[awm]

I played a KO match against a pair using 11-14 notrumps in Nashville and noticed a couple things that haven't been mentioned here. In particular:

(1) On several occasions, the opponents had an auction to a normal contract that started with 1m and a 1NT rebid instead of a strong 1NT opening. I found that this helped me a lot on the opening lead, and I was defending a lot of hands double-dummy where the other table was having trouble on defense. While it seems like this can cut both ways (weak notrumpers should have an advantage when they open 1NT instead of 1m) it didn't really seem like this was the case, perhaps because knowing the distribution of the much stronger hand tends to help more on opening lead.

(2) The weak notrump wrong-sided some notrump contracts. When you start the bidding with a natural minor suit, it's easier to decide who should declare 1NT later in the bidding. Again, in principle this might help the weak notrumpers on the strong notrump hands, but they tend to be in a hurry to rebid notrumps ASAP with these hands in order to show their strength, not to mention that it's usually right to play 3NT from the 15-18 hand anyway (not so much from the 11-14 balanced hand).

[helene_t]

jtfanclub, on Aug 2 2007, 09:09 PM, said:

I have never been convinced that having the strong, distributional hand be dummy while the balanced semigood hand be declarer is a bad thing.

Agree with this. Rightsiding is over-rated. Or more precisely, the importance of having the strong hand declare is over-rated.

There are other reasons why one might want to play a different structure in a weak-nt system, though. For example, with a weak hand with spades it's nice to be able to bid a preemptive 2♠ rather than a transfer that opps can double to show hearts.

[BebopKid]

I prefer the weak NT 12-14 because it happens more often. This results in the preempting of opponents, who can no longer make simple overcalls at the one level on hands you would have opened 1♣ or 1♦.

[Echognome]

awm, on Aug 2 2007, 11:15 AM, said:

I played a KO match against a pair using 11-14 notrumps in Nashville and noticed a couple things that haven't been mentioned here. In particular:

(1) On several occasions, the opponents had an auction to a normal contract that started with 1m and a 1NT rebid instead of a strong 1NT opening. I found that this helped me a lot on the opening lead, and I was defending a lot of hands double-dummy where the other table was having trouble on defense. While it seems like this can cut both ways (weak notrumpers should have an advantage when they open 1NT instead of 1m) it didn't really seem like this was the case, perhaps because knowing the distribution of the much stronger hand tends to help more on opening lead.

(2) The weak notrump wrong-sided some notrump contracts. When you start the bidding with a natural minor suit, it's easier to decide who should declare 1NT later in the bidding. Again, in principle this might help the weak notrumpers on the strong notrump hands, but they tend to be in a hurry to rebid notrumps ASAP with these hands in order to show their strength, not to mention that it's usually right to play 3NT from the 15-18 hand anyway (not so much from the 11-14 balanced hand).

My view is that these differences are minimal at best. I think this is just a case of small numbers. Do you really think that if this was such a disadvantage that there would be world class players playing a weak NT?

[awm]

My feeling is that a lot of the problems don't come when you open 1NT, but when you open 1m with the "strong notrump" hand. Out of question, how many world-class pairs are actually using a weak notrump, not including those who play a strong club/diamond/pass or play one-level openings 14+ (i.e. Fantoni-Nunes)? I think there are actually not so many... and many of those who do are coming from countries (i.e. England) where this style is so much the standard that they might play it "on momentum" rather than on technical merit.

[glen]

I would like to draw attention to these two excellent articles related to the discussion:

Chris Ryall's Opening/defending 1NT

Ken Allan's Right-siding

[Ant590]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 2 2007, 12:32 PM, said:

I even had some fun with 10-12 [1NT] overcalls.....

This sounds interesting... what did you play in response if responder passed? What did you do with 13+ balanced hands?

Ant.

[pbleighton]

Quote

My feeling is that a lot of the problems don't come when you open 1NT, but when you open 1m with the "strong notrump" hand.

I play both weak and strong NT every weak, and have done so for about 4 years.

