Help
In natural based weak NT systems, a raise after 1m-p-1M shows 15-16 balanced, or an unbalanced hand of like 11-14. It is widely regarded that the compensating shape of the second hand type makes it the approximate equivalent of the first hand type in playing strength. The modern style is also to routinely raise on 3 with a side stiff. I think this creates a range that is unmanageable.
Suppose for instance that you hold:
Q
AJx
Jxxx
AJxxx
You open 1C and pard bids 1H, and you bid 2H. The missing 4th trump makes the stiff go way down in value. Compare that hand to this hand:
Q
AJxx
Jxx
AJxxx
is a MUCH stronger hand. Also compare the first hand to a hand like:
AJ
KQxx
Qxx
Axxx
If both the first hand and the second hand are 1C then 2H bids, that creates a huge range. With a balanced 9 count what is partner supposed to do? Perhaps some will say that the second hand is a 3H bid. If this is your style then the 3H bid is very bulky, especially in a light response style. New problems are created. Besides, take away the J of spades and the same problem remains. Some may say that the first hand is not an opener, but it seems to be normal to open such a hand.
It seems to me that you have a variety of possibilities.
1) open quite soundly with unbalanced minor suit hands that may be about to raise a major suit. This will make the lower end of this auction higher and make the range more managable.
2) Jump raise with most balanced 16s and 17s. This means with your balanced 18s and 19s and some many unbalanced 16+ hands you will need to GF. If you do this, responding light may be a bad idea as it risks getting too high.
3) Accept that the range is wide and you may get to the three level and go down trying for game.
4) Not raise with 3 card support in unbalanced hands.
Each of these comes at a substantial loss. This was one of the main reasons I gave up weak NTs in natural system bases (I did not like any of the 4 options). Thoughts?
Weak NTers raising the major
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2005-September-11, 00:51
You rebid 2M with 15-16? Well, why not 3M?
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,190
- Joined: 2003-September-30
- Location:London, England
- Interests:Cricket
Posted 2005-September-11, 00:52
Playing weak NT, you will solve many of these problems if you play transfer responses to 1♣. Then you can bid like this:
1♣ - 1♦ = hearts
1♥
At least 3-card support, forcing for 1 round. If 4-card support, unbalanced.
1♣ - 1♦ = hearts
2♥
4-card support, 15-16(17), balanced.
Jacob Duschek of Denmark made these points while commentating from Brazil the other day. All other commentators liked the idea.
Roland
1♣ - 1♦ = hearts
1♥
At least 3-card support, forcing for 1 round. If 4-card support, unbalanced.
1♣ - 1♦ = hearts
2♥
4-card support, 15-16(17), balanced.
Jacob Duschek of Denmark made these points while commentating from Brazil the other day. All other commentators liked the idea.
Roland
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2005-September-11, 00:55
What if pard opens 1D?
#5 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2005-September-11, 01:02
whereagles, on Sep 11 2005, 01:51 AM, said:
You rebid 2M with 15-16? Well, why not 3M?
Typically that is the norm for weak NTers. If you remove balanced hand types from the raise to 2M, you are left with only unbalanced hands which is interesting. Still, if you bid 3M with all strong NT hand types, you really will be going down a lot at the 3 level. Balanced 15s and 16s even opposite normal minimum responses just go down too much at the 3 level. Then you need to bid 4 more agressively as well, and will similarly go down when you have no business being in game sometimes. Responding light (which has always been my style) is also very difficult playing this way.
Roland, I like the transfer responses to 1C in any kind of system. It is clearly superior, and agree it will solve the weak NT problem. 2M can be 4 card support, unbalanced or a strong NT. Now the shape really does compensate for the HCP. The problem is still there with a 1D opener though. I guess you could do like a Polish club style, and open 1C with all strong NTs, and let 1D always be unbalanced. This creates some problems too, but could be interesting.
