[benlessard]

---

1NT is 10-12 Imps
Double is penalty and 2C is clubs and another suits.

[DJNeill]

If X is 14+, I think 2C might work out. I can back in later to show a great non-X hand.

If X is 12+, I think I better double.

I'm sure we can get a followup auction in either case, since that would be interesting too.

[TylerE]

DJNeill, on 2013-September-13, 14:36, said:

If X is 12+, I think I better ...

... find a new defense to mini-NT.

[CSGibson]

2♣. This is about to get competitive, I want to get my suits in.

[Hanoi5]

2♣. Why wouldn't I want to use a bid that shows what I have? And, I want to start showing my suits before someone bids 4♠.

[Vampyr]

TylerE, on 2013-September-13, 15:02, said:

... find a new defense to mini-NT.

Does anyone have a good one?

[TylerE]

HELLO is fine, as it is against strong NT...but X should be a good hand.

[mr1303]

I start with 2C. I intend to do something later when someone bids shovels.

[benlessard]

I had

Txxx
KTxx
Qxx
9x

cashing a top club switching to H lead to down 1, switching to diamond wich is what happened lead to -180 while they were pushed in 4H and made it at the other table so it was -13 imps.

I would have double too but maybe 2C is wiser, you dont plan to pass 2Sx anyway so might as well bid clubs and pull a penalty double to 2nt to suggest only 5C and a bit of both reds.

[jdeegan]

Some years ago the Kamakazi NT was, for a time, fashionable in the USA. I first ran across it playing in a Sectional tournament against a well-known Midwestern pair named Meckstroth and Rodwell. Good enough for them, good enough for me. It was loads of fun to play. Marshall Miles came up with an excellent system to handle its nuttiness.

It could get a little hairy. I once kibitzed a Grand National Team qualifier in Jackson, Mississippi where minus 1280 was a push with two pretty good teams involved. My heartfelt advice as to how to defend against its craziness is to treat it with natural overcalls as if it were a one spade opener - except for the penalty double. You have to put such a cheeky bid in jeopardy.

Playing any system designed as a defense to stronger 1NT openers is, imo, a very bad idea versus the dreaded Kamakazi. Go for the throat. Sometimes you will win. Sometimes you will lose. On this hand, a natural 2 club overcall looks about right.

[the hog]

I definitely don't think it is nutty. I have played this as part of a Big C system. We were well ahead in terms of its success rate. Anyway, to answer the question, I bid 2C.

[Fluffy]

I think best defence against mini NT depends on vulnerability

[kayin801]

If I'm gonna be able to make a t/o X later I would X now. If after they start bidding spades I can't make a t/o X then I guess I'm endplayed into bidding 2♣.

[jdeegan]

For a time, Meckstroth and Rodwell played the Kamakazi against the best in the world. Nothing nutty about that. This showed that the old Culbertson idea of an opening bid being a king better than an average hand was not necessarily the way to go, even though an opener facing an opener usually produced a play for game.

Now that Meckwell and many others have adopted the strong club, you can see that certain of their one of a suit (other than one ♣) openers are less than a king better than an average hand. Others are not. Progress. They are getting some of the benefits of frequently occurring light opening bids without the risks inherent in opening one NT with an average strength balanced hand.

[the hog]

jdeegan, on 2013-September-18, 15:37, said:

For a time, Meckstroth and Rodwell played the Kamakazi against the best in the world. Nothing nutty about that. This showed that the old Culbertson idea of an opening bid being a king better than an average hand was not necessarily the way to go, even though an opener facing an opener usually produced a play for game.

Now that Meckwell and many others have adopted the strong club, you can see that certain of their one of a suit (other than one ♣) openers are less than a king better than an average hand. Others are not. Progress. They are getting some of the benefits of frequently occurring light opening bids without the risks inherent in opening one NT with an average strength balanced hand.

They actually played a 10-13 NT in the context of a Big C system.

[Zelandakh]

jdeegan, on 2013-September-18, 15:37, said:

This showed that the old Culbertson idea of an opening bid being a king better than an average hand was not necessarily the way to go, even though an opener facing an opener usually produced a play for game.

YOu might also note that Culbertson did not promote the use of the Milton Work count, even though he provided conversions for it in later books. In the Culbertson method an ace was twice as good as a king. That meant that AJ+AJ or AQ+A were evaluated as standard opening bids. So it is not true to say that Culbertson rules for opening were always strong. From what I have read, Goren's openings were more conservative.

Incidentally, I agree with the main sentiment of your post, that opening weaker distributional hands is a good idea and weaker balanced hands can be problematic. That said, Rodwell has said that they gave up the Kamikaze NT because of the randomising effect rather than because they found it was a loser. That is, it did not work for them but was quite likely to be good for another pair. That is probably because they have an inherent plus against most opponents and producing results with a higher variance was more likely to hurt their chances of winning than aid them. For a pair in the pack, a randomising effect will usually produce a better chance of winning an event (as well as a better chance of being near the bottom).

[PhilG007]

benlessard, on 2013-September-13, 14:10, said:

---

1NT is 10-12 Imps
Double is penalty and 2C is clubs and another suits.

Pass is the only safe bid awaiting developments. If you bid 2♣ and p bids ♠
you are in another fine mess...(!)

[mycroft]

If I bid 2♣ "clubs and another" and partner bids 2♠, he's saying "I heard you partner, I'm pretty certain your second suit isn't spades, but we still want to play in spades". I'd guess 7=2=2=2 or the like. I'd pass, and not try for the game I'd try for if he bid hearts; but we should be in good shape.

Of course, I'm assuming my partner and I use sane responses, and the same responses, after "clubs and another". Normally it's part of a system.

[jdeegan]

Zelandakh, on 2013-September-19, 02:57, said:

For a pair in the pack, a randomising effect will usually produce a better chance of winning an event (as well as a better chance of being near the bottom).

That was exactly my experience 20 years ago playing the dreaded Kamikazi. My regular partner at the time was not a strong player, and I was coming off a 17 year layoff from bridge. At first, we needed all the 'randomizing' we could get. Later, I shook off some of the rust, and my partner improved his game. We ended up with some pretty decent teammates on occasion, and they were at times quite vocal about the 'randomizing effect'.