[hotShot]

Trinidad, on Jan 22 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

I grew up in an environment where only strong NT existed. So, I don't have much experience with weak NT's, but I have been thinking of starting to play it because it may fit the rest of the system well.

The issue that I cannot solve and that I think every weak NT player has a problem with is what to do with a strong NT hand when partner responds 1NT.

You could have:
♠AQ
♥KJTx
♦QTxx
♣AJx

You open 1♦ and partner responds 1NT. What do you bid now?

If partner has 6 HCP, the strong NT field will open 1NT and play it there. If partner has 9 HCP, the strong NT will open 1NT and play in 3NT, which is likely to make. Should one bid 2NT and play a level higher than the field opposite a 6 count (in a wrong sided contract)? Or should one pass and miss game opposite partner's maximum (where the odds of wrongsiding are less since the strength difference between the hands is smaller)?

What do weak NT ers do to solve this?

Rik

If you don't have a 4 card major, you can:

- pass weakish hands with 3334 shape
- rise ♦ with 4+ ♦ cards e.g. 3343 shape
- bid NT only with 8+ HCP so that 2NT should be save

this solves most of the problems.

[JanM]

Trinidad, on Jan 22 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

I grew up in an environment where only strong NT existed. So, I don't have much experience with weak NT's, but I have been thinking of starting to play it because it may fit the rest of the system well.

The issue that I cannot solve and that I think every weak NT player has a problem with is what to do with a strong NT hand when partner responds 1NT.

You could have:
♠AQ
♥KJTx
♦QTxx
♣AJx

You open 1♦ and partner responds 1NT. What do you bid now?

If partner has 6 HCP, the strong NT field will open 1NT and play it there. If partner has 9 HCP, the strong NT will open 1NT and play in 3NT, which is likely to make. Should one bid 2NT and play a level higher than the field opposite a 6 count (in a wrong sided contract)? Or should one pass and miss game opposite partner's maximum (where the odds of wrongsiding are less since the strength difference between the hands is smaller)?

What do weak NT ers do to solve this?

Rik

I think that all methods have their "I hate it" auctions. Certainly when you're playing weak NTs, 1♦-1NT is one of those. There isn't any really good solution to it. You can improve things by not opening 1♦ as often with a strong NT (your example hand can comfortably open 1♣, lying a little about minor suit shape). But if you're going to open 1♦ sometimes with a strong NT, responder is going to have to bid 1NT with too wide a range of hands and you'll either go down in 2NT when you could make 1, or miss game.

Opening all strong NTs 1♣ helps, especially if you play transfer responses and 1♠ shows any response with no 4 card major. Then you can respond 1NT only with a narrow specific range of hands (we use it for hands that would invite opposite a strong NT, because we hate to play 2NT if we don't have to). But you also add a lot of complexity. It took us months to put the structure in place and we're still working on it, especially in competitive auctions.

If there were a method that avoided all of the "bad" sequences, we'd all be playing it, wouldn't we? So mainly it's a matter of knowing what the problems are and being prepared for them. For instance, before I'd open 1♦ with a strong NT, I'd always decide what I was going to do if partner responded 1NT - after all, you know that's the problem auction, so be ready for it. And once in a while a smooth 1♦-1NT-P auction will convince the opponents to balance. Not often, but it does happen. It won't if it goes 1♦-1NT- agonized huddle P.

[Stephen Tu]

Playing weak NT, I prefer the K-S solution of limiting 1nt responses to 5-8 so a normal strong NT can pass routinely knowing game is marginal at best. inverted minor raises and 1d-2c are played lighter than standard, 9+. This admittedly can eventually lead you to some lightish, subpar 15-9 3nt contracts and 12/13-9 2nt contracts but it's rather rare (responder has 4 cd major or opps are bidding will prevent a lot of these from coming up!), and you'll make it some chunk of the time.

[rbforster]

Gerben42, on Jan 18 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

The NT range should be a function of the system you're playing!

Sure, but actually I think one big aspect of this discussion that hasn't come up much is the defense your opponents are playing. I wouldn't be surprised if you told me that at NV, it was good to play the cheapest 3 point range against which your opponents don't play a penalty double. I'm also in JLOL's boat when he said opening weak NT was big money against the many under-prepared players out there.

JLOL, on Jan 18 2009, 09:33 PM, said:

I like 10 to 12 NV but it usually creates a system hole (since it makes the other ranges too wide). For instance playing 10 to 12 in standard, a rebid of 1N shows 13 to 16 which is unplayable (alternatively you jump to 2N with 16, also unplayable). I also don't like 4 point ranges so I prefer 11 to 13 generally when NV. This goes well with a strong club system where 1D then 1N can be 14 to 16 and 1C then 1N 17 to 19.

I'm not sure there's a system hole there really, although I agree anything more than 3 point ranges comes at a price you'd rather not pay. But what's wrong with this precision base (1♣ 16+)?

10-12 1NT
13-15 1♦
16-18 1♣-1♦-1N (16+ club, negative diamond)
19-21 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1N (1♥ Kokish or strong, 1♠ forced or 2nd neg)
22-23 1♣-1♦-2N etc

It seems to me that the main constraint on how weak you want to play your lowest NT range is where you want the low end of your strong club to start. There are plenty of ways to bid 2N once you're playing a strong club (1C-1D-2N, open 2N, 1C-1D-1H-1S-2N), so if you don't mind having these start around 21+ you can open all the way down to a 9-11 1NT (reducing the ranges above by 1 point) without any significant difficulties.

[awm]

Another question that hasn't come up directly might be "is it a good idea to open 1NT on off-shape hands, and to upgrade good offensive hands which are light on points into the 1NT opening."

My feeling is that usually the answer is no, but I know some good players who feel otherwise. I also know some good players who open a lot of 13-counts with a "15-17" notrump which I personally think is ethically shady but most people seem to have no problems with.

I kind of agree with Rob about the penalty doubles. My feeling is that 15-17 is probably about right if the opponents "always play penalty double" (this range is strong enough that penalty doubles are pretty rare, at least if you're not in the "upgrade lots of 13-counts with 6-card suit" camp). But if they aren't going to play penalty doubles against 14-16 (most don't) or even 13-15 (some don't) then that range seems potentially better.

[blackshoe]

Rob F, on Jan 25 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

But what's wrong with this precision base (1♣ 16+)?

10-12 1NT
13-15 1♦
16-18 1♣-1♦-1N (16+ club, negative diamond)
19-21 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠-1N (1♥ Kokish or strong, 1♠ forced or 2nd neg)
22-23 1♣-1♦-2N etc

Similar to Romex Forcing Club:

10-12 1NT
13-16 1♦ (probably), then 1NT
17-20 1♣-1♦-1NT
21-22 2♦ (Mexican), rebid 2NT
23-24 1♣-1♦-2NT
25-26 1♣-1♦-2♥-2♠-2NT (Kokish)