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,190
- Joined: 2003-September-30
- Location:London, England
- Interests:Cricket
Posted 2005-September-11, 01:06
whereagles, on Sep 11 2005, 08:55 AM, said:
What if pard opens 1D?
Then you can't differentiate since you can't play transfer responses to 1♦. I did state that you can solve many of these problems, a little more than 50% of the times, e.g. when partner opens 1♣.
Transfer responses to 1♣ are so much better because they give you more room to manoeuvre. Still more top class players worldwide agree, and we will no doubt see it happen more often in the future.
Roland
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice
#7 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2005-September-11, 01:10
I remember when I "invented" transfer responses to 1C. Then I realized several top pairs already played them lol. Oh well...like the saying goes independent but not original.
#8
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-March-07
- Gender:Male
- Location:Laos
- Interests:Wagner and Bridge
Posted 2005-September-11, 01:13
Walddk, on Sep 11 2005, 05:06 PM, said:
whereagles, on Sep 11 2005, 08:55 AM, said:
What if pard opens 1D?
Then you can't differentiate since you can't play transfer responses to 1♦. I did state that you can solve many of these problems, a little more than 50% of the times, e.g. when partner opens 1♣.
Transfer responses to 1♣ are so much better because they give you more room to manoeuvre. Still more top class players worldwide agree, and we will no doubt see it happen more often in the future.
Roland
Yes you can. Some play that 1D 1H = S and 1D 1S = H.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
#9
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,190
- Joined: 2003-September-30
- Location:London, England
- Interests:Cricket
Posted 2005-September-11, 01:18
The_Hog, on Sep 11 2005, 09:13 AM, said:
Walddk, on Sep 11 2005, 05:06 PM, said:
whereagles, on Sep 11 2005, 08:55 AM, said:
What if pard opens 1D?
Then you can't differentiate since you can't play transfer responses to 1♦. I did state that you can solve many of these problems, a little more than 50% of the times, e.g. when partner opens 1♣.
Roland
Yes you can. Some play that 1D 1H = S and 1D 1S = H.
Fair enough, but that does not give you more room when responder shows hearts. It does after a 1♣ opening.
Roland
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice
#10
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,519
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2005-September-11, 06:42
Yes, this problem annoyed us, too, when I was playing a weak notrump system with hannie.
I think you could borrow from inquiry2over1 and use 2NT as an artificial inv+ raise. That way you can have a lower top end of 2M, and still differentiate between various invitational strengths above that. Of course, sometimes you will be too high on the 3-level.
In particular, if you play transfer responses to 1♣, and open 1♣ with 18-19 balanced, you have the problem well solved for 1♣, and reasonably solved (since you can use 2NT as artificial) after 1♦.
Arend
I think you could borrow from inquiry2over1 and use 2NT as an artificial inv+ raise. That way you can have a lower top end of 2M, and still differentiate between various invitational strengths above that. Of course, sometimes you will be too high on the 3-level.
In particular, if you play transfer responses to 1♣, and open 1♣ with 18-19 balanced, you have the problem well solved for 1♣, and reasonably solved (since you can use 2NT as artificial) after 1♦.
Arend
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2005-September-11, 07:49
or just bite the bullet and play a canape system 
it sure seems to solve all sorts of "problem" hands, and the only real downside i've seen is that the best follow ups aren't gcc legal
it sure seems to solve all sorts of "problem" hands, and the only real downside i've seen is that the best follow ups aren't gcc legal
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#12
- Group: Members
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 2005-May-26
Posted 2005-September-11, 08:01
Are transfer responces to natural 1♣ GCC legal?
#13
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,495
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2005-September-11, 08:39
There are a lot of different schools of "weak NT" systems so its dangerous to paint them all with the same brush.