You make a good point, weak notrumpers are at a disadvantage in partscore auctions with strong NT openers. There are 2 issues: more information to the opps, and letting them in cheap with a 1 level overcall.

Of course, this applies twice as often to the strong notrumpers opening a weak NT hand

Quote

Out of question, how many world-class pairs are actually using a weak notrump, not including those who play a strong club/diamond/pass or play one-level openings 14+ (i.e. Fantoni-Nunes)? I think there are actually not so many... and many of those who do are coming from countries (i.e. England) where this style is so much the standard that they might play it "on momentum" rather than on technical merit."

You don't think "momentum" applies to the decision to play strong NT in strong NT countries?

Peter

[Cascade]

awm, on Aug 3 2007, 11:04 AM, said:

My feeling is that a lot of the problems don't come when you open 1NT, but when you open 1m with the "strong notrump" hand. Out of question, how many world-class pairs are actually using a weak notrump, not including those who play a strong club/diamond/pass or play one-level openings 14+ (i.e. Fantoni-Nunes)? I think there are actually not so many... and many of those who do are coming from countries (i.e. England) where this style is so much the standard that they might play it "on momentum" rather than on technical merit.

I'd be interested to hear about these problems. My view is that there are significant advantages in opening your strong No Trump hands with a natural suit.

Primarily that when you have a strong No Trump you are much more likely to have a slam than when you have a weak No Trump. Bidding a suit naturally makes it much easier to get to your 4=4 and 4=5 minor suit fits than by opening 1NT where the minors often get lost.

Nevertheless like many arguments on system I think the argument is relatively futile. If you have good agreements for the follow up auctions then there will be swings and round-abouts which will mostly even out in the long run. This applies so long as your basic structure is reasonably sound.

[MickyB]

pbleighton, on Aug 3 2007, 01:22 AM, said:

Quote

Out of question, how many world-class pairs are actually using a weak notrump, not including those who play a strong club/diamond/pass or play one-level openings 14+ (i.e. Fantoni-Nunes)? I think there are actually not so many... and many of those who do are coming from countries (i.e. England) where this style is so much the standard that they might play it "on momentum" rather than on technical merit."

You don't think "momentum" applies to the decision to play strong?

In the English trials, the five top teams consisted of nine pairs playing strong NT and one pair playing weak NT.

[MickyB]

Echognome, on Aug 2 2007, 11:57 PM, said:

Do you really think that if this was such a disadvantage that there would be world class players playing a weak NT?

Well, on that basis, we can conclude that strong NT is clearly better than weak NT but not substantially so, and not go to the trouble of considering the matter for ourselves!

[Echognome]

MickyB, on Aug 2 2007, 06:22 PM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 2 2007, 11:57 PM, said:

Do you really think that if this was such a disadvantage that there would be world class players playing a weak NT?

Well, on that basis, we can conclude that strong NT is clearly better than weak NT but not substantially so, and not go to the trouble of considering the matter for ourselves!

Exactly! Let me give you the contra-positive. If no world class players played a weak NT, then might we not consider that it was inferior. Let's take as an example a 17-19 NT or an 8-10 NT or even a completely artificial 1NT. How many are playing that? Why not? Can we conclude anything?

[Robert]

Hi awm

If the weak NT results from your match were the normal result. FN would destroy any pair that they played 'if' they simply switched from their weak NT bidding.

KS swept the American bridge scene when it first arrived. That Tiger bridge pair made life master in something like six weeks playing a weak NT.

If the other pairs were playing double dummy defense because of the bidding and the weak NT 'wrong sided' that many more contracts, how did all of the weak NT players manage to win so often?

Are you sure that you didn't either play against a much weaker pair or perhaps you just simply had a session where everything goes right?

I played with a gentleman from out of town and we won seven times in a row in our club game. One session that we won, second place was slightly above average and everyone else our way was below average.

