[kenberg]

My experience in countering the mini no trump (mnt) is limited. Thanks to BBO, this gap in my experience is being corrected. I supply some hands for discussion. I invite comment on my bidding, on better systemic agreements, and other example hands from actual play both successful and unsuccessful.

Yesterday I played ten hands, three involving the mnt. I had two partners, both pick up, both quite good players. I rotate teh hands to place me in the S seat. By and large our auctions were reasonably productive but very seat of the pants. I hope to do better.

Our agreements are: Partner: I like dont. Me: OK
Hand 1:

Scoring: IMP

1NT 2♣ 2♠ 3♣
P 3♦ P 4♣
P P X
All Pass

---

Making. I mentioned as I spread dummy that I realized I might have had a better hand for my 3♣ call. But make it did.
Forget the result. Is my 3♣ call completely nuts? How would you bid these hands if you were playing with yourself? Make that "playing with your clone".


Hand 2: Same partner.

Scoring: IMP

1NT 2♣ 2♠ 3♣
P 3♦ P 4♣
P P X
All Pass

---

Yes, E opened 1NT! His bidding doesn't concern me. The first X was dont. I don't usually play dont, but I think that X then ♠ is the stronger way to bid 2S. 3♦ was a trf. Partner's double was not discussed. Values, I imagined. They can make 4H. After the club lead to the Q taken by the K, East played a heart. I can now make 4S, I understood what I should play for, but had a mental lapse and went one down.



Hand 3: First hand with a new partner, we have discussed nothing. (No, previous partner did not leave after the above hand. He was good enough that I am sure he realized I misplayed it however.)

Scoring: IMP

1NT 2♣ 2♠ 3♣
P 3♦ P 4♣
P P X
All Pass

---

Well, yes we are vulnerable, yes I would like to be in 6♦, in fact in 7 as the cards lie. But 800 would have scored reasonably well, unfortunately we got only 500 for a bad result: Spade Q led and overtaken, more spades as I ruff the last round. We take our minors but there are now five trump tricks for declarer. If partner can guess not to overtake my spade we can still take the first eight tricks without ruffing, and I think my spots are now good enough to get us a trump trick.
Amusement: If they play instead in their 4-4 ♠ fit we can take the first (and last) thirteen tricks.




So, at least on these, our biding did not really do us in. I can make the 4♠ and we can get 2♥ for 800 for at least a respectable score. But I repeat: This was bidding by guess and by golly.

Systemic thoughts, judgment thoughts, related hands are all welcome.

I suspect I am not the only cat who would like to hear about defending against the mini. The literature seems to be a void.

[TylerE]

DONT is really, really horrendous against a mini-NT, or even a weak NT. You really need to have some sort of system with a Penalty X. My recommendation is a slightly modified HELLO:



X = Penalty (Doesn't need to be balanced, or have a ton of high cards, Just a hand with 7+ defensive tricks)
2♣ = Relay to 2♦, Shows ♦ or a M/m (With the M/m you bid the M over 2♦, then 2N by partner asks for the minor]
2♦ = Hearts
2♥ = Both Majors
2♠ = Spades
2NT = Clubs or Near-GF in ♦/♥/♠ (The strong variant is shown by bidding a new suit once partner bids 3♣
3♣ = Minors
3♦ = Both Majors, strong (e.g. partner should bid game in the desired strain with 1.5 tricks or so...or even no tricks and 4+ in a M)
3M = Preemptive but sound (e.g. willing to play 3Mx opposite shortness)

[ArtK78]

Agree. And the bidding presentation on some of your hands is messed up. It is very hard to follow.

[kenberg]

Art, you are right, multiple times. Good grief I thought I had checked it. Thanks and I apologize. I hope I have it right now.

[kenberg]

If I remember correctly even Larry Cohen is not that enthusiastic about dont over weak no trumps. So sure, one can do better.

How would the bidding go using HELLO for the three hands? I imagine we find 4S on board 2. Do we find 6D on board 3? How do we do on Board 1?

