Gerben42, on Feb 12 2007, 11:48 AM, said:

Anyway my fav. runout =

P = cant think of a better spot, you may run if you have a 5crd suit p
XX = is it my birthday? how much was that, 1160?
2♣ = to play until i change my mind, then I have 2 or 3 suits but not ♣
2♦ = to play until i change my mind, then 3 suits but not ♦, or majors with longer ♠ than ♥

Hmm... I play this method as well, but for some reason just called it Natural.
(redoubling later for rescue is just considered bridge knowledge)

I think for all of the accuracy of showing two exact suits by playing a forcing pass, you make it much easier on opponents (in particular advancer) if you can't bid 2M immediately as showing a 5 card suit.

Take for example these two auctions:

1NT - (Dbl) - 2♥ - ?

1NT - (Dbl) - Pass/XX - ?

In the 1st auction, is advancer's double penalty or takeout? If penalty, then how does he show values without hearts? If takeout, then how does he show he is bust? Does the doubler have to reopen on *all* hands? (by the way, I prefer takeout doubles in these auctions to penalty doubles)

In the 2nd auction, advancer has a much more comfortable time. I play that bidding immediately shows a bust hand that wouldn't be comfortable if partner doubled opponents. Thus when advancer passes, he is showing a willingness to defend and thus a forcing pass has been created. I couple this with takeout doubles and it's about as accurate as we can get (we might miss defending with 3-3 in opponent's suit).