Case in point: K-S is a well known and well designed system based on weak NTs and 5 card majors. K-S has a number of mechanisms designed to sidestep some of the issues that you are discussing. K-S is based on sound openings in the minors to ensure that responder can accurate judge the strength of a major suit raise. Equally significant, K-S is anchored on a fairly complex hand evaluation system. If we look at your example hands:
♠ Q ♥ AJx ♦ Jxxx ♣ AJxxx evaluates as 12.1 HCP. I'd be shocked to see a 1♣ opening playing classic K-S. If you did chose to open 1♣, than you'd be forced to rebid 2♣ since the hand isn't strong enough to raise 1♥ to 2♥. (Note that K-S treats the auction 1♦ - 1M - 2♣ as strong and forcing, so the 1♦ "kludge" isn't available in K-S)
In contrast ♠ Q ♥ AJxx ♦ Jxx ♣ AJxxx evaluates as 12.5 HCP. Whill this hand is treated as being much stronger, I'm still not sure whether this is considered sufficient for a 1♣ opening.
Case in point: K-S is a well known and well designed system based on weak NTs and 5 card majors. K-S has a number of mechanisms designed to sidestep some of the issues that you are discussing. K-S is based on sound openings in the minors to ensure that responder can accurate judge the strength of a major suit raise. Equally significant, K-S is anchored on a fairly complex hand evaluation system. If we look at your example hands:
♠ Q ♥ AJx ♦ Jxxx ♣ AJxxx evaluates as 12.1 HCP. I'd be shocked to see a 1♣ opening playing classic K-S. If you did chose to open 1♣, than you'd be forced to rebid 2♣ since the hand isn't strong enough to raise 1♥ to 2♥. (Note that K-S treats the auction 1♦ - 1M - 2♣ as strong and forcing, so the 1♦ "kludge" isn't available in K-S)
In contrast ♠ Q ♥ AJxx ♦ Jxx ♣ AJxxx evaluates as 12.5 HCP. Whill this hand is treated as being much stronger, I'm still not sure whether this is considered sufficient for a 1♣ opening.
Alderaan delenda est
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2005-September-11, 08:43
"Are transfer responces to natural 1♣ GCC legal?"
No, unless they are game forcing.
In response to Justin's question:
I have played a wide range - occasionally awkward, but not bad as a tradeoff.
I am currently playing 10-13 NT, with very undisciplined 2 bids (including 2C) with a range of 9(8)-12, so that minor suit openings are 13+, and the 2M support rebid is 15-17 support points, or 14 only if 4333. We are careful about raising with 3 with a dead minimum.
Peter
No, unless they are game forcing.
In response to Justin's question:
I have played a wide range - occasionally awkward, but not bad as a tradeoff.
I am currently playing 10-13 NT, with very undisciplined 2 bids (including 2C) with a range of 9(8)-12, so that minor suit openings are 13+, and the 2M support rebid is 15-17 support points, or 14 only if 4333. We are careful about raising with 3 with a dead minimum.
Peter
#15 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2005-September-11, 14:11
hrothgar, on Sep 11 2005, 09:39 AM, said:
In contrast ♠ Q ♥ AJxx ♦ Jxx ♣ AJxxx evaluates as 12.5 HCP. Whill this hand is treated as being much stronger, I'm still not sure whether this is considered sufficient for a 1♣ opening.
Yes, I can see that, it only becomes worth an "opener" if you know you have a heart fit in KS style, and obviously you can't know that yet.
I think it was Fred who said it requires a lot more work to play a weak NT system in a natural base than strong NT. I guess this is one of the things he was talking about.
#16
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,900
- Joined: 2004-May-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:Portugal
- Interests:Everything!
Posted 2005-September-11, 14:28
I like this style:
Strong NT
1m-1M-2M = 12-14, bal or unbal
1m-1M-3M = 15-17, unbal
Weak NT
1m-1M-2M = 12-14, unbal
1m-1M-3M = 15-17, bal or unbal
Strong NT
1m-1M-2M = 12-14, bal or unbal
1m-1M-3M = 15-17, unbal
Weak NT
1m-1M-2M = 12-14, unbal
1m-1M-3M = 15-17, bal or unbal
#17
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,053
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2005-September-11, 14:31
I have played weak notrumps in natural methods for years.