Of course no convention works always. In "standard bidding situations", whatever they are, I have opinions that are reasonably grounded in experience (even if wrong) as to what sort of things work. Against the mini nt, I am a naif.

Suction has been suggested to me. On board 2 they open 1NT, Suction says bid 2H showing either spades or the minors. Poor partner, not knowing I have spades, may well just bid 2S. Then I, not knowing partner has four spades, pass. Oops. Or maybe Suction players can say how their auction would have gone.

My purpose here is to check out various defenses against the mini to see how they work in practice. I may well supply more hands as they arise.

Here is something I like the sound of:
X=Opening strong NT
2C=Major TO
2D=One major.

Sort of like Woolsey, except the X is penalty oriented. It needs more work, I know.


My primary point is that bidding over the mini is seriously underdiscussed in the bridge lit. Setting the meaning of second hand's action is only the beginning of an effective defense.

[awm]

The defense Kenberg gave is sometimes called multi-landy (2♦ is multi, 2♣ majors is landy) and is very popular among strong partnerships against a weak or mini notrump.

I frequently play just landy (i.e. 2♣ is majors, double is penalty) which also works okay (and is ACBL general chart). I agree that playing DONT is a bad idea -- DONT is designed to bid on all kinds of garbage to mess up opponents notrump methods (and prevent them from playing 1NT), which makes some sense against a strong notrump but makes it virtually impossible to bid your own hands constructively, as is frequently required against a weak notrump.

On the given hands, my auction would be:

1) 1NT-X(15+ any) - 2♠ (to play) - Pass - Pass/3♠ - X (takeout)... there are some questions as to whether we compete to 4♣ over 3♠ and whether opponents double us in 4♣ of course.

2) 1NT-2♠ (NAT) - some ♥-showing bid - some ♠ raise. We may or may not reach four spades. Then again, I don't really see how you are supposed to make 4♠ on the club lead.

3) 1NT-P-2♥ is normal. You face basically the same problem you would face holding the north cards after a weak 2♥ opening. It's obvious that you should act, but double carries a very real risk of defending 2♥X when you should rather be bidding something on your side (i.e. takeout double with a void is risky). Then again, 3♦ is not a very satisfying alternative either. I'm sure Marshall Miles makes a canape 2♠ call. In any case, defending 2♥X is a reasonable result here.

[mtvesuvius]

awm, on Mar 5 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

The defense Kenberg gave is sometimes called multi-landy (2♦ is multi, 2♣ majors is landy) and is very popular among strong partnerships against a weak or mini notrump.

I frequently play just landy (i.e. 2♣ is majors, double is penalty) which also works okay (and is ACBL general chart).

Is multi-landy General or Mid-Chart?

[Stephen Tu]

Mid-chart, because of the 2♦ bid. For general chart you can only use 2♣ or dbl as an unanchored bids.

[the hog]

As stated, Dont is awful against weak NTs and I don't like it much against strong NTs either.

I still like Asptro but understand that this excellent convention is not well known on your side of the Atlantic.

Bidding 3C on your hand is not unreasonable given that your partner showed C+?

[bill1157]

hand 3 it looks like a cue bid (or even 3 ♦) is better than X. For the rest: wtp? you don't need a complicated system to bid these hands, natural is fine (1: X not 2 ♣, 2: 2 ♠ works fine, 3. 3♦ or 3♥ cue bid).
I play 10-13 in 1st and second seat with one pd. One time my opponents played x showed equal value, then capp showed either 0-9 hcp or 14+! so i think your efforts to find a good defense to the mini are sorely needed.

Bill

[kenberg]

Adam,
On board 2 I cannot make 4S after club to Queen and King and a club back. But it was (perhaps) not crazy for rho to try a heart and then I can make it. I can ruff the three hearts in my hand and eventually force them to crash their diamond honors or give me a sluff ruff.

4S isn't a favorite after the club hook loses but it's not the worst contract I have ever been in. And they do appear to have a somewhat lucky ten tricks in hearts.