Regards,
Robert

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Aug 2 2007, 02:09 PM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 2 2007, 12:47 PM, said:

3) you can (and in my view should) play different methods responding to weak notrumps than to strong. If game exists, responder will usually be as strong or stronger than opener, and if slam exists, responder will be much stronger. A well-designed method, often based on two-way stayman, maximizes right-siding contracts while concealing responder's hand. Strong notrump methods usually entail transfers, getting opener to declare most contracts.

I have never been convinced that having the strong, distributional hand be dummy while the balanced semigood hand be declarer is a bad thing. For one thing, I want the lead going through the ace around to the queen, not vice versa. For another, if they lead the distributional hand's short suit, you kind of want that to go around to the tenace, not through the tenace finishing with the singleton.

I know the strong hand argument, I'm just not sure I buy it when we're talking 12 across 20.

What is your experience with this?

My concern relates more to the overall play of the hand, not to the opening lead. Transfers have responder describe his hand, with opener usually declaring. So in a weak NT context, where opener's hand is already quite well-defined, the defenders see the big dummy. Playing forcing stayman, or other relays, responder frequently declares (especially if using a souped up version that avoids opener bidding suit he holds) and the big hand is both undescribed in the auction and hidden during the play.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Aug 3 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

My feeling is that a lot of the problems don't come when you open 1NT, but when you open 1m with the "strong notrump" hand. Out of question, how many world-class pairs are actually using a weak notrump, not including those who play a strong club/diamond/pass or play one-level openings 14+ (i.e. Fantoni-Nunes)? I think there are actually not so many... and many of those who do are coming from countries (i.e. England) where this style is so much the standard that they might play it "on momentum" rather than on technical merit.

I'm not sure that you are framing the issue optimally:

From my perspective, most bridge players tend to follow the herd. They use the same set of methods that everyone else does. In most of the world, this means that they are using a 5 card major, strong No Trump base. There are a number of possible explanations for this tendency. I suspect that most of them boil down to network effects. (Its easier to find a partner if you play the same methods as everyone else. Its easier to find books to read if you're playing the same methods as everyone else. Yada, yada, yada). Note, these factors don't have anything to do with the efficiency or the performance of the system.

You also find a number of players who are quite interested in performance of their bidding systems. (I would argue that many - but not all - of the players who compete at the top levels fall in into this category). I think that a sizable number of these players graviate towards strong club type systems. In short, the the absence of world class pairs playing 5 card major / weak NT systems with a natural base has less to do with the relative merits of weak versus strong NT as it does strong club versus natural.

(There are (obviously) counter examples. For example, I know that Martel and Stansby have spent a lot of time thinking about their bidding methods. I think that it is safe to hypothesize that their decision to play a fairly natural system with 5 card majors and a weak NT opening represents a concious conviction that this is the "best" way to go)

I found the statistics about the number of top English pairs playing strong NT type methods during the teams trials interesting. Were there any strong club pairs in the mix? For what its worth, I've always thought of MOSCITO as a natural heir to Acol. Once you get past the all the window dressing, the core of the system is based on limit bids, fairly simple natural bidding, and quickly bashing to a decent spot.

[hotShot]

Weak (12-14) NT works best with ACOL, with a 5 card Majors system, it is much less effective.

If you open a 4card suit in ACOL you hold a 4441, 4432 or 4333 distribution. If your point range is 12-14, you can open most of them with 1NT. This means that the full disclosure of any 1-in-a-suit bid should be:
15+HCP with 4cards or 12+HCP unbalanced 5+ cards if not 4441.
So ACOL with weak NT is somewhere in between a "Strong All.Suits" System and a "5card all suits" system. Some pairs open 4441 with 1NT too, so that they are sure, 1-in-Suit is 5cards or strong.

If you use weak NT with 5-card majors, you don't benefit from the weak NT in the majors. (Some pairs allow bad 5card majors in their NT opening to get part of the lost benefit back.) The minors still benefit from the weak NT.

So if you compare 5 card Major players with weak and strong NT you will find.
Playing weak NT you are more competitive, whenever you open 1m, because partner can expect a 5card minor or 3 extra HCP to compensate the missing card.
Whenever the points and cards are evenly divided between the sides, your side bid 1NT first and may benefit from an uninspired lead.