When playing 10-12, the problem does not really exist, since the the 1♣/♦ openings are 'normal': a 1N rebid shows a good 12-14, not much different from the strong notrumpers.
The problem arises when your 1N opening begins to incude the minimum 1♣/♦ openings.
I agree that the transfer method seems to solve these issues over 1♣ and I recall reading that Fantoni-Nunes were trying to devise a playable method over 1♦. I suspect that they will have problems due to the significant loss of 1-level space.
When playing 11-14, we require 4 card support for raises. This is not always satisfactory, for obvious reasons. However, I play this range only as a concession to a (very good) partner. Personally, I believe that the range is too broad and that the method is inherently inferior (partly because of missing 4=4 major suit fits when responder is too weak to invite over 1N but has a comfortable 1 level response and partly because of the inability to raise a major response to a minor opening with 3 card support)
When playing 10-12, the problem does not really exist, since the the 1♣/♦ openings are 'normal': a 1N rebid shows a good 12-14, not much different from the strong notrumpers.
The problem arises when your 1N opening begins to incude the minimum 1♣/♦ openings.
I agree that the transfer method seems to solve these issues over 1♣ and I recall reading that Fantoni-Nunes were trying to devise a playable method over 1♦. I suspect that they will have problems due to the significant loss of 1-level space.
When playing 11-14, we require 4 card support for raises. This is not always satisfactory, for obvious reasons. However, I play this range only as a concession to a (very good) partner. Personally, I believe that the range is too broad and that the method is inherently inferior (partly because of missing 4=4 major suit fits when responder is too weak to invite over 1N but has a comfortable 1 level response and partly because of the inability to raise a major response to a minor opening with 3 card support)
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#18
- Under bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,797
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Posted 2005-September-11, 15:41
I think that inventing a fairly well known and working treatment is generally much better than inventing some obscure convention (unless you want to get credit for your "invention"). So well done, transfer responses to 1C work quite well in my opinion.
Reversing the 1S and 1H responses after a 1D opening deal with half of the other problem hands. Alternatively, you could decide to open 1C with all balanced hands lacking a 5-card major, which would completely solve this problem and would guarantee an unbalanced 1D opener.
Reversing the 1S and 1H responses after a 1D opening deal with half of the other problem hands. Alternatively, you could decide to open 1C with all balanced hands lacking a 5-card major, which would completely solve this problem and would guarantee an unbalanced 1D opener.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#19
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,285
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2005-September-11, 16:10
Playing weak NT, what do you do with this?
QJx
xxx
AKxx
AQx
1D-1S
?
Or
1D-1H-X-P
?
Weak NTs have plusses, but for me I'd rather bid low and stay low with minimum values and and show extras in one descriptive bid of 1NT - another form of transfers - I transfer the rebid headaches to partner.
Winston
QJx
xxx
AKxx
AQx
1D-1S
?
Or
1D-1H-X-P
?
Weak NTs have plusses, but for me I'd rather bid low and stay low with minimum values and and show extras in one descriptive bid of 1NT - another form of transfers - I transfer the rebid headaches to partner.
Winston
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#20
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,153
- Joined: 2003-February-28
Posted 2005-September-11, 17:54
"Playing weak NT, what do you do with this?
QJx
xxx
AKxx
AQx
1D-1S
?"
1NT. Pd can rebid S if weak or use NMF if he is strong enough to invite over a strong NT opener.
"Or
1D-1H-X-P
?"
2S. You have been given warning that a 4-3 fit may play better than NT, a warning
probably not received by the strong NT bidders
Peter
QJx
xxx
AKxx
AQx
1D-1S
?"
1NT. Pd can rebid S if weak or use NMF if he is strong enough to invite over a strong NT opener.
"Or
1D-1H-X-P
?"
2S. You have been given warning that a 4-3 fit may play better than NT, a warning
probably not received by the strong NT bidders
Peter