Anyway, I would like to pursue the Multi-Landy with follow up sequences. Any good references?

Since defense against weak and ultra weak no trumps is to be seriously constructive, rather than the semi-destructive DONT against strong NTs, we need to be very clear on defined follow-up sequences. I am always more than happy to crib from someone who has thought this through and tested it out.

Hog: Same question about documented followups for Asptro. I also don't like DONT against any Nts, but I'm an easy going pard.

[JanM]

I agree that you want to have a penalty double against mini NTs (whether that is true against medium - 12-14 or so - NT isn't as clear by the way). GIven that, I think the main thing to discuss is what happens after the DBL.
How far are we forced?
Which subsequent DBLs by both sides are penalty and which are Takeout?
What does advancer do with a bad hand? An invitational hand? A good hand?
How do we investigate for 4-4 fits and such?
What do we do after responder makes a natural runout bid? a transfer response? RDBL forcing 2♣, pass forcing RDBL?
That's just a quick start at the things we need to resolve. I took a very quick look at my notes and the discussion of what happens after a penalty DBL takes as long as the entire discussion of what happens after the other "multi-landy" bids (we play Woolsey over Strong NT and keep the 2♣ and 2♦ bids over weak).
We used to play Astro vs. weak NT, but changed to "multi-landy" because we found that we needed so many agreements over the Astro bids that the complexity overbalanced the probably better method and it was easier to play the same thing over both weak and strong NT except for the DBL. I think that Chip & Lew, who have better memories than I, or perhaps just play more, still use Astro by an UPH vs weak NT. Their notes for Astro is the longest part of the defense vs. 1NT section of their notes.

[FrancesHinden]

As JanM implies, it's not what method you play, it's all your agreements after it.
As most defences against 1NT are artificial to some extent, you tend to need to discuss them a lot more than how you bid after a natural-type overcall.

We play asptro (an astro variant) and penalty doubles. Just under 25% of our "competitive agreements" file is about defending a 1NT opening. And that probably doesn't include everything that an uninformed observer would need to know, because there's a lot that's not written out explicitly (e.g. we just say that after, say, 1NT x 2H natural then 2NT by fourth hand is lebensohl, but there are another few pages elsewhere on lebensohl auctions in general).

Also I've just realised our system notes don't actually specify what a minimum double or minimum asptro bid look like... we just think we know what we play.

If you want to see what I've got, I'll send it to you.

[kenberg]

Frances, I would be delighted to have you send it:

kenbecky@gmail.com

Jan lists several areas of discussion. Even dealing with the most common ones would be way ahead of what is often done. I'll see if I can get a partner to agree.

[the hog]

Ken, I suggested Asptro not Aspro
David Stevenson has a write up here. I beleive plenty of agrremenst after an opp's 1NT are vital.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Mar 6 2009, 09:25 PM, said:

Ken, I suggested Asptro not Aspro
David Stevenson has a write up here. I beleive plenty of agrremenst after an opp's 1NT are vital.

Sorry it just made me laugh that both lines came from the same person at the same moment.

"Ken, I suggested Asptro not Aspro
David Stevenson has a write up here. I beleive plenty of agrremenst after an opp's 1NT are vital."

[the hog]

I have a hangover Josh! My wife's sister is getting married and we hit too much Lao Lao, (Lao whisky), last night. Cut me some slack....

[kenberg]

Best wishes to the happy couple! Asptro, Asptro, I think I may have it. I didn't see much about follow-ups on Stevenson's site, maybe I need to look closer, but there was more on bridgeguys.