Using weak NT the biggest benefit you have is playing in a strong NT environment, where average opps don't have an appropriate defense available and are unaware of the implication the weak NT has on the rest of your bids.

[P_Marlowe]

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2007, 08:09 AM, said:

<snip>
(There are (obviously) counter examples. For example, I know that Martel and Stansby have spent a lot of time thinking about their bidding methods. I think that it is safe to hypothesize that their decision to play a fairly natural system with 5 card majors and a weak NT opening represents a concious conviction that this is the "best" way to go)
<snip>

I maybe wrong, but I seem to recall, that someone
said, that Martel said, that he would switch to strong NT,
if it would not mean that he had to rework large parts of
their systems.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[MickyB]

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2007, 02:09 PM, said:

I found the statistics about the number of top English pairs playing strong NT type methods during the teams trials interesting. Were there any strong club pairs in the mix? For what its worth, I've always thought of MOSCITO as a natural heir to Acol. Once you get past the all the window dressing, the core of the system is based on limit bids, fairly simple natural bidding, and quickly bashing to a decent spot.

I don't think there were any strong club pairs in the eight teams. Maybe there was one, I'll find out. There was one Polish Club pair.

Other than the trials and the Spring Fours, xfer openings weren't legal until a couple of years back, and a strong club still has to show 16+points or rule of 25, so it's not that surprising that I've only seen a couple of pairs play MOSCITO in this country. Having said that, the majority of top players here seem to think strong clubs lose out too much after opening 1♣ to be worth playing.

[MickyB]

hotShot, on Aug 3 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

Weak (12-14) NT works best with ACOL, with a 5 card Majors system, it is much less effective.

[snip]

If you use weak NT with 5-card majors, you don't benefit from the weak NT in the majors.

Is the second statement your justification for the first?

If you play five-card majors, your no-trump range has little effect on your 1M openings. This isn't an argument for saying weak+4 is better than weak+5, it is an argument that weak+4 is better than strong+4.

Quote

Playing weak NT you are more competitive, whenever you open 1m, because partner can expect a 5card minor or 3 extra HCP to compensate the missing card.

You are making the mistake of comparing by opening bid; instead, you should compare by hand-type.

When you have 12-14 balanced, you can show your hand in one bid playing weak NT; however, playing strong NT, partner will assume you have this hand until you tell him otherwise. There's no danger of not getting your hand across.

When you have an unbalanced hand with clubs, you will occasionally be better position playing weak no-trump, because partner knows you either have clubs or 15+points. However, strong no-trumpers gain when they open 1♣ and make a later takeout double - playing weak NT, opener's 2nd round double should usually be assigned to the strong balanced hand.

When you have 15-17 balanced, strong NTers get their hand across in one bid, and there is no compulsion to bid again. Those opening one-of-a-suit usually need to take a second bid on this hand, and often it is uncomfortable to do so. Say the auction starts 1♣ (3♠). How are you finding your routine game with flat 16 opposite flat 9? Even 17 opposite 10 is far from comfortable. Likewise, a two-level WJO can still cause issues.

Of course, that doesn't apply to strong club pairs, who are getting their values across in one bid. Likewise Nightmare or, to a lesser extent, Fantunes.

Btw, look at how Polish+Swedish Club systems fare on the above three hand-types. They are separated, and the responder to a 1♣ opening is able to assume pard has the weak no-trump, allowing him to make competitive (negative) freebids without fear that pard will have a misfitting minimum.

This post has been edited by MickyB: 2007-August-03, 10:48

[MickyB]

mikeh, on Aug 3 2007, 04:06 AM, said:

in a weak NT context, where opener's hand is already quite well-defined, the defenders see the big dummy. Playing forcing stayman, or other relays, responder frequently declares (especially if using a souped up version that avoids opener bidding suit he holds) and the big hand is both undescribed in the auction and hidden during the play.

It's grossly inefficient to have a balanced hand describing itself to an unbalanced hand.