At the risk of semi-hijacking my own thread I will expand some on this business of discussing follow-ups (although I may be preaching to the choir here). A while back I was playing a team match with a partner I have played with previously, but not often. The opponents were to be playing precision. Pard said we should play suction. He explained and with a vague feeling that I have been here before I agreed. 1C on my right, I held a hand where playing natural I would have bid 3H so I bid 3D, showing either hearts or a black two-suiter. I played 3D in my 2-1 fit but that's not my point here. No doubt he was not supposed to pass 3D. In fact there was a lot of shape in the hand and we belong in 4H. Playing natural I would have bid 3H over 1C, partner would raise to 4H. Playing Suction, over 3D partner cannot be sure that I have hearts, making it tough to bid 4H. If he bids 3H, waiting, he will still be waiting since I would figure that I (by inference) had shown my hearts, I have my hearts, I pass. No doubt Suction players have an answer to this, else no sane player would use the convention, but I have no idea what it is. I suppose a black suit bid shows a willingness to play four hearts when I have hearts. I suppose that i could figure it out on the fly but who knows. Since we should probably also have been in 4S had I held the black two-suiter the system has to accommodate that also. 4D I guess. Lotsa luck.


Bridge, particularly online bridge, seems to be flooded with conventions where the first call is a maybe well-defined conventional bid and no one has any idea what the subsequent bids mean.

Here is another example: As mentioned, I don't much care for DONT. One reason is this lack of definition in casual partnerships. The bidding begins 1NT-2something-X. Fourth hand's calls now mean what? According to Mike Lawrence on his Conventions disk, if the overcall was 2C,D,H then a redouble is for run, a suit bid by fourth hand is a natural run. If the overcall was spades, a redouble confirms spades and shows values. If I play DONT with a pick-up, I would really hate to be in the position of guessing the meaning of the fourth hand bid. It's not a matter of which agreement is best, the issue is whether both players are on the same page.

It would be great if there could be a collection of BBO defaults on commonly played conventions discussing at least for some of the most common follow-up situations. I won't be writing it though.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Best wishes to the happy couple! Asptro, Asptro, I think I may have it. I didn't see much about follow-ups on Stevenson's site, maybe I need to look closer, but there was more on bridgeguys.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...036d38601482696
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...46f59685a147f7c

Quote

No doubt Suction players have an answer to this, else no sane player would use the convention, but I have no idea what it is. I suppose a black suit bid shows a willingness to play four hearts when I have hearts.

- usual assumption is that Suction only applies at the 1nt-2h level. Partner rightly passed your 3 level bid which reverts to natural. I suppose he didn't explain that.
- don't think sane players should use suction, it is problematic since the bid suit is almost never played in, giving the opps a practically free double & far too many options. It is better to defend with something where responder has to do something or risk getting passed out.
- with either/or bids it's standard for responder's bids to be pass/correct so bid a black suit if you want to raise hearts.

Quote

Bridge, particularly online bridge, seems to be flooded with conventions where the first call is a maybe well-defined conventional bid and no one has any idea what the subsequent bids mean.

*I* never agree to a convention without knowing the followups, just you can't expect that of random pickup partners.

[kenberg]

For years I followed the excellent advice of not playing a convention that has not been pretty thoroughly discussed. In face to face settings this is pretty easy to maintain. Online I find just about everyone has their list of favorite conventions and just about no one wants to discuss them thoroughly. I think of myself as a fairly easy going guy but playing is silly contracts gets tiresome.

In the Suction case at hand the write-up he sent me includes the line:
3Ds/4Ds/5Ds=heart suit, or both black suits

So regardless of what the usual style is, we were playing that 3D showed hearts or else the blacks.

Quite possibly he was used to playing it as you describe and just copied a write-up that he found and sent it to me w/o checking.

Anyway, I don't want to get stuck in a particular hand with a particular partner.

I hope for some good references for defenses, beyond the first bid, to the weak and mini no trumps. Expanding to other defenses against big clubs or whatever would also be good.

I envision something like this: Partner says: I would like to play the Klingon defense against weak no trumps" I say "Sure: I understand that convention to be played as described on the site blah blah". Hopefully he would then say fine. If he says "No, I want to play it my way and I will explain to you what you should have done after we crash and burn" I can disappear or I can play on, hoping the damn thing doesn't come up, depending on my mood at the time.